Issues in Managing Performance at O’Meara Electronics Company

Write a Case Study on The O’Meara Electronics Company.

This report presents Diagnosis of Case Study Performance Management System. It also demonstrates the Comparison of two Performance Management Systems that could be used by O’Meara Electronics Company. It also provides the Recommendation for O’Meara Electronics Company to implement appropriate performance management system.

From the case study, it is analyzed that there are different performance management system is used by the O’Meara Electronics Company such as executive staff forum and all staff forum. A participatory strategy to a new remuneration management system indicates that all people are involved in the remuneration system. The company will get all staff together in the workplace and have open discussion (Van Dooren, Bouckaert, and Halligan, 2015).

It is also identified that the procedure requires participation and assist the managers in monitoring and controlling the performance. It is addressed that all organizational performance is associated with the performance of the individual. Under the initial stage, the employees at the lower level in the production will set the attainable goals with particular measures. At the second stage, employees set the goals with their managers and supervisors. In this way, the employees would be accountable for putting forward their individual career goals as well as performance goals. An individual employee specifies a period in which they assess how they work to attain their goals. The supervisor and managers give feedback to employees about the performance appraisal (Mone, and London, 2018). The outcome of performance review becomes the basis for changing new goals and setting the goals.    

There are different issues identified by the O’Meara Electronics such as lacking with regards to processes and activities for managing performance. The staff was clarified that they will not perform with the supervisor as it will create complexity in the performance system. The managers are too scared of the complaint of workforces who have been with the corporation for a long duration. O’Meara Electronics does not have a program that aids the workforces and managers for working with regards to success. It also does not have an incentive plan that is required for attaining the positive outcome. There is an issue for workforces to perform in every day and not thinking regarding how well a large number of workforces does their jobs (Buckingham, and Goodall, 2015).  

There is two performance management system used by an organization such as 360-degree feedback, and clear rating scale. It is stated that 360-degree feedback is also recognized as multi-rater feedback where feedback comes from peers, colleagues, and managers at the workplace and self-assessment and other sources like volunteers, clients, and other stakeholders. Under this performance management system, senior managers are accountable to assess the performance of other workforces but often do not obtain enough feedback themselves. 360-degree feedback permits an individual for understanding how their effectiveness as a manager, co-workers and managers is viewed by others (Shields, et. al., 2015).

Comparison of 360-Degree Feedback and Clear Rating Scale Systems

In opposed to this, the clear rating scale is used as performance management system. Under this technique, the rating scale is used to aid guide and make simpler to the assessment procedure. Poorly developed rating scale could be a major source of subjectivity, conflicts, and ambiguity. These all determine the performance assessment procedure. A reliable analysis provides consistent ratings for the same performance over time with a range of raters (Gerrish, 2016).

Apart from this, companies also use the 360-degree feedback performance management procedure to assess the individual managers. This comprehensive performance management system facilitates feedback on the performance of manager gathered through different people with whom they interact frequently.  Sources of feedback involve the direct supervisor of managers, customers, peers, self-assessment and vendors (DeNisi, and Smith, 2014).

• An individual obtains a broad view of how they are observed by others and how they impact on others both pessimistically and optimistically.
• It also leads the open feedback and this feedback is observed as more objective and valid.
• It also leads to acceptance of outcomes and actions required.
• This method clarifies the critical aspect of performance, reinforces expected competencies and addresses strengths, which could be practiced for obtaining the benefits for the company (Budworth, Latham, and Manroop, 2015).
• This technique also supports the climate of persistent enhancement and emphasizes on agenda for development, addressing key development areas for team, individual and organization as a whole.
• Gaps are addressed between self-perception of employees and the perception of peers, managers and direct reports. 
• When feedback generated through a number of employees in various job functions and discrimination due to declining age, gender, and race. Furthermore, the horns and halo effects demonstrate the rating of the supervisor on the performance and recent interactions with the workforces (Armstrong, Landers, and Collmus, 2016).

In opposed to this, rating scale demonstrates the performance level and attainment of team members. They are moderately easy to maintain, administer and set up. Scales could be alphabetic or numeric and narrative and most of have more than three response options. A graphic rating scale could be used as a behavioral technique that usually more than three choices. But, the company can add more section in questionnaires such as customer services, financial services and accountability of an organization (Sutheewasinnon, Hoque, and Nyamori, 2016).

On the other hand, the 360-degree feedback performance management system gathers the data through a large number of people with whom the workforces have frequent get in touch. The evaluation shows each respondent question regarding the behavior of employee’s across a wide range of job associated competencies. Its wider perspective and confidential nature make this performance management system more credible to different workforces as compared to traditional appraisal system (Jain, and Moreno, 2015).

In contrast to this, Clear rating scales technique is easy to apply and set up. It permits the company to mark a point on a line for demonstrating the rating. A numeric rating scale and letter scale of the rating are executed in an effort for producing an outcome. They can be generated without explaining the detail of each rating points. This rating scale could be implemented where each rating level is illustrated in detail and not always allocated a point value (Khamooshi, and Golafshani, 2014)..

The 360-degree performance management system is used to analyze the behavior, skills, and understanding of the workforces by a supervisor. The survey questions are implemented to evaluate how well the workforces know his job, the industry, and company. The skill component assesses the time management of workforces and organizational competencies, particular job competencies, customer satisfaction and communication competencies. The behavior question aids to assess how well a workforce can handle the issue among many people. Thus, it is stated that workforces should deal with the course of business (Bititci, Cocca, and Ates, 2016).

