SUMMARIZING THE ISSUE
The change in performance management approach could be clearly seen in different companies; one such company Zappos has been highlighted by Pyrillis (2011) in his article “Is Your Performance Review Underperforming?”. At Zappos, the managers have been directed to provide frequent feedback to the employees regarding their work. Such an approach would help the employee to understand regarding the quality of work required (Pyrillis, 2011).
Most of the companies often rely on technology to automate and streamline HR function such as performance management along with other core HR functions. This automation allows the managers to enhance their efficiency at work and assist employees to enhance their performance. Through the use of such technology, the organization can track and link performance which eventually helps the managers to provide feedback to employees that is positively taken by younger generations as well as older ones (Pyrillis, 2011).
The whole performance management system depends on the quality of manager as the manager is the one that could lead the system to success and failure. This is the major reason why organization tends to enhance the quality of managers before implementing technology based solutions. In order to frequently provide quality feedback to employees, managers are being constantly trained to enhance their skills. Such training allows the managers to improve the quality of feedback which eventually leads to the improvement in employee’s performance.
OTHER THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
According to Dessler (2005) and William (2002), the concept of performance management has evolved over two decades as a strategic process that links the individual performance with the organizational goals and objectives (Redman, & Wilkinson, 2009). The fundamental concept for performance management lies in theories such as motivation theory, goal-setting theory and expectancy theory. There have been different researchers conducted by different authors in order to analyze how effective and efficient these performance management tools and techniques are. Moreover, in order to find the best practices, methods and techniques to measure the performances of employees and team, there have been different modifications and changes in the performance management.
The main objective of using performance management tools is to analyze how employees have performed and to improve their performances (Henry, 1995). Providing employees with challenging goals and objectives can lead to increase in motivation and eventually this will increase the performance of employees. Moreover as employees are given feedback on how they have performed it helps them in identifying the gaps to further improve their performances (Bratton, & Gold, 2009). Pyrillis (2011) has also emphasized on improving the performances and for this regard, he has focused on providing feedback and frequent feedback on the performances.
Pyrillis (2011) has said that employees are looking for fair treatment and they want performance management techniques and processes to be fair and transparent. Bratton, Sawchuk, Forshaw, Callinan, & Corbett, (2010) have also said that organizations should implement fair performance management tools and the performance management system should be transparent as it would motivate the employees to perform better. Moreover, Bratton, Sawchuk, Forshaw, Callinan, & Corbett, (2010) have said that organizations that employ transparent performance management system encourage employees to work harder as employees are aware of the fact that their hard work will be rewarded.
Pyrillis (2011) believe that a number of organizations are changing their traditional performance management techniques and are adapting approaches to measure the performances of employees. Aguinis (2009) have also commented the same however he has said that the organization needs to analyze their organizational culture, values and goals and then create performance management technique.
There are different techniques that different scholars and authors have presented in order to improve the performances as well as give more regular feedbacks. 360 degree feedback is among one of these approaches that are frequently used by organizations and used to give feedback to employees. 360 degree feedbacks allow the employees to understand the quality of work required by the organization and how an employee can enhance the quality of work. Such approaches help employees to further enhance their work performance as it provides solutions in order to overcome the problems (Aguinis, 2009). 360 degree feedbacks are acquired from senior managers, direct subordinates and colleagues and all other individuals or parties that are directly or indirectly interacting with the employee. Such feedbacks are continuously used by organizations as it provides an employee with an opportunity to enhance performance by understanding the gap between the employee’s actual performance and required performance. Thus, as the gap has been identified from such performance management techniques, an individual would be able to work on to close the gap between the actual and expected performance (Jackson, Schuler, & Werner, 2009). Aguinis (2009) believe that 360 degree feedback allows employees to have continuous and more frequent feedbacks not only from their direct supervisors but from other people with whom he or she interacts as well.
Owing to increasing competition in the industry and changing overall scenario human resource has become strategic asset for the organization (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2005). Along with this organizations are working on enhancing the performance of the employees in order to convert the human resource as one of the competitive advantages in order to create an edge over other competitors (Stephens, 2010). The performance measurement and management systems have evolved not only because of the technological shifts and demands from the employees but also because of increasing focus on improving the internal competencies and skills by improving the performance of the employees (Pilbeam & Corbridge, 2010).
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
The supporting evidences provided in the article are based on practical examples of organizations such as Zappos, Halogen, Rypple and Success factors. The author, Pyrillis (2011) has used different examples not only to present the practicality of the concepts discussed but also to make the statements stronger. Along with these examples, Pyrillis (2011) has quoted several key employees working in organizations and has provided evidence from different surveys as well. The survey that was presented by Pyrillis (2011) was conducted in the year 2011 by Globoforce Workforce Mood tracker in order to evaluate the satisfaction or dissatisfaction level of employees regarding the traditional performance management system.
