Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
A critical evaluation of performance management and development processes within Otis PLC
most appraisal plans.”
Harrison (1997:224) also notes the tension between measuring and controlling outputs and providing the development of capabilities (inputs) to achieve them. She cites (p232) Crabb’s (1990) case study of tensions within the performance management system of British Rail. Crabb found that, although his overall impression of the system was favourable, “many managers were going through the motions and not following through on the results of the reviews”. He suggested that there was probably too great a tension between those objectives of the appraisal scheme that were to do with controlling performance against targets and those to do with developing people.” Walton (1999:198) and Bevan and Thompson (1991:39), make similar points.
Harrison (1997:234) cites Harris’ (1995) study into Haringey Council’s housing department’s and Fowler’s (1995) study of performance management systems in the National Health Service as examples of performance management systems that integrate the drives for control and development. It is worth noting that both examples are from not for profit organisations where the pressure for achievement of measurable results, while still significant, may be less strongly felt.
Stiles et al (1997:57) found that organisations were adopting harder edged performance management processes and that employees had deep concerns about the accuracy and fairness of performance management processes. This is very much the situation that Otis finds itself in.
The difficulty of establishing meaningful measurement criteria.
As noted above there are two, potentially conflicting aspects of performance management, development of future performance and control of existing performance and this division is reflected in criteria for measurement. Firstly, in terms of development, there is the issue of how the individual does their job, i.e. an evaluation of their input to it. This can be contrasted with the results they achieve, their output, which is related to control of performance. In the case of both sets of measures there are issues of validity and reliability to be considered.
Armstrong and Baron (1998: 272) and Gammie (1995: 55) both review the question of measuring inputs. Gammie identifies the tendency for measurements to focus on outputs, and suggests (p57) that individual performance should be measured at two levels, firstly what is achieved within their job and secondly against defined standards of teamworking or collaboration. Armstrong and Baron (1998: 272) suggest that a competency model can provide the framework for these measures. They found (p9) that 31% of organisations had introduced some form of competence assessment into their performance management process.
Issues of validity in this area are concerned with identifying relevant and appropriate standards against which to assess. Harrison (1997:233) comments that the increasing popularity of competency based frameworks must be treated with caution in this context with the risk that too great a focus can be placed on the defined competencies at the expense of more generalised abilities to survive in an unpredictable future. She cites Healy (1995) and Sparrow (1996) as having expressed similar concerns. There is an extensive body of literature on the subject of developing [next page]