08).Per­for­mance Man­age­ment

 

Per­for­mance man­age­ment is the con­tin­u­ous process of improv­ing per­for­mance by set­ting indi­vid­ual and team goals which are aligned to the strate­gic goals of the organization, plan­ning per­for­mance to achieve the goals, review­ing and assess­ing progress, and devel­op­ing the knowl­edge, skills, and abil­i­ties of peo­ple.”

 

Given the competitive global environment in which organizations operate, the need to develop (and retain) highly skilled employees is paramount for prosperity and survival (Crawshaw, Van Dick, & Brodbeck, 2012). Performance management (PM) is widely advocated as a way to develop employees (Aguinis, 2013; Cascio, 2014). Broadly speaking, PM can be defined as “identifying, measuring, and developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organization” (Aguinis, 2013, pp. 2-3). This simple definition underscores the close alignment between PM practices and Human Resource Development (HRD). This link is further evidenced by Hamlin and Stewart’s (2011) review of the literature in which they proposed four core purposes of HRD: “improving individual or group effectiveness and performance”; “improving organisational effectiveness and performance”; “developing knowledge, skills and competencies”; and “enhancing human potential and personal growth.” (p. 211)

 

Regardless of the term used, the broader PM literature has a rich history with publications dating back to at least the 1920s (Link, 1920) with numerous literature reviews published on the topic over the past 30 years—for example, Arvey and Murphy (1998); Banks and Murphy (1985); DeNisi and Smith (2014); Iqbal, Akbar, and Budhwar (2015); and Rynes, Gerhart, and Parks (2005). Those published over a decade ago are less likely to be reflective of the current state of the PM literature, while publications from 2014 onward focus upon very specific elements of PM. For example, Iqbal et al. (2015) concentrated on issues related to ratee reactions while DeNisi and Smith (2014) centered their review on the relationship between individual employee performance and firm performance. While these influential contributions have guided the field, they have tended to focus on the narrower area of PA (as opposed to PM) and have largely been grounded upon extant HRM literature, with a psychology emphasis. Within the PA literature, scholars have traditionally argued that PA has two purposes: (a) employee motivation and development, and (b) usage of PA results for administrative purposes such as compensation (Latham & Wexley, 1994). This has often been referred to as the “split roles” of PA (Meyer, Kay, & French, 1965). Many of the issues related to evaluating performance for motivation and development purposes (e.g., ratings, rating accuracy, rater training, psychometric properties of PA instruments, etc.) have been the focus of industrial-organizational psychological outlets (Arvey & Murphy, 1998; Banks & Murphy, 1985). HRD scholars have also emphasized this first purpose, but with a heavier emphasis on goal setting, developmental feedback, and, in particular, coaching (Ellinger, 2014; Werner, 2017). In essence, coaching in the PM context has been defined by Werner (2017) as “ . . . a process used to encourage employees to accept responsibility for their own performance, to enable them to achieve and sustain superior performance, and to treat them as partners working towards organizational goals and effectiveness” (p. 356). In contrast, researchers in the compensation field (Lawler, 2003; Risher, 2005; Rynes et al., 2005) have often examined the second PA purpose emphasizing the linkage between performance and compensation, such as the choice of metric to ground compensation decisions, the extent to which pay motivates or demotivates employee performance, the use of forced distributions, and the many ways compensation can be linked to pay (individual, group, stock, etc.).

 

Performance Management System(PMS)

PMS is as a strategic and organizational approach, which describes, evaluates, executes, and improves organizational performance constantly. It comprises of methodologies, framework, and indication that facilitate organization in the formulation of their strategy and make possible for employees to gain strategic insight, which permits them to face strategic assumptions, improve strategic thinking, and inform strategic decision-making and learning (Marr, 2006). It is seen as an integrated process in which manager work with their employees to set expectations, measure and review results, and reward performance, in order to improve employee performance, with the ultimate aim of affecting organizational success positively (Mondy et al., 2002). Simons (2000) describes PMS as ‘the formal, information based routines and procedures which are used by managers to maintain or alter patterns in organizational activities’. 

