miércoles, 14 de octubre de 2009

HRSG Performance Management System

http://www1.hrsg.ca/?q=wiki/performance

Performance
Performance
Submitted by trevor on 3 May 2009
Introduction to Performance Management
What is Performance Management?

Performance management is a cycle of managing employee performance for success where goals are created, competencies are incorporated and constructive feedback is provided for continuous improvement.

The Performance Management System is designed to assist management and employees alike in communicating performance goals, sharing performance information on a regular basis, fostering learning and development, and exploring career opportunities.

Objectives of a Performance Management System (PMS)

To create a high-performance organization
To establish a clear link between organizational and individual objectives
To encourage ongoing communication through coaching and meaningful feedback to employees
To encourage discussion and development of competencies
To recognize and manage performance
To validate selection techniques
Potential Uses for the Results of a PMS

Determine training and development for a current or future job
Provide input into staffing and promotion decisions
Recognize exemplary performance and accomplishments
Develop action plans to remedy deficient performance


Review of Research and Best Practices on Performance Appraisal
Recent Research Findings

There is a growing interest among researchers in examining the social-psychological context of performance management systems:

1. The importance of employees' reactions to the appraisal rather than accuracy as a criterion to evaluate performance appraisal systems

There are reasons to believe that employee reactions are complementary indicators of the overall viability of a PMS together with rater error measures. No matter how sophisticated the PMS, if employees and managers do not buy into it, its effectiveness will be limited.



2. How the relationship between the supervisor and subordinate affects performance appraisal

Research is confirming the common knowledge that employees who have a good relationship with their supervisor are likely to obtain high ratings regardless of objective performance indicators. What research is not saying is how subjective performance indicators, some of which are important to the success of the organization, are affected by the supervisor-subordinate relationship.



3. The role of organizational politics in the appraisal process

Organizational politics, the deliberate attempt to enhance or protect self-interests when conflicting courses of action are possible, help shape the context in which the PMS operates. Managers are likely to "send messages" to their subordinates, peers and supervisors. Employees are likely to engage in impression management strategies. Regardless, research shows that conscientious individuals get better ratings regardless of the level of perceived politics in their organization.



4. The importance of trust in the appraisal process

Trust in the PMS is the extent to which people managers believe that fair and accurate appraisals are made in their organization. If a people manager inflates his subordinates' ratings, the other managers are more likely to do the same. Also, a PMS that is well received by employees appears to affect trust of top management.



5. The use of multiple feedback sources rather than just the supervisor's feedback in the appraisal process

This type of PMS has become increasingly popular as the traditional top-down system became inconsistent with the more participative management style of the late 20th century. In addition, the consistent importance of work teams, the shift to a knowledge economy and the emergence of flexible work arrangements will favor multi-rater feedback as job performance and its products become increasingly difficult to evaluate for the supervisor alone.



6. The importance of employee participation and knowledge of the system

Research shows that the more the employees participate in the PMS (e.g. performing a self-assessment, voicing their concerns during the appraisal session), the better the satisfaction with the system and the higher the motivation to improve. Research also suggests that the more an employee knows about the PMS, and the clearer the system, the more likely the employee's self-assessment will mirror the supervisor's.



Implications

Whether the employees know and accept the PMS, and whether the supervisor can deliver constructive and socially acceptable feedback, can be as important in the success of the PMS as its accuracy. It is also often desirable to collect feedback from other stakeholders beyond the supervisor (including the employee him/herself) in evaluating an employee's performance.

To the extent possible, the system should strive to evaluate performance based on known and mutually agreed to standards identified in advance. The evaluations should be behaviour-based and eliminate subjective perceptions.

Finally, one of the most important motivators for performance is constructive feedback given on a continuous basis.



Discussion on a Well-defined Performance Management System
Advantages

Accountability / training
Applies across organization
Defensible
Describes WHAT and HOW
Enables 2 way feedback
Enables and rewards good behaviours
Establishes regular reviews
Facilitates communication
Fair and unbiased
Identifies gaps for development
Lets employees know how they are contributing
Links performance goals and business objectives
Links performance to strategies and objectives
Makes managers more comfortable in uncomfortable situations
Process is established
Replicable for many people in same role
Sets out clear expectations for employees and supervisors
Structured/constructive
Support system
Valid
Tools

Coaching managers on difficult conversations
Coaching managers to handle confrontational situations
Have employee involved in setting objectives
i-SkillSuite
Sample audit to confirm process
Success stories
Templates
Top down approach - cascading goals
Barriers

Lack of buy in
Lack of training
Lack of understanding by employees and managers
No clear line between competencies and objectives
Pay for Performance