Performance Management Process

Introduction:

According to Baron. A (2003) a well-structured organisation that has an effective communication process and performance management (PM) process in place will increase the chances of an organisation achieving its main objectives. Therefore, PM is inevitable imagining how unorganised and chaotic the workplace would be if performance was not managed. As a result, concern is not whether performance is being managed, the concern is how an organisation manages its employees and their performance (Brumback, 2003). Therefore, it is important that AppCo focus on PM of all its employees and the interaction between management and employees which is vital to the growth and development of the organisation (Baron, 2003).

To effectively implement

Consequently, PM is the practice of creating an understanding and importance of the employee and the steps required to achieve an organisations goal. Therefore, it’s important to note that the PM process must be structured, clear, and concise and provide direction to the employee and the level of expectation required. This PM process also assists managers in providing effective feedback to the employee in relation to their current performance and the expectation for them in relation to deadlines and other tasks going forward (Covey 1991). Anand, (1997) argues Covey (1991) and states that successful organisations share a fundamental philosophy of valuing and investing in their employees and describes HRM as a means of achieving a competitive edge rather than monitoring, controlling an employee’s performance (Anand, 1997). Therefore, introducing a formal PM system in an SME might be important as it will improve the process, the communications when working towards a deadline. Additionally, a formal PM process will portray a level of professionalism within the organisation, thus increasing the organisations attractiveness to potential talented applicants (Michiels, 2017). As a result, Burnes (2004) highlights, for an organisation to succeed it is essential that the employees of that organisation are

Therefore, employee engagement is affected by many factors such as emotional, rational and other factors related to the workplace (Markos, 2010). However, Gallup defines employee engagement as the involvement with and enthusiasm for work thus, creating a positive engaged employee (Dernovesk, 2008). Therefore, employee engagement is a positive attitude of the employee towards the organisation and its value. As a result, these employees are more aware of the business context and the work that needs to be achieved for organisational success. In addition, job satisfaction, productivity, employee retention and employee commitment as positive outcomes from an engaged workforce (Markos, 2010). Subsequently, Gallup identified that managers are the key to an engaged workforce and indicated that employees who have a good relationship with management are more likely to be more engaged in their job (Dernovesk, 2008). Nevertheless, non-financial drivers can affect organisational performance in situations where HR practices are implemented effectively and management can achieve desired levels of engagement with less financial costing. Although, non-financial drivers improve engagement it is important to note that financial rewards should not be ignored and management need to link these rewards with performance (Markos,