In this research a standard performance management system (Armstrong, 2006, 2003) is compared with the informal PMS as applied in LDO. The performance management system is shown in Figure 1. In this standard model there are five main components; Role definition, Performance agreement (Plan), Personal development planning (Act), Performance (Monitor) and Performance review (Review)

Figure 1. Performance management system (Armstrong, 2003, 2006).

 

·         In Role definition Purpose of the role, Key result areas that present the major responsibilities of the role holder in terms of output and Key competencies in terms of qualification, skills, or behavior required to perform the job are identified and established.

·         In the second stage of PMS, performance agreements or contracts are established. Expectations from human resources are ascertained, i.e. what an individual has to attain in the form of objectives, how their performance will be measured and competences needed to deliver the required consequences. Armstrong (2001) encompasses elements of performance agreements or contracts as a combination of objectives and standard of performance, Performance measures and indicators, competence assessment and core values or operational requirements.

·         The next stage of PMS is the personal development plan. At this stage actions are designed to develop individuals in order to broaden their knowledge and expertise, amplify their levels of proficiency and to advance their performance in particular area

·         Once agreements are accomplished between the stakeholders, dynamics of the PMS have been identified and agreed upon with mutual consensus and consultations, training have been imparted to the concerned, and the required developmental activities identified than its time for the actual Performance of agreed upon jobs. Actions are taken in accordance with the practice of the performance agreement, and personal agreement plan as individuals keep on with their daily work and their intended learning activities; it also includes providing an uninterrupted feedback on performance, conducting informal performance reviews, updated objectives and dealing with performance problems and counseling (Armstrong, 2001)

·         According to Ingram and McDonnell (1996) measuring the performance of employees is a compulsory task as it allows a firm to have a record of current organizational activity in order to judge their progress and help refocus strategy. This information must always be compared against past performance and initial goals, as well as firms must also compare their performance with other compatible firms. Deciding about the criteria for performance measurement can be difficult, however Kaplan and Norton developed balanced scorecard in 1996, and suggested financial measures as well as operational measures. These may be sighted from four angles

 

·         01). Customer viewpoint - measuring customer satisfaction by formal and informal methods.

·         02).Financial perspective - measurement of s sales, profits and return on investment.

·         03).Innovation and learning perspective - activities like the recognizing new markets, staff development and upgrading the services.

·         04).Internal perspective - including those activities influence customer satisfaction, for instance teamwork and employee development, in addition to internal measures of efficiency for example gross profit percentages (Ingram and McDonnell, 1996).

 

Performance review provides a picture of past performance and enable to make plans for future, these reviews not only consider that what has happened in past performance year but also emphasize on why it happened, which make future planning more effective. This also helps to design further development and improvement plans for employees (Armstrong, 2003)

 

·         Measurement: Evaluating the performance results against pre-established expectations. 

·         Feedback: Providing people with information about their performance throughout the year. 

·         Positive reinforcement: Recognizing and appreciating the good performance of employees to ensure its repetition. This requires constructive criticism, which leads to the way of improved performance rather than discouragement.

 

·         Exchange of views: Performance review meetings are open and frank, encourage all the involved parties to exchange their views, which results in better decisions for future, this also ensure involvement of all the parties in decision making which in turn lead to commitment of employees with the achievement of goals, established with their consent. Therefore, performance reviews are the form of dialogue not the top down appraisal or interview.

·         Agreement on action plans: This comprises the decisions at the beginning of next performance period, which determine that whether the objectives will be achieved by the individuals themselves or collaboratively by subordinate and managers.

 

 

 

References

·          (Aguinis H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar

·         Armstrong M, Baron A (1998). Performance Management, The new realities, Inst. Personnel Dev., London.

·          Armstrong M (2001). A handbook of human resource management practice (8 ed.), Kogan Page Publishers.

