CERA - Performance Measurement Case Study Free Sample

This assignment is intended to demonstrate the individual performance measurement scheme of the CERA, which is one of the consulting companies that provide their consultation regarding the civil construction. As stated by Sanchez et al. (2015), performance management mainly includes different types of activities that ensure that the organizational goals can be consistently addressed in most efficient and appropriate manner. It is seen that CERA has achieved the competitive advantage for their qualified as well as skilled consultants who are useful in their field. Some of the senior level managers of the company are well convinced regarding their effective HR practices, but some of the managers still think that their organization do not have the effective HR practices to measure the individual performances of their employee. Therefore along with showing the limitation in the individual performance at the CERA, this assignment also provides a recommendation regarding the performance me asurement approaches by applying which the company can get an extensive and more efficient human resource. To manage performance most effectively in CERA, it is imperative to measure the employee performance with more effectiveness by facilitating the close monitoring. As per the viewpoint of Ferreira & Otley (2013), performance measurement can be defined as the process of the collection, analysis and report the evidence related to the fulfilment of the group, individual, system or the organization. Mainly an effective performance management system has five different parts such as defining the expectation regarding the performances, facilitating the performances, encouraging the employees to achieve the optimum level of performances, performance measurements and proving feedback to the employees regarding their performance. However, it is that CERA set some objective for their employees and asks them to achieve this. Therefore, they measure the employee performance by reviewing how many objectives they are achieving with quality. For example, to assess the performance level of the junior consultants they facilitate the performance appraisal by following the management by objective strategy. As per the viewpoint of Tseng (2014), management by objective is one of the model regarding management that mainly improves the performance of any organization by defining several objectives, which are agreed by both the employees as well as management. Moreover, to achieve those objectives they treat their employees like a school student because here the involvement of the senior level management is very high. They provide a brief and sufficient knowledge to their employee regarding how they can achieve those objectives, but by following this strategy, they do not get any sufficient knowledge regarding individual employee performance (Mayer& Davis, 2012). However, this strategy of them makes their organization to achieve more and effective output, but this strategy is not sufficient to produce highly effective and experienced employee. Along with that, this strategy suppressed the innovation capability and individual performances of the employee. CERA facilitates the performance management in their company to encourage the employees. The senior level managers have observed that the CERA is effective to achieve a good level of productivity, but they do not have any effective motivation technique by which they can retain their experi enced employees. Therefore, there are high levels of possibility that after sometimes depression can be generated among employees. To reduce the chances of that, they need to involve an effective level of performance management system. Moreover, after measuring the performance, they apply a wrong strategy to provide employees with a reward (Boland& Fowler, 2011). They provide more facilities or more financial reward to their senior level employees rather than their junior level employees. Therefore, this creates tremendous dissatisfaction among the employees. Therefore, it can be said that there is a misalignment among their organizational objective and their actual performances. CERA advertise their organization as one of the specialist's companies who has excellence compensation strategy for their employees. However, it has been observed in the present situation; CERA do not have any excellence in the compensation strategy, and they do not provide compensation based on the perform ances of the employees. This is because; they think that they can get more effective output from their senior level employees. Their ineffectiveness to provide preferences to their lower level employee may create a sense of de-motivation among the employee so that there is a high level of possibility that affords of the employee can be decreased gradually (Brignall & Modell, 2010). Additionally, it is also observed that CERA does not have any active feedback strategy that any company provides to their employee so that their employees can correct their performance and assists their company to achieve their pre-determined level of returns. In the case of CERA, it has been observed that they do not have any active feedback strategy. As stated by Kaplan& Norton (2013), feedback can be provided in oral or written mode and offers different advantages to both the employees as well as the company. The main benefits of effective feedback are it helps both the company and employee to improve the performances. Along with that it boosts the employee retentions and decreases employee turnover. Therefore, employee loyalty can be increased by following a feedback strategy (Folger, Konovsky & Cropanzano, 2011). Moreover, effective feedback reduces the cost due to fewer requirements of the training and development and increases the sales of a company. From the case of CERA, it is seen that they have very few employees; therefore, if they do not follow an effective strategy to handle their performances then they may face huge problems regarding employee turnover in their near future. One of the effective rationales regarding the re-bo oting of the performance management scheme of the CERA is identification and elimination of weaknesses in the traditional approaches that they mainly follow. Their performance management system must be effective to provide a timely as well as meaningful feedback to their staffs (Yahya & Goh, 2012). Another