A Brief Analytical Survey of Performance Management in Malaysia

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 55
  • Published : June 13, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
Master of Public Policy (MPP)
Course: ZIGP 6106 Management
Name: Jason Loh Seong Wei
Matric No.: ZGA070004

Individual Assignment Question:
Critically analyse the key elements in performance management in relation to Malaysia and another country. Do you think these measures are effective in increasing productivity in organisations? Why?

a) Introduction
Performance measurement or appraisal is an integral aspect of managing an organisation. The method and process of conducting performance measurement or appraisal is normally termed as, “performance management.” Hence, performance measurement is a core element in performance management. The objective of performance measurement is to “evaluate or assess the effectiveness of specific activities which are designated in the job description and scope to ensure that organisational objectives are achieved.” Thus, performance management involves directing and coordinating the entire structure and process of performance measurement of the human resources in an organisation on a regular basis.

In performance measurement, an organisation conducts a comparison of the output or tangible results set against a fixed standard. In a broader context, organisations now engage in “benchmarking.” Benchmarking – as a continuous process of subjecting the performance of the organisation to the best practices in the industry – is also a vital component in any performance measurement to ensure competitiveness and viability.[1]

Figure 1. The relationship of performance management within the management matrix

Lebas (1995) argues that performance is defined as the “potential for future successful implementation of actions in order to reach the objectives and targets” and that “[p]erformance management precedes performance measurement and gives it meaning.”[2] Performance management is set within the broader context of management which consists of planning, organising, controlling and leading – as constituting the four basic functions of management.[3]

There many more definitions of performance management which apply to public and private sector organisations. Max Moullin defined performance measurement as “evaluating how well organizations are managed and the value they deliver for customers and other stakeholders.”[4] A more complex definition is offered by Rogers (1990):

“… an integrated set of planning and review procedures which cascade down through the organization to provide a link between each individual and the overall strategy of the organization.”[5]

There is also no clear agreement on the precise definition of business performance measurement (BPM) system which is a term employed by scholars to refer to the environment and framework in which organisations conducts performance management.[6]

A BPM system enables the organisation to more effectively plan, design, control, implement and monitor its performance measurement in each of the elements or stages in whole process of performance management. However the lack of a precise and “tightly-knit” definition of performance management – and by extension, BPM – means that this applies to the elements themselves. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this essay, the elements of performance management can be reduced to the following:[7] • Planning;

• Monitoring;
• Developing;
• Rating; and
• Rewarding.

This essay will analyse the performance management of the public and private sectors in both Malaysia and Singapore as a comparison. The analysis will include the elements of performance management and their impact on productivity.

b) Public Sector – Malaysia and Singapore

In Malaysia, performance management is increasingly used in the public sector as an important measure in the on-going modernisation process to...
tracking img