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
developing an effective competence model but space does not permit me to review it here.
Establishing reliability of behavioural assessment requires the development of a common understanding of what the measures mean and training in how to accurately assess them. One possible route forward is the establishment of a development centre with trained staff carrying out this role. Another is the introduction of 360-degree appraisal where the large number of raters offers a greater chance of consistency.
With regard to output measures, Gammie (1995: 54) highlights the increasingly collaborative nature of work and the difficulties this raises in identifying appropriate individual performance measures. Walters (1995a: 16) notes that “performance comprises a portfolio of disparate achievements” and advocates (p27) applying a basket of measures, to recognise this. Armstrong and Baron (1998: 277) citing Kaplan and Norton (1996) suggest a “personal balanced scorecard” as a possible solution.
With regard to the reliability of output measures, Stiles et al (1997:65) found that employees were disenchanted in part by “variability and inconsistency in appraisal”. Armstrong and Baron (1998: 32) identify significant weaknesses in the operation of performance grading systems, which do not use objective measures. They (p 262) offer a set of criteria for performance measures. These can be summarised as, they must be; related to organisational strategy; relevant to the individuals; precisely stated; focused on measurable outputs and based on sound and available data.
Establishing a comparative model
My purpose in this review is to establish a model against which I can compare Otis’ practice. Any model of best practice must be able to provide a convincing response to the issues identified above, addressing the tensions between monitoring and developing performance and providing meaningful measures of both inputs and outputs.
There are a large number of models of performance management to choose from. Harrison (1997:224) citing Lockett (1992) sets out seven stages in the performance management cycle from which she identifies four key elements where HRD is particularly relevant. These elements are; setting targets and establishing desired performance levels; appraising and improving performance; ensuring continuous learning and development; giving recognition and rewards. Walters (1995b: 137) sets out an “idealised model” of performance management where there is a clear linkage between organisational goals; individual and overall measurement and tools to support and evaluate performance.
At a more detailed level, Lawson (1995:67) adds the need for; a focus on both targets and behaviours; effective administration processes including a system of quality control; and skilled and experienced assessors.
Armstrong and Baron (1998: 388) prefer the notion of a system which best fits each organisation’s needs rather than that of a universal standard of best practice. However, their definition, (p8) provides a good starting point with its themes of strategic linkage, integration of different elements, concern for performance improvement and concern for development. Most of the core elements in their definition were reflected in an IDS study (1997) that reviewed practice in 4 case study organisations. It found that the performance management systems in the [next page]