limitation in the CERA is the higher level management does not take feedback from the lower level employees because they do not have any believe that the lower level employee can provide an effective feedback that can support their company to achieve a better level of output. However, taking feedback from different sources such as customers, subordinates, and peers can develop the innovativeness of any company. It is seen that CERA only follow the management by the objective approach. Therefore, it is highly imperative for them to follow more efficient performance appraisal process by which they can judge the employee performance with more effectiveness and can provide them with the effective feedback by which they can lower their weaknesses. As the senior level management are very much effective to monitor their employees closely so that they can implement the 360-degree performance appraisal process. As stated by Levy & Williams (2014), 360-degree performance appraisal feedback is one of the processes that is utilized by any company to collect information regarding their employees from different sources to assess the work related behaviour of the employee. I order to facilitate the 360-degree feedback in the business; CERA can take the feedback from the immediate boss, supervisor and the peers. CERA can also solicit the feedback from different external sources that regularly interact with their employees. After the implementation of the 360-degree feedback in the company, CERA can assess the actual behaviour of their employees. After that, it is highly important to provide feedback to the employee regarding their performance so that their strength can boost and weaknesses can decrease. As opined by Alimo?Metcalfe (2012), the 360-degree appraisal can help the CERA to measure several things such as it helps to measure the competencies as well as the behaviour of employees. Moreover, it focuses on several areas such as character, leadership and teamwork. Along with that, it helps the upper-level management to conduct the planning and set their business related goals. As per the viewpoint of Bohl (2013), 360-degree performance appraisal also helps the employees as well as management to identify the business related objectives by improving the communication among the employee and employer. Additionally, 360-degree performance appraisal helps the organisation to focuses o n their core competencies. However, there are several issues involved in 360-degree feedback that is this tool is not customised according to the requirement of the company. It is imperative to take information from different stakeholders of the enterprise because it enriches any business with the different innovative idea that helps them to facilitate more growth. However, there is one of the disadvantages of the multisource information because it may generate the conflict in the company (Carless, Mann& Wearing, 2015). Therefore, before taking the multi-source feedback, CERA must be careful regarding that. Therefore, to make this tool more useful, it is important for CERA to customize the tool according to the need of the company. Moreover, manipulation of the employee to provide a rating to the employee may lead some biases because this process can be partial in some cases. There are enormous possibilities here that higher level manager can provide more efficient feedback regardin g those employees with whom they have the practical relationship (Brutus, Fleenor & London, 2016). Along with the 360-degree performance appraisal method, it is also important for CERA to follow the behaviourally anchored rating scale. As per the viewpoint of Murphy & Constans (2014), behaviourally anchored rating scales rate the performance of any employees based on some specific criteria. This performance appraisal process is mainly presented in the vertical mode by involving the point in the scales up to 9 from 5.As opined by Saal, Downey & Lahey (2012), this performance appraisal procedure merges the benefits of critical incidents, narratives as well as the quantified rating in the company to assess the employee performance against different criteria such as poor, good and moderate. Rather than graphically anchored rating scales, behaviourally anchored rating scales are more efficient because it helps the organization to eliminate some of the rater error. There are several advantages for which CERA must follow the behaviourally anchored rating scales which is it reduces the po tential for the biased responses in the company. Along with that, this performance appraisal process only measures the observable as well as specific behaviours. Moreover, it is effective to provide the standard as well as specific comments regarding the fulfilment of the job. As a contrast to different traditionally rating scales, this rating scale provides more accurate evaluation regarding the performances as well as the behaviour of the target persons. This effective tool also has some disadvantages that may create some problem for the managers of the CERA.As mentioned by Bernardin & Smith (2011), the main drawback is this performance appraisal process requires only effective and skilled staff. Moreover, the performance measurements tool require huge time alongside it is very complicated too. BARS are mainly dependent upon the aptness and the precision of different anchored statements. Moreover, the frequent update is mandatory along with the change of the job requirements. During designing the performance appraisal process, the HR manager of CERA must consider different types of error that are mainly occurred in any company. Rater errors are the error that took place during the performance measurement procedures. As stated by Bernardin & Walter (2013), rater error can be described as the credibility as well as the accuracy regarding the measurements of the performances. Rater errors are the human error which is very much common in any performance appraisal process because anyone cannot tell that any performance appraisal will be effective shortly. Different types of rater errors are a halo effect, leniency error, recency error, similar to me error, central tendency error etcetera. After implementing the proposed performance appraisal process, CERA may face problems due to below mentioned the reason. Halo effect error may occur in the CERA if the HR managers rate the dimensions of the performances either based on