Human Performance Measurement

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 154
  • Published : May 1, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Human Performance Measurement

1105685

16/11/2011

Human Performance Measurement
For modern business, human in company doesn’t only indicate labour, but also represents as an asset. It is well known that a company without human hasn’t existed at all. So it’s vital to get ample information from this indispensible asset, especially for managers. Hoskin and Macve (1990) claim that putting measures on human performance (accountability) is vital to run modern business currently. Especially in the aspect of management accounting, how to measure human performance precisely is really important for company’s future development. Therefore there is an old management adage which is “You can not manage what you can not measure”. The article is structured as follows. I will first review the definition of accountability and present the counter-arguments about accountability of human performance. Then, I will present my appraisal towards this innovation before I show some solutions to minimize some unintended consequences caused by this innovation. Finally, from conclusions will be presented and other viewpoints for future discussion. In this section, a brief review of the accountability is given. Accountability refers to the implicit or explicit expectation that one may be called on to justify one's beliefs, feelings, and actions to others (Scott & Lyman,1968; Semin & Manstead, 1983; Tetlock, 1992 cited in Lerner and Tetlock,1999 ). So human performance measurements are not just measuring, but also represent that when managers provide measurement standards, collect and analyze data, select most important and less important and evaluate their employees by these standards to achieve goals and make progress according previous performance. Some academics and researchers claim that inscribing people into the measurement of objects is an awful idea (Keith Hoskin ,1996).Just as Goodhart’s law implied, when a measure become a target, it will not be a good measure again. When schools were measured by the proportion of students achieving 5 good grades at GCSE, this improved, although in some cases, the average grades achieved by students went down. In response to this the average grades are now also reported, but again schools are able to manipulate this index too, by channeling students towards easier subjects, or by entering students for ‘vocational GCSEs’ which are deemed to be equivalent to four GCSEs. The reported scores rise, but the actual level of performance may be unchanged, or even declining.( Dylan Wiliam, 2001) In most of cases, measures always gradually become bad while these measures in themselves are fit with aims. Keith Hoskin (1996) points out that measures are presumably either subverted from course by human frailty, or not yet developed to a sufficient pitch of perfection to preempt subversion. Therefore, human performance measurement is not reliable and plausible. There is still a lack of evidence, however, that inscribing people into the measurement of objects is an awful idea (Keith Hoskin ,1996). Firstly, measuring human performance can motivate people to perform companies’ goals. These measurements can be used as standards to do rewards and punishments such as promotions, admiration and criticism. At Disney’s Animal Kingdom, for example, management could be rewarded, in part, on the basis of growth in attendance at the theme park (Hilton, 2004). Secondly, managers need to coordinate and allocate corporate resources efficiently, effectively and economically to achieve the goals. In human resources, measurements on human performance can give managers a visible standard to allocate and utilize. The sale person who always sold substantial products definitely has outstanding marketing ability and managers will consider to make him promoted. Thirdly, there are four...
tracking img