·         Armstrong M (2003). A handbook of human resource management practice (9 ed.), Kogan Page Publishers.

·         Crawshaw J. R., Van Dick R., Brodbeck F. C. (2012). Opportunity, fair process and relationship value: Career development as a driver of proactive work behaviour. Human Resource Management Journal, 22, 4-20.Google scholar

·         Cascio W. F. (2014). Leveraging employer branding, performance management and human resource development to enhance employee retention. Human Resource Development International, 17, 121-128.Crossref.Google Scholar

·         Hamlin B., Stewart J. (2011). What is HRD? A definitional review and synthesis of the HRD domain. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35, 199-220.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

·         Arvey R., Murphy K. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141-168.Crossref,PubMed.ISI.Google Scholar

·         DeNisi A., Smith C. (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, 127-179.Crossref.ISI,Google Scholar

·         Iqbal M. Z., Akbar S., Budhwar P. (2015). Effectiveness of performance appraisal. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17, 510-533.Crossref,ISI,Google Scholar

·         Ingram H, McDonnell B (1996). ‘Effective performance management – the teamwork approach considered’, Managing Service Quality, 6(6):38– 42 MCB University Press

·         Link H. C. (1920). The applications of psychology to industry. Psychological Bulletin, 17, 335-346.Crossref.Google Scholar

·         Marr B (2006). Strategic Performance Management, 1st edn, Else vier Ltd.

·          Mondy RW, Noe RM, Premeaux SR (2002). Human resource management (8th edn), Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall

·         Mwita JI (2000). ‘Performance management model A systems-based approach to public service quality’, The Int. J. Public Sector Manage., 13(1): 19-37.

·         Rynes S. L., Gerhart B., Parks L. (2005). Personnel psychology: Performance evaluation and pay for performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 571-600.Crossref,PubMed,ISI,Google Scholar

·         qbal M. Z., Akbar S., Budhwar P. (2015). Effectiveness of performance appraisal. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17, 510-533.Crossref,ISI,Google Scholar

 

 

07).Employee Engagement

 

07).Employee Engagement

 

Employee engagement is a workplace approach resulting in the right conditions for all members of an organization to give of their best each day, committed to their organization’s goals and values, motivated to contribute to organizational success, with an enhanced sense of their own well-being. Employee engagement is based on trust, integrity, two way commitment and communication between an organization and its members. It is an approach that increases the chances of business success, contributing to organizational and individual performance, productivity and well-being.

According employee work engagement is defined as a “positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002a,b, p. 74). Kahn (1990) conceptualized engagement as “harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles” and stated that in engagement, “people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (p. 694). Demerouti et al. (2010) emphasized the benefits of work engagement for individuals and for organizations because the way individuals accomplish their work and fulfill their tasks depends on the extent to which they are engaged in their work. Rich et al. (2010) described engaged employees as more attentive and focused on their responsibilities than less engaged employees, as emotionally connected to their role tasks, and as more enthusiastic workers, and other researchers suggested that because engaged employees are also active in social activities and hobbies outside work (Schaufeli et al., 2001), positive effects of work engagement spill over into private life and vice versa (Grzywacz and Marks, 2000), which in turn leads to improved individual and group performance.

 

Because engaged employees possess energetic and affective connections with their work activities, see themselves as capable of dealing with job demands, and transfer their engagement to others at work (Bakker, 2009; Demerouti et al., 2010), they are more likely to contribute to sustainable individual and organizational development while promoting a healthy workplace (Bakker et al., 2011). It is crucial for organizations to sense the true essence of work engagement, especially in the public sector, to better identify its drivers (Mostafa and Abed El-Motalib, 2020). The government in Uzbekistan sees state employees as one of the main assets in promoting public sector reform (Ergashev, 2006), and thus, government employees’ work attitudes are of the utmost importance to administrators there (Ergashev, 2006). The form of ownership is the main distinctive point between state and private organizations in Uzbekistan. Specifically, the government controls and operates public sector organizations, whereas the state has no stake in private sector organizations (Ergashev, 2006). Public organizations are vulnerable to political constraints, which lead to frequent changes in policy. Their goals are pursued through political processes rather than by individual managers as in private organizations (Ernazarov, 2020). Another characteristic of public organizations is that they usually have more formal decision-making procedures, and another way they differ from the private sectors is that these organizations have few rivals in providing services such as in education and health (Ernazarov, 2020; Abdulhaevna, 2021).

