Performance Management System

Submitted to: Shah M Saad Husain

Submitted by: Takreem Khan

20181-23585

Health and Hospital Management Program

Institute of Business Management

July 27th , 2019

PMS and Culture
In general it was felt that the PMS has a positive impact on the culture of the company. The
view was that the PMS supports the ‘design principles’ particularly in that it very much
encourages communication, valuing the individual, and transparency in decision making.
The Director, felt that the PMS reinforces the way of business and suggested that the
company needs, to consider how we can use the information.
“I am not sure that the appraisal system we have per se affects the culture of the company any
more than any other system we have. I feel the culture we have, was established at start up by the
Senior Directors. I think it is a novel approach and I have never come across it before. The
Directors are very people orientated. The culture allows for diverse people. The freedom to
achieve is 100% and also respect is 100%. I do not think this has anything to do with the PMS,
having said that the system does support two way communication”
It was felt the PMS dealt with the values of the company at one point or another. Another
view was that if an individual was not up to standard in what is believed to be our culture, the
PMS provided a clear way of documenting this and how it can be improved upon. The culture
of the company is built around teamwork and it was suggested that the PMS helps to build
teams, where the focus is not just on the individual which can lead to a culture of 'Prima
Donnas’.

Personal Development
With regard to the PMS being utilised as a development tool the view was generally positive.
It helps the team leader critically look at how people are behaving and identify ways of
further developing them. The feedback from the appraisal process gives the opportunity to
find out what an employee needs to do to get on within their team and within the company
itself. From the perspective of a team leader, it was felt that it gave the team leader
understanding of how the team member would like to develop their career and as a result
facilitate this where possible”.
Another interesting comment from a team member was in relation to the development plan
supporting succession plans in that, the PMS gives the management team the opportunity to
feel the ground and see what potential is in the company. A comment from one team leader
summed up the whole area of development:
“I feel the development action plan at the end of the form is the secret to the process. It aids
reviewing the performance, looking at the positives and the negatives to identify a gap analysis. It
gives clear direction as to what needs to be done in order to maintain and improve performance.
The development plan should be reviewed at each appraisal to ensure that the plan is actually
being adhered to, but I do not think this is being done and if this is the case, then who should be
made accountable? It is a critical step and Ifeel we are not at this stage y e t”.

Performance Related Pay

The positive views were that the PMS helped determine the level of pay. It was felt that the
system highlights and rewards the good performers.On the negative front it was felt that
while the PRP can be a strength of the system it could also be a weakness and a case of just
ticking the boxes and getting a pay rise’.
One team member felt that the PRP was merely a negotiation process and dependant on the
ability of the team leader to negotiate the overall rating. The comment made was:
"I have never managed to negotiate pay but I know others have”.
Another comment was:
“I do not see a strong link between pay and the review process. I want to do a good job
regardless. In general I do not think someone is going to really work hard just to get an extra one
percent o f a difference. Job satisfaction and security are much more important”.
Strengths of the PMS
One of the key strengths which was identified at all levels during the interview process was,
how the PMS strengthens and supports communication and in particular the one to one
conversations between team leaders/managers and team members. On more than one
occasion it was mentioned that in our busy environment the time is set aside for the appraisal
and this is carried out in a manner that is not rushed. During interview a team leader
commented that:
"In the hustle and bustle of everyday life it ensures that people are sitting down and looking at
the performance of their teams and the individuals in their teams
Another key strength which was identified by Director is the fact the process is the same for
everyone on site, regardless of what level one is at. An area of strength identified by a team
member is the fact that the process allows for measured feedback on a regular basis. The fact
that the process allows for the individual forms to reviewed by all levels, relevant to the
individual, and the visibility that this ensures, is seen as a strength.

Weaknesses of the PMS

At all levels i.e. Director, Team Leader and Team Member, one of the main weaknesses
identified during the interview was in relation to the inconsistency of the PMS both by the
Team Leaders and in the application of the process itself. It was felt that some people fill out
the form differently to others in that they do not fill in the section which justifies why they
have given themselves that particular rating. A comment made by one of the Team Leaders
was:
“I get the impression from listening to others that different people put different amounts of time
and effort into the process
It was felt by another team leader that this inconsistency if discussed among team members
will result in the deterioration of the quality of the team member/team leader relationship.
Another weakness that was raised was in relation to the fact that the process can be very time
consuming and the frequency of appraisals was too often, particularly for the team leaders
that have large team numbers:
“particularly if you have a lot of new hires as in these instances you will have the 3, 6, 9 and 12
month appraisals”.
The rating system was also raised as an area of weakness both in relation to the five
categories and in particular the ‘far exceeds’ and in the way team members actually rated
themselves. One team member commented as follows:
“I feel I always do my job to the best of my ability and I am always willing to give 100%, yet I
generally rate myself as ‘Meets expectations ’. I am confused as to how I can exceed my
expectations, no one can give more than 100%. What do I need to do or what can anyone do in
order to exceed”? The guy that does not put in half the amount of effort as I do but rates himself
as ‘exceeds ’ can end up getting more money than I do. The rating system can be seen as being
very much money related".

