*P.S. Kartheek* (email@example.com)
*Sanjay Pandey* (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Building ownership in Line managers for managing performance Abstract
Performance Management system is a continuous process of identifying, measuring and developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organization.It aims at gearing the whole organization towards common vision but its very existence also depends upon the fact the the organization is geared to embrace it in total internalization. It has been observed that out of many reason for which PMS have failed to deliver upon their initial promise one reason has been that the line managers have been reluctant to own it. The paper explores the reason for such reluctance. The paper relies upon the personal experience of the authors, readings, conversation with industry people and information available on the net. After the issues were fixed, each of the issue was thoroughly examined and debated in the light of the existing literature, information experience etc. The conclusions have been included in the paper. Subsequent to the examination of the issues the conversation with industry experts and people who have worked with some PMS and the literature available was referred to was used to evolve some suggestion regarding development of ownership of PMS amongst the line Managers. Introduction
The history of performance appraisal is quite brief. Its roots in the early 20th century can be traced to Taylor's pioneering Time and Motion studies. But this is not very helpful, for the same may be said about almost everything in the field of modern human resources management. As a distinct and formal management procedure used in the evaluation of work performance, appraisal really dates from the time of the Second World War - not more than 60 years ago. Performance appraisal systems began as simple methods of income justification. That is, appraisal was used to decide whether or not the salary or wage of an individual employee was justified.The process was firmly linked to material outcomes. If an employee's performance was found to be less than ideal, a cut in pay would follow. On the other hand, if their performance was better than the supervisor expected, a pay rise was in order.Little consideration, if any, was given to the developmental possibilities of appraisal. If was felt that a cut in pay, or a rise, should provide the only required impetus for an employee to either improve or continue to perform well. Sometimes this basic system succeeded in getting the results that were intended; but more often than not, it failed. For example, early motivational researchers were aware that different people with roughly equal work abilities could be paid the same amount of money and yet have quite different levels of motivation and performance. These observations were confirmed in empirical studies. Pay rates were important, yes; but they were not the only element that had an impact on employee performance. It was found that other issues, such as morale and self-esteem, could also have a major influence. As a result, the traditional emphasis on reward outcomes was progressively rejected. In the 1950s in the United States, the potential usefulness of appraisal as tool for motivation and development was gradually recognized. The general model of performance appraisal, as it is known today, began from that time. Subsequently methods of critical Incidents and Behaviorally anchored rating scale were adopted but none neared satisfaction. Performance management System
Performance management System – A management process for ensuring employees are focusing their work efforts in ways that contribute to achieving the agency’s mission. It consists of three phases: (a)...