Recommendation for O’Meara Electronics Company

On the other hand, the rating scale is a prompt manner to review the set of workforces who have homogenous job tasks. Under the rating scale, there could be one to five alternatives where one alternative could be most terrible and five alternatives could be superior. The scale involves the rating of unsatisfactory, satisfactory and exceptional. Managers who perform with a large number of people can complete a lot of tasks on the same day. They can easily go through the type of evaluation, which would save the money as well as costs (Kroll, and Moynihan, 2015).  

Conclusion

From the above interpretation, it can be concluded that different performance management system is practiced by the O’Meara Electronics Company such as executive staff forum and all staff forum. It can be also summarised that certain issues were faced by O’Meara Electronics during the implementation of performance management system like the inadequate efficient process for managing performance. It can be also evaluated that two performance management systems could be used by O’Meara Electronics Company like 360-degree feedback, and clear rating scale. Both performance management systems are different from each other. It can be also concluded that 360-degree feedback performance management should be used by the O’Meara Electronics Company as compared to the rating scale performance management system due to different benefits. 

It can be recommended that 360-degree feedback should be used by the O’Meara Electronics Company in performance management system as compared to the rating scale performance management system. It will allow workforces for increasing comprehension about the impact of communication on people in every day. But, it could be disadvantageous in a certain manner such as, an employee tends to judge others as per their expectation and own experience that could create biases in outcomes. As well as, managers may perceive workforces as per the output whereas co-workers perceive others as per their agreeable nature. Moreover, subordinates perceive supervisor as per their fairness. Thus, O’Meara Electronics Company can integrate the observation with the point of view of these workforces to make a complete assessment. Different perceptive can lend the reliability in the outcome of 360-degree feedback. O’Meara Electronics Company can also obtain appraisal outcome more meaningful by evaluating the individual (Ljungholm, 2015). It could provide the chances for making the authentic behavioral modification.  

In contrast to this, the rating scale performance management system can damage the relationship between supervisor and subordinates by a number of components such as supervisor can give the rating on personal judgment basis. Unlike the rating scale performance management system, 360-degree feedback can foster the atmosphere of trust as well as teamwork. Employees work together to commit themselves for total honesty and supporting each other to increase the understanding about their actions and performance. This experience could be gained when the outcome of appraisal are favorable. O’Meara Electronics Company should develop the trust between workforces for enhancing the high-performance teams within an organization (Kroll, and Moynihan, 2015).

Conclusion

It can be also suggested that 360-degree feedback is vital for conducting the assessment of top level managers. Managers can face the complexities in terms of getting the authentic feedback on their performance. It can be also recommended that the success or failure of O’Meara Electronics Company is a reliable indicator of personal effectiveness. It can be increased by permitting the lower level supervisors and workforces for offering the feedback without the fear of justice. Thus, reviews could be gathered openly through team members (Khamooshi, and Golafshani, 2014).   

Survey questions should be practiced through skills, behavior, and knowledge of managers. The assessment of knowledge can assess how well the manager understands the O’Meara Electronics Company, industry and job as a whole. Under the skill assessment procedure, evaluators rate how effectively the supervisor accomplishes the tasks and improves the effectiveness and quality of outcomes. The behavior evaluation entails the communication effectiveness, interpersonal skills, time management skills, and attitude towards others and organization. It also assesses how well manager deals with the dynamic work atmospheres, attitude management and behavior patterns (Kroll, and Moynihan, 2015).  

References

Armstrong, M. B., Landers, R. N., & Collmus, A. B. (2016). Gamifying recruitment, selection, training, and performance management: Game-thinking in human resource management. In Emerging research and trends in gamification (pp. 140-165). UK: IGI Global.

Bititci, U., Cocca, P., & Ates, A. (2016). Impact of visual performance management systems on the performance management practices of organizations. International Journal of Production Research, 54(6), 1571-1593.

Buckingham, M., & Goodall, A. (2015). Reinventing performance management. Harvard Business Review, 93(4), 40-50.

Budworth, M. H., Latham, G. P., & Manroop, L. (2015). Looking forward to performance improvement: A field test of the feedforward interview for performance management. Human Resource Management, 54(1), 45-54.

DeNisi, A., & Smith, C. E. (2014). Performance appraisal, performance management, and firm-level performance: A review, a proposed model, and new directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 127-179.

Gerrish, E. (2016). The Impact of Performance Management on Performance in Public Organizations: A Meta?Analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48-66.

Jain, A. K., & Moreno, A. (2015). Organizational learning, knowledge management practices and firm’s performance: an empirical study of a heavy engineering firm in India. The Learning Organization, 22(1), 14-39.

Khamooshi, H., & Golafshani, H. (2014). EDM: Earned Duration Management, a new approach to schedule performance management and measurement. International Journal of Project Management, 32(6), 1019-1041.

Kroll, A., & Moynihan, D. P. (2015). Does training matter? Evidence from performance management reforms. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 411-420.

Ljungholm, D. P. (2015). The Practice of Performance Management in Public Sector Organizations. Geopolitics, History and International Relations, 7(2), 190.

Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2018). Employee engagement through effective performance management: A practical guide for managers. UK: Routledge.

Shields, J., Brown, M., Kaine, S., Dolle-Samuel, C., North-Samardzic, A., McLean, P., … & Plimmer, G. (2015). Managing Employee Performance & Reward: Concepts, Practices, Strategies. USA: Cambridge University.

Sutheewasinnon, P., Hoque, Z., & Nyamori, R. O. (2016). Development of a performance management system in the Thailand public sector: Isomorphism and the role and strategies of institutional entrepreneurs. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 40, 26-44.

Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015). Performance management in the public sector.UK:  Routledge.