Experience demonstrates that in many organizations management does not handle the performance of the workforce in an efficient way. In many instances the attitude seems to be that provided that the work tasks are managed, rather than the individuals who do the work tasks, everything will turn out optimistically.
Performance management should not be compared to a yearly performance appraisal. Performance management is a procedure, while appraisal is a snap. A formal appraisal can fit into the process, but it takes on far less implication when effective and regular performance management takes place.
Five key mechanisms by Jeffrey W. Lupient make up the process of effective performance management. They are:
- Clear performance standards subsist and they should be measurable, written and current.
- There is fragmentary communication between the worker and the manager regarding the performance standards, and this should commence on the first day the worker becomes the manager’s accountability.
- The manager gives recurrent feedback to the worker regarding presentation.
- The manager prepares the worker to protract good performance and to develop poor performance.
- The managers administer the consequences of both poor and good performance.
Most organizations that have been in continuation for some time have some or all of the subsequent tools available to help out in the managing the work:
- Job descriptions (now and then they may not be obtainable for all jobs or they may be obsolete)
- Standards, such as quality, quantity, cost, time, etc.
- A discipline policy tied to work expectations and work place behaviour.
- Policies and procedures which direct the organization of the work place
- A formal appraisal system
Supervisors and managers like Jeffrey W. Lupient use performance management tools in altering degrees. Some have the approach that as long as operations are taking place acceptably, nothing needs to be said. It is only when productivity does not meet expectations that the supervisor or manager needs to take action. The supervisor or manager may feel that engaging enthusiastically in performance management is worthless since their evaluations or views will be overturned by someone in the human resources subdivision, or the existence of a union hinders effective performance management. Others do identify the significance of performance management and set up time in their busy schedules to actively connect in managing performance constantly in the work unit. When they do that, performance is much more positive and consistent.
Absent a performance management system which consists of the key components mentioned earlier, and the dynamic use of the system by the manager or supervisor, the associate / worker in the organization may begin to consider he or she is paid for time and not for performance. Whatever he or she works does not seem to have outputs.
According to Jeffrey W. Lupient, good performers should be admired and efforts given to uphold that good performance. Poor performers need help and coaching. Yet after awhile, if the performance is not acceptable after assistance is given, the decision whether that worker is suitable for that job must be made by the manager or administrator.