1. Be able to identify & agree performance objectives
2. Be able to assess performance & provide positive feedback
3. Be able to understand performance support for improvement
4. Be able to understand & apply the organisation’s disciplinary & grievance procedures.
In this assignment I will explore the background to the current performance management systems used within my organisation, how they have developed, how they are employed, & their effectiveness.
I will use organisational pro-formas, objectives & communications, & link them to the current processes & systems, in order to discuss how they support organisational aims/ objectives & hopefully improve individual performance, including the use of the Disciplinary, Capability & Grievance Policies & Procedures, to address any performance issues.
I intend to discuss & assess the overall effectiveness of these systems, by referencing known authors in the management theory field, & by using my own & staff’s personal experiences & opinions, to gauge whether the stated objectives are being met/ worked towards.
To fully understand the build-up to the introduction of the current PDP, (Performance Development Process), in the service I work in
Each worker has a PDP, (Appendix 3: PDP Pro-Forma), containing no more than 6 objectives, but once the Corporate/ Regional/ Service objectives have been translated onto the workers’ PDP, it leaves very little room for the worker to discuss options & reach agreement with their manager over their own objectives. Rather than “goals & the criteria by which performance will be judged..(being).. agreed not imposed”, (Checklist 180/ 3), the process instead becomes a very ‘top-down’ management exercise. (Appendix 4: Services Division Objective setting Feedback Form).
Add to this the tight timeframe for inception & the vagueness of the indicative ratings system, coupled with communications during the consultation period that, ‘given the current economic climate, should staff meet all their objectives the funds may still not be available to honour any expected pay rises’, the reality is that a worker who gains the highest rating possible could get to the end of the PDP cycle, in April/ May 2014, only to find that their only ‘reward’ is knowledge of a job well done/ recognition of colleagues & a verbal ‘Thank-You’ from their manager/ employer.
This links directly to Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, (& Porter & Lawler’s extended version)(1968), which expresses the concept that performance/ motivation/ satisfaction is directly linked to “expected high rewards from high performance”. E Vroom summed up his model in the equation M=? (ExV) That is: Motivation = ? (Expectancy x Valance)
Therefore, whilst there will be a percentage of workers who will find the recognition & thanks enough, others will find this highly de-motivating. “Honest management of expectations is fundamentally important for the credibility of the process”,
All of these changes/ uncertainty, in direction/ emphasis/ personnel & pay grades, have led to a feeling, often voiced by workers, that they feel disengaged. Long-serving workers also feel that, given the fact some of these changes are a return to previously discarded ideals & processes, there is no need to engage, as things will return to how they were in a year or two.
An important point to note in this is that these decisions/ actions do not happen in a vacuum, but we must also take account of both environment & level of autonomy, & a persons’ attitude/ personality, etc. A point recognised by Drucker,(1955).
A point expanded on in the X/ Y Theory, & developed in the:
Human Relations Approach, which suggests that organisation is a social system of interpersonal & inter group relationships. By integrating Psychology & Sociology with management, the manager/ employer can get the work done from the workers by satisfying