Performance Management- The Soft Side
Performance Management- the performance, the performer and the audience/ spectator. When we visualize a performance we see an act in action. The act is different from actor and that is what performance management is all about. In our day to day usage from an absolute management perspective we often confuse between the act and the actor and more often that not, we work towards refining the act and some where in the process loose the actor.
Recently while explaining what performance management is all about to a group of organization heads, I was supposed to provide them with possible solutions to the performance problems in the organization. I tried my level best but I dont think I could cater to all of their individual needs. Initially I was looking at processes to be established, but what was more intrinsic is the view towards performance management.
Performance management is mostly looked upon as activity management. So the focus is on the activity that a person needs to undertake. However from what I understand that person is bigger than one activity. The person's capacity to undertake one activity is not subject to the activity alone but more in terms of his potential to take on more roles to deliver set of activities both from present and future perspective.
The second problem I found inherent is that all performance issues are generalized. So making a statement that people leave because they get higher salaries is much more easier than to understand the problem with one's organizational culture and address that.
Though performance structures and processes across the world are trying to add the customized personal element to the performance management process, it is still a long way. So the onus is on all the managers to view performance management as person centric than activity focused. And to establish a one on one rapport to understand the problems, issues, concerns that a person faces to deliver the performance.
I also agree to the fact that it is much easier to look at people from the perspective of well tools to achieve objectives but its far more fruitful to look at them as the individual value that they can add to the objectives.
Recently while explaining what performance management is all about to a group of organization heads, I was supposed to provide them with possible solutions to the performance problems in the organization. I tried my level best but I dont think I could cater to all of their individual needs. Initially I was looking at processes to be established, but what was more intrinsic is the view towards performance management.
Performance management is mostly looked upon as activity management. So the focus is on the activity that a person needs to undertake. However from what I understand that person is bigger than one activity. The person's capacity to undertake one activity is not subject to the activity alone but more in terms of his potential to take on more roles to deliver set of activities both from present and future perspective.
The second problem I found inherent is that all performance issues are generalized. So making a statement that people leave because they get higher salaries is much more easier than to understand the problem with one's organizational culture and address that.
Though performance structures and processes across the world are trying to add the customized personal element to the performance management process, it is still a long way. So the onus is on all the managers to view performance management as person centric than activity focused. And to establish a one on one rapport to understand the problems, issues, concerns that a person faces to deliver the performance.
I also agree to the fact that it is much easier to look at people from the perspective of well tools to achieve objectives but its far more fruitful to look at them as the individual value that they can add to the objectives.
Briefly, the two aspects highlighted are 1) Capacity of the performer and, (2) Tendency to generalise
ReplyDeleteI feel that capabilities can be augmented when performance management is an ongoing exercise rather than an annual ritual since it spots the blips (performance gaps) along the way. Capability enhancement can lead to ability development.
The aspect of generalisation, I feel, is individualistic in nature and dependent on the appraiser.
Based on my experience, I feel that MBO is an effective tool in aiding performance management as it weeds out perceptions, generalisations and attempts to bring the appraiser and appraise on a common platform after accounting for the appraise's abilities.
The way I see things, any act is dependent on the actor, script and the settings. From an organisation perspective, the ability of an employee to perform is dependent on the abilities of the performer (which can be augmented), the direction shown for achievement of goal (the task of the manager) and the organisational environment (multitude of factors).
Based on my experience, I feel that executing performance management based on individual centricity and not on activity basis is like creating mutually exclusive zones whereas the organisation does not view them as mutually exclusive. Mostly, the individual is expected to drive the activity. Here I feel that MBO is a comparatively better bet integrating the personal characteristics of the employee with the organisational objectives.
Feedback solicited / welcome from the group.
Merry Christmas to all :-)
Sumit Singh
THanks Sumit, I completely agree with the MBO approach and personally find it very useful. However what I have tried to do in this write up is identify the mind set. I agree on the fact that the act is an extension of the actor but should not form the only basis of any appraisal.
DeleteA Very Happy new Year!!