Suggested Improvements
With regards to suggested improvements these were mainly with regard to the performance
management forms and the general content of the forms. One team leader felt that the
sections relating to performance improvement and the development plan were confusing. The
comment from the team leader was;
“The improvement box, does this relate to style of behaviour to focus on and develop which will
make you perform better in your role.
Whereas the development section, is this related to education”?.
This comment ties in with a comment from a Director:
“I feel at times some of the team leaders can shy away from the personal development and the
personal performance sections. The team leaders may just concentrate on the educational aspects
of the development plan and not specifically pointing out what someone should actually be doing
in their role to improve. The form could probably be more specific at this point”.
Another suggestion with regard to the form was to include a section where team members
could add their comments on how they felt the team was performing and areas for
improvement. It was felt this would help get a better understanding of what we need to be
doing more of. The issue of providing training for both team members and team leaders was
also raised. It was also felt that the performance factors need to be reviewed, one suggestion
was to provide a menu of ‘performance factors’ to choose from. There were several
suggestions with regard to the frequency of the performance appraisals. Abbreviating the six
and nine month review was one suggestion. It would be great if the 6 and 9 month reviews
were abbreviated. Replacing one of the reviews with a verbal one to one without the forms
was another suggestion.
"it is the conversation which matters ”.

Recommendations
Based upon the concerns that were raised I believe that there is a perception that the process
is not administered across the organisation in a consistent manor. I would therefore suggest
that the company address this issue in three ways:
1. Provide further training across the management team in the application of the process
providing ample opportunity for them to interact with each other to “compare notes” on the
approach they take.
2. Ensure that all employees have a full understanding of how the process works and how
they feed into that process. It is important in this instance to provide a clear and safe path
forwards to appeal for those who feel that they have been unfairly treated.
3. Monitor the evaluation documents and consistency of performance ratings at director and
at HR level. This should provide a mechanism whereby significant anomalies can be
detected.Further training of the management team on how to address poor performance
within their teams, while giving the employees an understanding of the confidential nature of
the performance management process should alleviate the concern among employees that
poor performance is not being addressed.
As the company clearly links pay to performance it is essential that there is consistency
across the organisation in how performance ratings are allocated to employees. I would
therefore recommend that the company ensure this consistency through not only comparing
an employee’s performance with their objectives, but by:
1. Benchmarking employees performance and contribution across the organisation with that
of other employees without risking each employees confidentiality
2. Benchmarking the level of objectives being set across the organisation so that all
employees feel that the same level of expectations applies to them and all their peers
respectively.
On the issue of pay I also suggest that the company educate the employees so that they fully
understand how pay for performance works within the company differentiating between pay
for performance and pay rise for performance. Coupled with a grounding in how pay scales
and structures are determined this should address both the concerns of employees who feel
that they are not being adequately rewarded for their performance and the ideas of those who
believe that they should receive continuing pay rises regardless of their performance levels.
Another issue is the frequency of the formal reviews in the first year of employment. This
places an overemphasis on the completion of a formal process and detracts from what should
be a meaningful conversation. I recommend in this instance that the company abandon the
formal reviews on the third and sixth months of employment. Instead, managers should be
encouraged to focus on more regular but informal one-to-one discussions providing and
receiving open and honest feedback concerning the employee’s performance and
development giving the employee an opportunity to request help and guidance where
required. Coupled with this I would encourage the company to modify the form to make it
simpler and more straight forward. The key to the process is a meaningful conversation and
the form should be complimentary to this conversation rather than detracting from it. The
objectives should be captured in writing but the manager should talk through them explaining
that if some repeat themselves year-on-year, why that is so. The company should ensure that
teamwork is captured as part of the objectives and that there is congruence between the
individual employees objectives and those of the team as well as those of the organisation.
Employee behaviour that supports teamwork and the success of the team should be
recognised and rewarded as part of the review process.
Root Cause Analysis