Chapter 2 Literature review part one: theoretical framework
2.11 Performance
Byars and Rue (2006:222) state that performance refers to the degree of accomplishment of the tasks that make up an employee's job. Bernardin (2003:143) maintains that performance is the record of outcomes produced on specified job functions or activities during a specified time period. Performance is determined by capability, motivation and environment. A person must know how to work (capability), must want to do the job (motivation), and the environment (material, equipment, physical environment) must be favourable for performing a task.
In taking full account of performance, managers will also need to have some criteria for assessing performance. This will help monitor progress towards the ultimate goal.
87 2.11.1 Objectives of performance evaluation
Rational and political perspectives may come into play when evaluating an employee's performance. The rational perspective assumes that the value of each worker's performance can be estimated (Nel et al., 2004:478). The political perspective assumes that the value of a worker's performance depends on the agenda or goals of the supervisor. The political approach holds that performance measurement is a goal-oriented activity and that the goal is seldom accurate. The success of performance evaluation depends on two decisions: the person designated to carry out the evaluation and the technique chosen to measure the performance.
2.11.2 Who should evaluate performance?
The requirement is that adequate opportunity be made available for performance to be observed over a reasonable period of time. The following raters may evaluate performance:
(a) The immediate supervisor: The supervisor is probably familiar with the subordinate's performance and has the best opportunity to observe actual job performance on a daily basis (Nel et al., 2004:478). The advantage of using the supervisors is that they can be lenient in rating an employee.
(b) Peers: The judgement of peers often provides a perspective on performance that is different from that of the supervisor. The potential of friendship bias to skew the feedback value of the information provided is always present and it is important to specify exactly what peers are to evaluate (Swanepoel et al., 2003:383). Even when peers' evaluation is well done, it is best to consider them as part of a system that includes input from other raters.
(c) Subordinates: Reverse appraisals can be a useful input to the supervisor's development. Subordinates know how well a supervisor delegates, communicates, plans and organises. Considerable trust and openness is a prerequisite if subordinate appraisals are to be valuable (Swanepoel et al., 2003:383). They can work well in a large organisation where a manager may have a large number of subordinates and anonymity of subordinates is assured.
88
(d) Self-appraisal: If appraisal is combined with goal setting and the chance to add value to the organisation, it improves the ratee's motivation and reduces defensiveness during the evaluation interview. Nel et al. (2004:478) accept that self- appraisal tends to be more lenient, less variable and more biased, and is probably more appropriate for counselling and development than for employment decisions.
(e) Customer appraisals: The organisation's external customers can provide a unique perspective on job performance (Nel et al., 2004:478). Although the customer's objectives cannot be expected to correspond entirely with those of the individual or the organisation, information that customers provide can serve as useful input for promotion, transfer and training decisions.
2.11.3 Setting performance standards
Performance standards tell employees what level of performance is expected of them. They also measure how well employees meet expectations. Megginson et al.
(2006:364) hold that performance standards are usually stated in terms of units consumed or produced or price paid or charged. Some examples are standard hours per unit to produce a good or service, miles per gallon used and price per unit for purchased goods. There are many ways of developing these standards such as intuition, past performance, careful measurement of activities, and comparison with other standards or averages (Holt, 2005:396). Once standards of performance are set, they should be communicated by means of written policies, rules, procedures, or statements of standards to the people responsible for performance. Standards are valuable for stimulating good performance and in locating sources of inefficiencies.
Institutions need to follow the right procedures for setting performance standards.
These standards need to be clearly communicated to the employees, and, in the process, should not demotivate employees by demanding of them.
2.11.4 Six criteria of assessing the value of performance
Bernardin (2003:147) lists the following criteria for assessing the value of performance:
(a) Quality: the degree to which the process or result of carrying out an activity approaches perfection, in terms either of conforming to some ideal way of performing the activity or of fulfilling the activity's intended purpose.
89
(b) Quantity: the amount produced, expressed in such terms of rand value, number of units, or number of completed activity cycles.
(c) Timeless: the degree to which an activity is completed, or a result produced, at the earliest time desirable from the standpoints of both coordinating with the outputs of others and maximising the time available for other activities.
(d) Cost-effectiveness: the degree to which the use of organisation's resources (human, monetary, material, technological, etc.) is maximised in the sense of getting the highest gain or reduction in loss from each unit or instance of use of a resource.
(e) Need for supervision: the degree to which the performer can carry out a job function without either having to request supervisory assistance or requiring supervisory intervention to prevent an adverse outcome.
(f) Interpersonal impact: the degree to which a performer promotes feelings of self-esteem, goodwill, and cooperativeness among co-workers and subordinates.
The selected HEI management needs to adopt and adapt these criteria or develop their own to assess the performance of employees.
2.11.5 Creating a good working environment
It is suggested that individuals select the level of performance that seems to give the best chance of achieving the outcome they desire. The employer has to create a good working environment in order to encourage employees to perform. This implies a working environment that is free of harassment and bullying and where people feel they are rewarded in a meaningful way and want to grow with the business (Bernardin, 2003:76). Bernardin (2003:76) also suggests that in organisations where there is teamwork, the following points should be considered to get the best results out of the teams:
identify what motivates each individual
ensure that workplace harassment is prevented and there are clear policies
determine the desired performance
make the performance level achievable
link rewards to performance
ensure the reward is adequate
90
The task of management is to satisfy those factors that stimulate job satisfaction in order to create a climate of good performance and productivity.