HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
“ Measurements are the key. If you cannot measure it, you cannot control it. If you cannot control it, you cannot manage it. If you cannot manage it, you cannot improve it.” J. Harrington
! Organizations cannot afford to support people who are not obviously contributing to the strategic goals of the enterprise. therefore they act in the spirit of recruiting the persons whose abilities and skills satisfy the best their needs, they apply the best policies of motivation for stimulating the employees to achieve outstanding results and they take the opportunity to measure the performance achieved in comparison with the standards expected.
must have a clear definition - must have well-defined levels of performance at each point along a rating scale
1. identify 2. analyze 3. measure 4. evaluate 5. improve/ encourage 6. reward PERFORMANCE Performance management system
! Administrative vs development approach - administrative approach → granting a salary raise promotion downsizing termination - development approach → data about the strengths capabilities weaknesses improvement areas
! Defining the reason for evaluation & setting objectives why? what? ! Nominate the person who will do the evaluation who? - Employees’ rating by the supervisor - Manager’s rating by the employees - upward feedback - Peer Rating - Self Rating - Outside raters Multisource rating (360 appraisal) ! Perform the evaluation + Follow-up
Positive not negative ...you obtained only 80 points out of 100, which is not the best score... ...you did well in...and out of 100 points you have obtained 80.... Future oriented not past oriented ...why didn’t you do more for achieving a better score? ...we could work together in order to find a way for improving it... Constructive not destructive ...I think that you are a little bit la z y, you can do more, I am sure... ...maybe we have to change something in your schedule or to analy z e your general approach... An appraisal should be
Feedback system = a FRPS response F - fast R - relevant P - positive S - specific
Rynes, Gerhard & Parks suggest a separation of Performance evaluation Pay for performance “Split roles” notion: counselor of development versus judge of salary However, no empirical results suggest that the combination is detrimental to satisfaction, motivation, or performance
The last step in the performance management system? Rewarding employees
The need for achievement The need for affiliation The need for power Within a need satisfaction framework, what do people find rewarding?
How rewards are likely to be interpreted Via attribution action: to oneself (i) or external cause (e) Via interpretation of control: controlling (e) or informational (i) of one’s competence (e) – external (i) – internal
People are highly sensitive to opportunities for and threats to the improvement of their resources
To increase wanted type of behavior In Economics: incentives - costs and rewards following behavior In Sociology: value/ goal rational behavior In Psychology: from behaviorism (“rewards increase behavior”) to intrinsic motivation (“rewards decrease behavior”) Motivation theories deny the importance of pay
Incentive effect: impact on performance (focus on outcome), same person improves Sorting effect: impact on workforce (attracting and retaining certain employees), improvement by changes of employees, e.g. more productive replace less productive – selection effects
How much emphasis is put on performance measures? How strong should incentives be, how will risk aversion influence effectiveness? How much emphasis on individual vs. collective contributions?
Individual incentives/ merit pay Gain sharing Profit sharing Stock plans Pay for performance: Generally positive Other motivators available If wrong, consequences are seriously wrong, unintended negative effects Individual vs Collective
Drawbacks according to Rynes et al. Most employees prefer individual Best performers prefer this least, sorting effect Weakened incentives: lower expectancy, specifically of rational self-interested individuals But: Positive incentive effects if promoting cooperation and avoiding overly narrow individual goals.
Wang & Murnighan Group pay and greed? Incompatible? Lindenberg & Foss + stabilizing normative goal frame - Intergroup competition Rynes et al. At least in US, individual pay preferred Hakonen et al. + Positive message (respect, recognition) + Positive outcomes (directing efforts, improved attitudes) - pressure, ill-being
Motivational properties: what you can do with money to achieve other rewards (instrumentality of pay) Relative position: provides information on how you do compared to others, and to own previous performance Control: feelings of meaning something to organization, self-determination and competence Spending: specific type of instrumentality, ownership/ satisfaction
Definitional difficulty: “excessive desire” “more than is needed” Negative in all cultures (or do you know an exception?) because at cost of others, yet “upward surge of mankind”, hypocritical? When to be greedy and when not? When does self-interest become greed?
Each and every’s employee performance has to be managed Appraisals are critical for determining rewards Pay can have many effects: incentive, sorting, goal framing effects Sometimes we see a separation of evaluation and pay in research and practice
Questions?
