Week 5, Blog #2

In theory, I agree with the Chapter 10 discussion of performance management being a system for tracking and giving feedback to employees about how well they are accomplishing objectives tied to each of their key job dimensions. If this can be implemented well within an organization, it can be successful. Unfortunately, I’ve also seen how this system can be executed improperly. For example, one performance measure my employer espoused for an organizational unit was to ensure that 75% of employees’ training plans were being achieved 80% of the time. Assuming one could even get past this hard-to-follow statistical criterion, he/she would realize that this was not meaningful. For instance, for a small organizational unit of two or three employees, the 75% performance measure essentially meant that all training plans for staff within that group had to be achieved 80% of the time. And regardless of the size of the group, it still left many wondering what 80% of the time meant. Fortunately, the organization realized the error of its ways and modified this particular performance measure soon after it was implemented. The point here is that performance management can be an effective tool for organizational communication, but should also be viewed as a dynamic system that allows for continual improvement.