Discussion
Discuss about the Strategic Human Resource Management for Brand Reputation.
An organization can attain effective brand reputation, competitive advantage and greater customer base if the performance of the company is good. Mone and London (2018) stated that performance of an organization can be measured through the competency of the employees working collaboratively for accomplishing the organizational objectives. Awadh and Alyahya (2013) furthermore depicted that thus an organization have to measure the performance of the employees whether or not they are able to fulfill the role roles given to them and the resource available are suitable for them.
Deloitte have reinvented the system of the performance management that can recognize varying performance anytime and illustrate strategies that boost the performance in the future. The other organization that is taken into consideration is Coles. This report will analyze the Deloitte’s redesigned performance management system, compare the developed system with performance management system of Coles and then identify some gaps that are not present in later organization. Lastly, based on the identified gap, recommendation to the Coles will be demonstrated for adopting the best approach of the performance management to manage their employees.
According to the survey conducted by Deloitte, it has been found that 58% of the respondents agree that the performance management system that is followed in their organization, does not address employee engagement and their effective performance (Harvard Business Review 2018). Thus, the main reason for reinventing the performance management system is to focus on fueling performance based on the future requirement and not on the assessment of the past. Deloitte adopts the strategy of separating the compensation decisions from the daily performance management (Harvard Business Review 2018). The prime reason for considering this strategy is to develop a better understanding of the performance based on the quarterly result or per project outcome. The result of the Deloitte’s survey also shows that an organization on an average spend close to 2 million hours a year for assessing the performance of the employees (Harvard Business Review 2018). However, the major mistake that the manager of the organization consider is that they talk about the approaches employee can take to obtain the company’s goals and not on the discussion about their ability to attain the goals. Thus, it can be said that managing authorities of the organization need to assess the competency of the working personnel and evaluate whether or not they need any resources and assistance to enhance their ability to obtain the organizational goals.
Analysis Deloitte’s redesigned performance management system
Furthermore, another finding of the Deloitte’s reinventing performance management highlights the fact that on evaluating individual’s skills always generates inconsistent data (Harvard Business Review 2018). The prime reason behind the same is that on measuring performance of the employee, the unique rating tendencies of the rater has been rated rather than the performance of the ratee (Harvard Business Review 2018). Thus, the strategy that the can be implemented by the organization is to evaluate their existing system. Deloitte found that most of the workers agree that workers prefer to in the company as they get the opportunity to utilize their strength. Thus, in the performance management session, the leader should be asked what they do to enhance the performance of the employee so that they can obtain the organizational goals more effectively rather than what the leader think about that particular individual. Performance intelligence should also be used in the organization. The main reason to utilize this technology is that all the data can be evaluated to gain accurate outcome (Harvard Business Review 2018). This intelligent tool help the organization to plot the graph based on which the total number of high and low performing employee can be segregated. The major benefit through the implementation of the performance intelligence is that the project manager does not have to keep all the details in their mind to take a decision but the decision can be made based on the report formulated through the software.
The face to face employee interview for the performance appraisal should also be incorporated with the interview to the leader (Daoanis 2012). The leader should be questioned regarding on the following important questions ‘whether or not they want the individual for a compensation increase’, ‘whether or not they want the individual in their team’, ‘whether or not the employee is at risk of lower performance’ and ‘whether or not the individual is eligible for instant promotion’ (Harvard Business Review 2018). The criteria are that this evaluation should be based on a particular project rather than for a selected time span. The management people should also assess the individual people more closely to find whether or not the concerned individual is capable to handle difficult project and contribution from the selected individual apart from the other formal job responsibilities. Thus, it is effective to consider the immediate leader rather than higher managing authority, who focuses only on the numbers for measuring the contributions (Elnaga and Imran 2013). Deloitte also emphasized on considering those people, who are immediate leaders and known the employee personally for the evaluation of the individual in the organization (Harvard Business Review 2018).
Deloitte’s reinvented performance management approach Vs Coles performance management system
The leaders also have to do regular check-ins with their team members so that they can revive heir morale for accomplishing their job responsibilities. The report also consist that this check-ins should be done once in a week otherwise, the team member’s priorities can become vague and they may be distracted. The team leader can ask these individual regarding the future goals and suggest them if they lack any potential to adopt those goals (Harvard Business Review 2018). Moreover, according to the Deloitte’s reinvented performance management aspect, the evaluation of the performance should be conducted.
The three main purpose of the performance management are strategic purpose, administrative purpose and developmental purpose. Lee and Steers (2017) stated that strategic purpose illustrates the situation to achieve goals and feedback system that allow the employee to get support for their required behavior for the job role. In addition to that, Selvarajan and Cloninger (2012) depicted that administrative purpose highlight the support provided to the administrators for their decision on designing the salary structure, promotions, layoffs, retention and termination. The term developmental purpose highlights the areas in which the employee can make improvement in order to prove their ability and attain a good rating by their leaders.
