Experience shows that in many organizations management does not manage the effectiveness of the workforce in an effective way. In many cases the approach seems to be that as long as the work tasks are managed, as opposed to the people who do the work tasks, everything will turn out confidently.
Performance management should not be equated with a yearly performance appraisal. Performance management is a process, while appraisal is a bio. A formalappraisal can fit into the process, but it takes on a lot less significance when regular and effective performance management comes about.
Five key components make up the process of effective performance managing. They are:
1 . Clear performance standards exist and they really should be written, measurable and current.
2 . There is on-going transmission between the manager and the worker regarding the performance standards, this also should begin on the first day the worker becomes often the manager’s responsibility.
3. The manager gives frequent responses to the worker regarding performance.
4. The manager motor coach buses the worker to sustain good performance and to strengthen poor performance.
5. The managers manage the consequences of both good and poor performance.
Most organizations which are in existence for some time have some or all of the following tools on the market to assist in the managing the work:
a) Job descriptions (sometimes they may not be available for all jobs or they may be outdated)
b) Standards, such as quantity, quality, cost, time, and so on
c) Policies and procedures which guide the organization of the work place
d) A discipline policy tied to work place actions and work expectations
e) A formal appraisal system
Professionals and supervisors use performance management tools in changing degrees. Some have the attitude that as long as operations usually are proceeding satisfactorily, nothing needs to be said. It is only when production does not meet expectations that the manager or supervisor should take action.
Some of the reasons given by managers and supervisors for not seeing performance management as a major responsibility, or not executing it on a consistent basis are:
-Good operation is expected and therefore does not need to be discussed
-Some from the performance management components are missing (e. g. apparent performance expectations do not exist or are not current)
-Fear of confrontation when performance is poor
-Fear associated with losing control when good performance is praised
-All that is important is “getting the work done”
The administrator or supervisor may feel that engaging actively in general performance management is meaningless since their views or recommendations will be overturned by someone in the human resources department, possibly the presence of a union inhibits effective performance management. (Most union contracts have a clause: “Management has the right to take care of. “) Others do recognize the importance of performance management in addition to carve out time in their busy schedules to actively embark on managing performance consistently in the work unit. When they make it happen, performance is much more consistent and positive.