Based on your research into the pre-selected company, outline, analyse and evaluate the performance management system that the company is using to achieve its key strategic goals. You will need to research current theories and practices from literature as they relate to performance management systems. This research should be used to provide evidence that supports your evaluation and recommendations.

Your report should:
• Provide a situational analysis of the company under investigation.
• Analyse and evaluate the current performance management system (PMS).
• Discuss the fit between the PMS and the company strategy.
• Make recommendations on how the PMS could be improved.

The report requires:
• The use of information from the pre-selected organisation.
• The use of analytic tools to evaluate the PMS.
• A range of references from literature that should demonstrate breadth and depth of your research.
• The use of the wider literature to provide evidence for your evaluation and recommendations.
• The display of critical evaluation and diagnostic skills in the choice of the data included.
• The display of critical evaluation in the choice of the information sources used.
• Appropriate and accurate use of the Harvard Referencing System.
• Text books: at least 5 text books.
• At least 4 academic journal articles (found using EBSCO, Emerald, ABI/Proquest, Science Direct, Informit, PyscInfo etc.).
• 2 other sources of your choice: Blog, newspaper, magazine or other Internet source.
• No more than 1 reference may be general Internet based sources.
• Wikipedia is not to be used and does not count as an academic reference.

 

 

ReviewSNAP is a 4 in 1 professional system. It makes performance based appraisal easy to be implemented as the performance matrix is set and every individual is also aware of his performance, so this makes an efficient and transparent system (Weatherly, 2004). It provides better insight to an individual about his performance and improvements. Rewards are now easy to be implemented based on performance as the target is already set, if individuals meet the target they get the reward or else it’s a fare system. New content can be added to the system anytime, which can make it an ever growing system that never goes out of date even if the company policies change completely.

 

 

                                                                                                                 Figure 1

                                                                                                  Figure 2: (Weister, 2015)

ReviewSNAP is fully automated performance management system very user-friendly, reliable and affordable software, used as a service solution to help companies align goals for greater results (Beatty, Schneier & Shaw, 1995). It also enhances the communication as well as coach the individuals, increase employee engagement, and save time and money through improved efficiency.

Case Study

Union Bank & Trust Company is a private bank situated in Nebraska that offers a variety of services like banking, lending, and investment and trust services. There are many branches of this bank which offer full service and loan production offices in Nebraska as well as Kansas. Along with Lincoln and Omaha, there are branches located in nineteen communities of Nebraska and the area near Kansas City Metro (Hillgren & Cheatham, 2000). Throughout the world, it is ranked third largest private bank in Nebraska with bank assets of $2.6 billion and trust assets of $11.8 billion as of June 30, 2013.

In 2011, UBT decided to curtail the ineffective and inefficient performance management practices which have become standard worldwide and started looking for some new and more efficient system to evaluate the performance of its employees. Chad Theis, first vice president of HR at UBT was also very unimpressed with the current practice of once in a year meeting of the managers with their employees, where they evaluate their annual performance and based on that provide them with a target to achieve in the next 1 year. Like other big companies, UBT also provided its managers with free decision making and evaluation techniques, but this caused non uniformity, as different managers had different way to evaluate the employees (Society for Industrial and Organisational

Psychology, 2003). Moreover, lot of times, the performance evaluation part was almost dropped down by simply being forgotten by bigger issues to handle.

Even the managers of the company were not happy with this performance evaluation system as they themselves faced the problem in evaluating the employees in the annual cycle meeting and due to which the goals they set for them were hardly achieved by a very few of them. Also, they noticed that at the time of evaluation, the employees are also not very active in their part of participation, as they were also aware that it is more of a show-off than a real practice. This is when the managers at UBT decided to move out of its old methodology and observe something new. In this quest, they came up with the idea of 4 by 4 process. Both the managers as well as the employees felt the need of often meeting with each other to better understand each other. So, in this way, they conducted cycle meeting quarterly, where the management had an interaction with their sub-ordinates and discussion were carried out on their performance in this 3 month period and based on that rewards and goals were given (Armstrong & Baron, 2000).

Now, after coming over with a new idea to understand the problem, they now needed an evaluation system which can evaluate the large dataset on their part. This is where they came across ReviewSNAP. According to Theis, the service first seemed a bit expensive on its part, but when he investigated deeper about the capabilities of the systems, he found that there are many services which can be used for the evaluation purpose and based on the number of services offered and the ease by which the system can be operated. The price was not enough to call the deal off, hence, the company decided to go with ReviewSNAP as the official Performance Management System for them. The biggest catchy factor for the company was the part of the system where they asked, what they actually needed in the system. It was totally customized in accordance to them after long discussion, where they discussed with the software developers to attain their needs. In fact, the company also helped them in getting what they required, as a service from them (Smither).

From the time ReviewSNAP system got installed as an official PMS, it is observed that there is a marked growth in their performance, because of the reason that each employee knows their present as well as past performance. Regular cycle meetings are held so that employees can directly meet their superiors and discuss about their improvement. Now, the managers can also monitor the growth very easily and don’t have to take much stress on this task of evaluation. The employees are also satisfied as the system working now is totally transparent and they themselves know where they stand in the performance matrix, what is their goal to be achieved, what is to be done to achieve it and what will be the reward for achieving the goal. The new system brought zeal in every employee to self-excel and perform well to achieve the goal and get the reward (Lee, Havigurst & Rassel, 2004).

Conclusion

Examples like these make it clear that the performance management task has not lost its value, in fact it is regaining its true value of total manpower management and bringing out the best in everyone in order to benefit the organization more. Further changes can go on in the system in terms of more features to be included like business forecast. 

References

1. Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141-168.
2. Beatty, R. W., Baird, L. S., Schneier, E. C., & Shaw (1995). Performance, Measurement, Management, and Appraisal Sourcebook. Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press.
3. Cardy, R. L. (2003). Performance management: Concepts, skills, and exercises. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
4. DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 129-139.
5. Greguras, G. J., Robie, C., Schleicher, D. J., Goff, M. (2003). A field study of the effects of rating purpose on the quality of multisource ratings. Personnel Psychology, 56, 1-21.
6. Hillgren, J. S., & Cheatham, D. W. (2000). Understanding performance measures: An approach to linking rewards to the achievement of organizational objectives. Scottsdale, AZ: WorldatWork.
7. Lee, J., Havigurst, L. C., & Rassel, G. (2004). Factors related to court references to performance appraisal fairness and validity. Public Personnel Management, 33 (1), 61-78.
8. Martin, D. C., Bartol, K.M., & Kehoe, P. E. (2000). The legal ramifications of performance appraisal: The growing significance. Public Personnel Management, 29(3), 379-406.
9. Smither, J. W. (Ed.). Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures: Fourth edition. Bowling Green, OH: Author.
11. Weatherly, L. A. (2004). Performance management: Getting it right from the start. SHRM Research Quarterly, 2, 1-10.
12. Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (2000). Performance management.Human resource management, 69-84.
13. Figure 1: Available at: https://lh4.ggpht.com/5rAYcEbw7QWOUYvid9IX9BomHIB1xm-E9-tUEF9w3cyBOKWrkmE3FGhZcI9kak1InBo9bQ=s161 [Accessed 10 Jan. 2015].
14. Figure 2: Weister, N. (2015). Employee Performance Reviews. Bridging the gap.. [image] Available at: https://www.reviewsnap.com/performance-management-infographic.cfm [Accessed 10 Jan. 2015].