Coles adopted the approach of comparative strategy to measure the performance of the employees. Gupta and Kumar (2012) stated that in comparative approach, the performance of one employee is compared to other employees. Boxall (2012) stated that in this approach not the individual competency is measured as a result some of the employee suffers from more dissatisfaction and inferiority. The major problem arise in Coles due to this reason is that working personnel get less motivation to work in the origination and they make regular mistakes in their work. Thus, when compared to the Deloitte’s reinvented performance management system, the gap of analyzing individual potential can be observed.
In addition to that, in Coles, employee performances are considered on how many clients they have handled throughout the month (Cravens et al. 2015). Since, Coles perform a retail operation and they have to handles different client through the day, their potential can be measured based on the number of the users they have addressed. A scorecard system has been followed in Coles according to that the performance of the employee is rated. The adopted approach leads to Idiosyncratic Rater Effect based on Salleh Nair and Harun (2012) stated that the rater often rates the rate according to their perception and not on the individual’s potentiality. However, Srivastava (2013) stated that the different human have different perception and some of the consumer take larger time to understand what their executives trying to make them understand. In this case, the newly introduced strategy suggested by the Deloitte can be implemented that is to evaluate the performance based on the type of the work a person handles. Therefore, the gap of human evaluation is also found in Coles.
Coles has performance evaluation training for their employees. The main objectives of the training is to make the employee learn about identifying and adopting necessary style of leadership based on any situation that can maximize their competency, motivating the people so that they can achieve the organizational goals, identify the best suitable approach so that the performance of the individual can be enhanced for completing the desired goals, discussing key skills in giving and receiving performance feedback and a range of strategies for effective performance (Colestraining.com 2018). On comparison with the Deloitte’s reinvented performance evaluation management, it is found the Coles training session does not allow the organization to assess the potential of each individual and then offer them the desire roles and responsibility through which they can utilize their knowledge base. In case of Coles, employee could not say that they are using their strength and best knowledge to accomplish the organizational goals.
Lastly, there is a gap in the communication between the leaders and the employee. The main reason is that Coles follows centralized structure, where managers are taking decisions and the employees have to follow the decisions made by the managers. Ashkenas et al. (2015) highlighted that in centralized structure, autocratic approach is mostly followed and leaders have less time to communicate with their lower end workers. In Coles also, since a department has many people, the leaders does not evaluate individual’s performances and interact with the employees directly. This leads to the problem of a rating system that is done based on Idiosyncratic Rater Effect, which on comparison with the Deloitte’s reinvented performance evaluation indicates the gap that Coles’ leader do not conduct regular check-ins with the employees.
Active two-way communication- The objective of weekly check-in can be obtained on developing active two-way communication in the working environment of the Coles. Men (2014) stated that two way communications can be developed both through formal and informal gatherings. Deloitte’s performance evaluation report shows the leaders should know about their subordinates in order to known them personally and then evaluates their ability based on the knowledge they have attained through interacting with the employees. The leaders of Coles can utilize the modern social media application for creating a group chat room in which all the subordinate can communicate with the leaders effectively and hence all their concerns. The employee can also share their achievements and failures and also ask for suggestions.
Quarterly or per-project performance snapshot– According to Deloitte’s performance evaluation report, it is found that evaluating the performances once annually does not always accurate perception regarding the person’s ability. Thus, Coles can evaluate the performance evaluation system four times a years and it will also show a better result if the evaluation is dome after a peak months like Christmas, New Year and Easter day. This per project evaluation cans also the leaders of the Coles to identify their important asset that can handle more people while maintaining the quality of the work and effectiveness for accomplishing the same.
Measuring the planning or initiative of the leader- Buller and McEvoy (2012) stated that a leader knows their follower’s strength and weakness well and they also know how to manage their pros and cons for the team and organizations progress. Thus, apart for interviewing the working personnel on what their plan for fulfilling the targets, the immediate leaders should also assess about their plans to address the strength and weakness of the employees. The leaders of the employees should be asked about their plan, whether or not they want the individual for a compensation increase, whether or not they want the individual in their team whether or not the employee is at risk of lower performance and whether or not the individual is eligible for instant promotion along with justification. Another suitable method that can be used is that during the quarterly or per-project performance session both the individual and their leaders should be called together for the discussion of the performance rating session. This process will allow the subordinate to learn how their leader’s perception is towards then and how they want them to perform. This will also raise the sense of being valued among the working personnel.