the positive or the negative rating. Thi s is one of the errors because in this method there are not any rating criteria to judge the performance of employees who have scored the middle-level performances. Due to leniency error, the manager of the CERA may give the low end of the scale if they have achieved the middle position on the range, which called the negative leniency. The manager may also provide high end of the scale to the employees whose performances is in the middle position of the scale that is called the positive leniency. Along with that, recency error in the performance appraisal process of the CERA may occur if the HR manager rates any employee based on the recent incidents regarding any employees. As opined by Borman, Hough & Dunnette (2012), central tendency error may be happened in the CERA, if the HR manager may rate the employee with higher performance by the average performance. HR manager may do an entirely wrong judgment to the subordinate employees if they can judge the lower level of employees ba sed on perspectives of other employees, which is called similar to me an error. The above facts can conclude that for achieving adequate performance, an effective performance management system is necessary. This is because effective performance management system always generates a productive organisation with efficient, skilled and motivated employees. The above fact also concludes that remuneration must be provided based on the performance so that the involvement of effective performance appraisal process in necessary. Performance appraisal process not only helps the organization to understand the capability of their employee but it also helps the employees to eliminate their present weaknesses and develops their strength. It has also becomes clear that as an innovative company, they are suppressing the innovative capability of the lower level staff. Moreover, they do not take feedback from the customers to provide consultation to them, which creates problem to understand the actual needs of the customer. In this context, performance measurement approaches beco mes evitable. The analysis in the report clears the fact that before implementing 360 degree appraisal system in their company, CERA must arrange a meeting with their employee where they should instruct their employees how they should provide feedback to a particular employee. On the other hand, it becomes clear that at present, there is not any rater error that is happening in the CERA because of the absent of their effective performance appraisal method, but it can be generated in the later time if the HR manager takes the performance appraisal process too casually. Further, it is found out that It is seen all of the modern organization provides feedback on the performances by facilitating an efficient performance appraisal method so that their employees can get a chance to understand and correct their weaknesses. Therefore, using error detection strategies might be effective in improving the overall performance of the organisation. Alimo?Metcalfe, B. (2012). 360 degree feedback and leadership development.  International Journal of Selection and Assessment,  6(1), 35-44. Bernardin, H. J., & Smith, P. C. (2011). A clarification of some issues regarding the development and use of behaviorally anchored ratings scales (BARS).  Journal of Applied Psychology,  66(4), 458. Bernardin, H. J., & Walter, C. (2013).Effects of rater training and diary-keeping on psychometric error in ratings.  Journal of Applied Psychology,  62(1), 64. Bohl, D. L. (2013).Minisurvey: 360-Degree Appraisals Yield Superior Results, Survey Stows.  Compensation & Benefits Review,  28(5), 16-19. Boland, T., & Fowler, A. (2011).A systems perspective of performance management in public sector organisations.  International Journal of Public Sector Management,  13(5), 417-446. Borman, W. C., Hough, L. M., &Dunnette, M. D. (2012).  Performance ratings: An investigation of reliability, accuracy, and relationships between individual differences and rater error. PERSONNEL DECISIONS RESEARCH INST MINNEAPOLIS MN. Brignall, S., & Modell, S. (2010).An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’.  Management accounting research,  11(3), 281-306. Brutus, S., Fleenor, J. W., & London, M. (2016). Does 360-degree feedback work in different industries? A between-industry comparison of the reliability and validity of multi-source performance ratings.  Journal of Management Development,  17(3), 177-190. Carless, S. A., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. J. (2015).Leadership, Managerial Performance and 360?Degree Feedback.  Applied Psychology,  47(4), 481-496. Ferreira, A., &Otley, D. (2013). The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis.  Management accounting research,  20(4), 263-282. Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., &Cropanzano, R. (2011).A due process metaphor for performance appraisal.  Research in organizational behavior,  14, 129-129. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2013).Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part II.  Accounting Horizons,  15(2), 147-160. Keaveny, T. J., &McGann, A. F. (2013).A comparison of behavioral expectation scales and graphic rating scales.  Journal of Applied Psychology,  60(6), 695. Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2014). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future.  Journal of management,  30(6), 881-905. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2012). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment.  Journal of applied psychology,  84(1), 123. Murphy, K. R., &Constans, J. I. (2014).Behavioral anchors as a source of bias in rating.  Journal of Applied Psychology,  72(4), 573. Saal, F. E., Downey, R. G., &Lahey, M. A. (2012).Rating the ratings: Assessing the psychometric quality of rating data.  Psychological Bulletin,  88(2), 413. Sanchez, H., Kuttanna, B., Olson, T., Alexander, M., Gerosa, G., Philip, R., & Alvarez, J. (2015, February).Thermal management system for high performance PowerPC/sup TM/microprocessors.In  Compcon'97. Proceedings, IEEE  (pp. 325-330). IEEE. Tseng, S. M. (2014). Knowledge management system performance measure index.  Expert Systems with Applications,  34(1), 734-745. Yahya, S., &Goh, W. K. (2012).Managing human resources toward achieving knowledge management.  Journal of knowledge management,  6(5), 457-468.