Performance has become a business buzz word. That's not a bad thing, especially if it works to remind employees that organizations exist for a purpose. They're established to do things and to accomplish results and that applies to public service and not-for-profit organizations as much as to profit-motivated commercial firms (Barry 1997). Organizations use many different approaches in the quest for a high-performance workplace (Barry 1997). Manufacturers turn to lean production and just-in-time methods; small businesses use flexible specialization to harness networks; production and service organizations put the focus on total quality or continuous improvement; team-working is more and more common; corporations and processes are re-engineered and so on. What everyone realizes, sooner or later, is that the organization’s performance is only partly dependent on its technology, processes and systems. What is more important is the performance of its employees and so the management of employees' performance is a principal contributor to organizational success. But what does performance actually mean? It can be defined very simply as focused behavior or purposeful work. In other words, jobs exist to achieve specific and defined results, and people are employed to do those jobs because the organization wants to achieve those results. Thus, performance is what organizations need from employees if they are to achieve their business objectives (Barry 1997). However, job performance is different from mere work activity. People can spend their days writing reports, going to meetings, operating machines, driving buses or talking with colleagues but those are work activities. They must be put in a context of what the organization wants its employees to do, and how well, before we can assess whether work activities are contributing to effective performance, for either the individual or the organization. The manager's role is to help employees focus their behavior in other words, to convert their activity into performance (Barry 1997). That conversion is not very difficult, so long as managers remember that employees are essentially looking for answers to four simple questions. â€What do you want me to do? â€How well do you want me to do it? â€How well am I doing? What do you think of my performance? â€How will I be rewarded for my contribution? To answer these questions, the organization must be able to: â€Describe what work it wants people to accomplish â€Establish performance levels and standards for the work â€Set performance goals or targets for individual employees or work teams â€Furnish information and feedback to employees on their performance â€Offer employees appropriate rewards and remuneration. An organization that can consistently answer these questions for its employees will have, at least, the foundations of an effective performance management system. It will probably also has a team of effective performance managers. Unfortunately, the definition of management as 'achieving results through people' became unpopular for a while because it was seen as too simplistic for complex and sophisticated organizations (Barry 1997). The focus for managers seemed to shift to the technical content of the work their staff were doing. Today, in a world of rapid change, new technologies, flatter hierarchies and networked organizations, 'achieving results through people' is once again the manager's main role and the manager's key skill as well (Barry 1997). Using performance planning and review techniques within an organization-wide system of performance management makes it easier for managers to play that role effectively.
Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5
Not yet Rated