Changing training objectives- In recent times, Coles follows the objectives to train the employees of the organization to learn effective leadership skills and working procedures so that the organizational goals can be obtained. However, Coles should assess the strength of every employee and they can utilize their competency to accomplish their organizational goals. In this way, the employee can find a suitable job where they can use their strength. This process will also help the organization for better productive outcome. The main problem that can be raised in this process is that the individual evaluation will be time consuming. However, this problem can be overcome by asking the immediate leader to prepare the report of their team members which will reduce the effect for one performance manager to assess individual strength.
Implement Performance Intelligence- Coles can make technological development in their organization’s performance evaluation system through performance intelligence. Through this system the report subsisted by immediate leaders and the survey result based on the leader’s perception should be processed. This will help the organization to draw a perception regarding the working ability of the person. A question may get arise that leader may be give an individual less score based on some persona issues among them and hence represent biasness in the choice and inaccuracy in the performance management result. However, the data point of every individual should have to be inked with the report of their productivity throughout the quarter so that it can be fetched by the performance manager to evaluate whether or not the leader has given a biased decision.
Conclusion
Through this report it is found that the Deloitte have reinvented the system of the performance management that can recognize varying performance anytime and illustrate strategies that boost the performance in the future. The analysis Deloitte’s redesigned performance management system also illustrated that evaluating individual’s skills always generates inconsistent data. Thus, in the performance management session, the leader should be asked what they do to enhance the performance of the employee so that they can obtain the organizational goals more effectively. Moreover, performance intelligence should also be implemented as this intelligent tool help the organization to plot the graph based on which the total number of high and low performing employee can be segregated. Face to face employee interview for the performance appraisal should also be incorporated with the interview to the leader. Questions ‘whether or not they want the individual for a compensation increase’, ‘whether or not they want the individual in their team’, ‘whether or not the employee is at risk of lower performance’ and ‘whether or not the individual is eligible for instant promotion’ should also be asked to the leaders. In addition to that, the leaders also have to do regular check-ins with their team members. Coles adopted the approach of comparative strategy to measure the performance of the employees and the major problem arise in Coles due to this reason is that working personnel get less motivation to work in the origination. Coles’ employee performances are considered on how many clients they have handled. The main objectives of performance evaluation training of Coles is to make the employee learn about identifying and adopting necessary style and the gap in the communication between the leaders and the employee is also found. The recommendation for Coles suggested after the comparison are active two-way communication, quarterly or per-project performance snapshot, measuring the planning or initiative of the leader, changing training objectives and implement performance intelligence.
Reference List
Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T. and Kerr, S., 2015. The boundaryless organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure. John Wiley & Sons.
Awadh, A.M. and Alyahya, M.S., 2013. Impact of organizational culture on employee performance. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(1), p.168.
Boxall, P., 2012. High?performance work systems: what, why, how and for whom?. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), pp.169-186.
Buller, P.F. and McEvoy, G.M., 2012. Strategy, human resource management and performance: Sharpening line of sight. Human resource management review, 22(1), pp.43-56.
Colestraining.com., 2018. Coles Training – Managing Performance. [online] Available at: https://www.colestraining.com/management-skills/managing-performance/ [Accessed 27 May 2018].
Cravens, K.S., Oliver, E.G., Oishi, S. and Stewart, J.S., 2015. Workplace culture mediates performance appraisal effectiveness and employee outcomes: A study in a retail setting. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 27(2), pp.1-34.
Daoanis, L.E., 2012. Performance appraisal system: it’s implication to employee performance. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 2(3), pp.55-62.
Elnaga, A. and Imran, A., 2013. The effect of training on employee performance. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(4), pp.137-147.
Gupta, V. and Kumar, S., 2012. Impact of performance appraisal justice on employee engagement: a study of Indian professionals. Employee Relations, 35(1), pp.61-78.
Harvard Business Review., 2018. Reinventing Performance Management. [online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2015/04/reinventing-performance-management [Accessed 27 May 2018].
Lee, T.W. and Steers, R.M., 2017. Facilitating effective performance appraisals: The role of employee commitment and organizational climate. In Performance measurement and theory (pp. 75-93). Routledge.
Men, L.R., 2014. Strategic internal communication: Transformational leadership, communication channels, and employee satisfaction. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), pp.264-284.
Mone, E.M. and London, M., 2018. Employee engagement through effective performance management: A practical guide for managers. Routledge.
Salleh, R., Nair, M.S. and Harun, H., 2012. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention: A case study on employees of a retail company in Malaysia. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 72(1), pp.316-323.
Selvarajan, T.T. and Cloninger, P.A., 2012. Can performance appraisals motivate employees to improve performance? A Mexican study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(15), pp.3063-3084.
Srivastava, S., 2013. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment relationship: Effect of personality variables. Vision, 17(2), pp.159-167.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
