Benchmarking performance management systems

The Balanced Scorecard and associated performance management approaches, has become a widely practiced and popular management reporting method in recent times. Moreover, enabling technology, which assists in the delivery and personalisation of corporate performance information, is having a deeper and more rapid impact than ever before. This paper presents a brief comparative benchmarking study of leading enterprise performance management systems. Also, the author discusses the merits of bespoke internet technology development and out-of-the-box portal functionalities. An analysis of key business drivers and implementation risks of such approaches is highlighted via a case study example, and concludes the paper

Performance Management in Action

Outlines how collecting and sharing data enables educators to assess student performance in real time and predict and address issues early in order to improve achievement levels and graduation rates. Profiles successful programs in three urban districts

Performance Management and Employee Outcomes: What Performance Management Processes Drive Improvement of Employee Performance?

[Excerpt] Performance management (PM) systems can be a key driver of employee performance when designed strategically to go beyond operational or legal requirements. Organizations aspire for performance management processes to help employees develop, improve employee-manager communications, align individual and organizational goals, and help employees and teams reach their highest potential (Pulakos). These four items all drive employee performance and, ultimately, business performance. To align PM to organizational aspirations, companies are changing their PM processes in new ways (see Figure 1). Sometimes they do so with limited data on results, like when dropping performance ratings. Changes, even in uncharted territory, do generally improve individual performance. Of companies that participated in Deloitte’s 2017 Human Capital Survey, 90% that have redesigned performance management see direct improvements in engagement, 96% say the processes are simpler, and 83% say they see the quality of conversations between employees and managers increases (Schwartz et al.). This is because organizations are strategically implementing effective PM versus doing the bare minimum. To highlight improvements made to PM systems, we will point out changes and results in three key areas: employee evaluation, goal setting, and feedback

Exploring performance management in four UK trade unions

Purpose This article explores performance management in four UK trade unions. Specifically, the extent to which managers in the four unions accept or dismiss the unitarist, disciplinary and performative values that arguably characterise performance management practices. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative research design was adopted to investigate trade union managers’ interpretations of performance management. Managers were targeted because they hold the power to shape performance management practices in their specific areas. The research employed qualitative semi-structured interviews. Findings Performance management in trade unions is linked to the structure, purpose and orientation of different types of trade union. It is also linked to the wider environmental context. The trade union managers’ interpretations of performance management are linked to disciplinary and performative values. As such they are comparable to the unitarist forms of performance management described in the literature. There are moreover, similarities and differences between the approaches to performance management between trade unions and for profit or public sector organisations. Originality/Value The article adds to the emerging literature on internal trade union management by highlighting a particular aspect of human resource management

Debate: ‘Robust performance management’ or workplace bullying? Not just the ‘what’ but the ‘how’

There is a very fine and difficult to detect line between what can be called ‘robust performancfae management’ and workplace bullying. Most policies, guidance notes, codes of practice and legislative provisions are clear in that ‘reasonable management’ action does not constitute workplace bullying. But what is ‘reasonable management’ action? And are these few simple words enough to delineate justified management behaviour for corrective action from workplace bullying behaviour that is abusive, unfair, harsh, aggressive, ‘over-the-top’, ‘nit-picky’ and unrelenting? This distinction is more complicated than it first appears. A study of workplace bullying in the Australian public service found that a small number of victims reported increased productivity after being bullied. This may point to a number of scenarios, including the alleged victims’ performance having been sub-standard in the first place, and/or manager action having had positive effects on productivity, quality of work and output. It may also be that the alleged victims pushed themselves even harder in response to being bullied, and performed better in the hope that the bullying would stop. So, is this robust performance management and therefore ‘reasonable management’ action, or is it workplace bullying? The answer here is not only about the ‘what’, but also the ‘how’

Benchmarking and Performance Management

The relevance of the chosen topic is explained by the meaning of the firm efficiency concept - the firm efficiency means the revealed performance (how well the firm performs in the actual market environment) given the basic characteristics of the firms and their markets that are expected to drive their profitability (firm size, market power etc.). This complex and relative performance could be due to such things as product innovation, management quality, work organization, some other factors can be a cause even if they are not directly observed by the researcher. The critical need for the management individuals/group to continuously improve their firm/company’s efficiency and effectiveness, the need for the managers to know which are the success factors and the competitiveness determinants determine consequently, what performance measures are most critical in determining their firm’s overall success. Benchmarking, when done properly, can accurately identify both successful companies and the underlying reasons for their success. Innovation and benchmarking firm level performance are critical interdependent activities. Firm level variables, used to infer performance, are often interdependent due to operational reasons. Hence, the managers need to take the dependencies among these variables into account when forecasting and benchmarking performance. This paper studies firm level performance using financial ratio and other type of profitability measures. It uses econometric models to describe and then propose a method to forecast and benchmark performance.benchmarking, competitiveness, innovation, indicators.