Pyrillis (2011) has also presented an example of outstanding employee that was working in an organization but she has to resign from her post due to the attitude of manager regarding performance management. Overall, Pyrillis (2011) has provided several evidences and references about the concepts presented and sources used. Moreover, Pyrillis (2011) has tried to relate the concepts with practical examples.
Although Pyrillis (2011) has used different case studies and have analyzed the concepts using different cases of organizations, but it would have been better if the author had used more references and compared the cases with what different researchers and authors have said. This would have improved the overall reliability of the information presented. The author has shown the whole scenario in the more positive manner and reflected that employees and managers both are aiming for effective and efficient interactive performance management systems. However this is not the case always, as employees have their own perspective towards the performance management systems and generally try to avoid any criticism on their performance; on the other hand the employers and management have their own goals and objectives which they want to accomplish with the help of more efficient performance management systems. It is important to bring the both parties in harmony to make sure that the performance measurement system satisfies both, employers and employees (Pilbeam & Corbridge, 2006; Vosburgh, 2007; Ulrich and Brockbank, 2005).
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
Pyrillis (2011) has made the key assumption that employees and managers are not satisfied with the traditional performance management system and are looking for better and more effective performance measurement and management methods. The author has given the perception that the employees are looking for more interactive and result oriented performance management ways, but this may not be the case; most of the employees are not even interested in the performance management process and are finding ways to skip any such processes and systems. On the other hand the management and organization is interested to improve the overall performance and in this process often ignores the benefits of employees (Pilbeam & Corbridge, 2006; Vosburgh, 2007; Ulrich and Brockbank, 2005).
Another assumption made by Pyrillis (2011) was regarding the skills and qualities of managers in order to effectively manage the performance of employee and the advancement in technology was the major reason for the shift from traditional performance management approaches to modern approaches. However, there are several other factors that have influenced the changes in performance management rather than only advancement in technology (Price, 2007). For instance the performance management approaches have changed because of increasing importance being given to the human resource asset of the organizations and treating them as a source of competitive advantage in highly competitive market (Stephens, 2010: Ulrich & Smallwood, 2005). This ignorance of other factors on the part of the author has resulted in giving the impression that performance management procedures are being changed only because of the changing technology.
CONCLUSION
Organizations are shifting from traditional performance management approaches to modern approaches. The shift in performance management approach is mainly due to the lack of feedback provided to the employee. Traditional approach focuses on providing the employee regarding the mistakes that were made that reduced the employee’s performance rather than the ways to overcome the problems and how to enhance performance.
With the evidences provided in the article by Pyrillis (2011), modern approaches to performance management seems to be more suitable for organizations due to the constantly changing environment. Although, Pyrillis (2011) have highlighted technology and changing attitudes of the employees as main reasons for the changes in performance management techniques, however Price (2007) has said that performance management techniques have changed with the passage of time as different flaws have been identified and the overall role of human resource is being changed in the organizations and is moving towards treating human resource as a strategic partner (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2005; Ulrich and Brockbank, 2005; Vosburgh, 2007).
Overall the idea is to provide employees with constant feedback to reduce the chances of reduction in their performance and thus, it will eventually help the employees to attain the desired goals and objectives of the organization.
References
Aguinis, H. (2009). Performance Management. Dorling Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd.
Bratton, J. & Gold, J. (2009). Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice, 4th edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Henry, C. (1995). Human Resource Management: A Strategic Approach to Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Jackson, S., Schuler, R., & Werner, S. (2009). Managing Human Resources. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Pilbeam, S. & Corbridge, M. (2006). People Resourcing, Harlow: FT/Prentice Hall
Pilbeam, S. & Corbridge, M. (2010). People Resourcing and Talent Planning: HRM in Practice, Fourth Edition, Pearson Education Limited: FT Prentice Hall.
Price, A. (2007). Human Resource Management in a Business Context, 3rd edition. London: Cengage.
Pyrillis, R. (2011). ‘Is Your Performance Review Underperforming?’. Workforce Management,
Redman, T. & Wilkinson, A. (2009). Contemporary Human Resource Management: Texts and Cases. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Stephens, N. (2010) Talent Management: ensuring your people give you the competitive edge, Strategic Direction, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 3-5.
Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2005). ‘HR’s New ROI: Return on Intangibles’, Human Resource Management, 44(2), 137-142.
Ulrich, D., and Brockbank, W. (2005). The HR value proposition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Vosburgh, R., (2007). ‘The Evolution of HR: Developing HR as an Internal Consulting Organization’, Human Resource Planning, 30(3), 11-23.