 

Further than according to Kahn’s theory (1990, 1992), meaningfulness describes how valuable a work goal is in relation to an individual’s own standards. Employees who have faith that a given work role activity is personally meaningful are likely to fully immerse themselves in it. Engaged individuals experience high connectivity with their work tasks and strive toward task-related goals that are intertwined with their in-role definitions and scripts; they also make extra efforts to resolve job-related problems, which in return leads to high job performance (Christian et al., 2011; Al-dalahmeh et al., 2018). Thus, this study is the first examination of engagement as a mediator in the relationship between job meaningfulness and performance. Meanwhile, supportive, trustworthy coworker relationships produce high work engagement as well (Kahn, 1990), and task interdependence generates positive coworker relationships (Lee et al., 2018). When employees fail to experience meaning in their work, highly interdependent workers provide each other with information, advice, help, and resources, which serve to amplify their work-related attitudes and behaviors (Kim and Oh, 2020).

 

 

Work Engagement

Work engagement refers to high personal investment in one’s work role and includes the characteristics of being energized, cognitively vigilant, and willing to invest extra effort to achieve goals (Sonnentag et al., 2010). Research interest in work engagement has increased in recent decades; currently, it is an extremely relevant and meaningful area of inquiry (Karatepe and Karadas, 2015). Work engagement is a construct comprises three dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002b). Schaufeli et al. (2002b) define vigor as expressions of high energy and motivation at work and dedication as indicating an employee’s perceptions of the meaning of work; dedication entails a sense of pride in the job and its challenges. Finally, absorption refers to the degree to which an employee is focused on and happily engrossed in work; absorbed workers are unaware of the passage of time and find it difficult to detach themselves from their tasks (Schaufeli et al., 2002b).

Work Engagement and Performance

 

 

The effects of work engagement on job performance as a predictor have been an increasing topic of academic study (Demerouti et al., 2010). Demerouti et al. (2010) and Kim and Park (2020) highlighted many advantages to employee engagement. Engaged employees exhibit high energy and strong mental resilience, and they tend to voluntarily invest considerable effort in their assigned tasks. Moreover, highly engaged employees tend to have a sense of their work’s significance and challenges, and they express enthusiasm and pride in their work, thus enhancing their performance.

 

According to Kahn (1990, 1992) posited work engagement as a psychological state of mind whereby people are attentive, connected, integrated, and focused in their role performance and stated that employees’ “being there” gives them access to their considerable energies and talents in fulfilling work-related tasks and goals. Many studies have shown a significantly positive relationship between employee engagement and performance (Ismail et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2020). Kahn (1990, 1992) further stated that work engagement refers to a psychological connection with performing work tasks rather than attitudes toward the job itself. Engaged individuals approach tasks with a sense of self-investment, energy, and passion, which should translate into higher in-role and extra-role performance (Kahn, 1990, 1992). Moreover, engaged employees are excited about their work (Bakker, 2009), and enthusiastic employees are positively driven to perform better at work.

 

 

References

·         Abdulhaevna, K. M. (2021). Public organizations in Uzbekistan–in the interests of the state and people. Turk. J. Comput. Math. Educ. 12, 3402–3406.Google Scholar

·         Al-dalahmeh, M., Khalaf, R., and Obeidat, B. (2018). The effect of employee engagement on organizational performance via the mediating role of job satisfaction: the case of IT employees in Jordanian banking sector. Mod. Appl. Sci. 12, 17–43. doi: 10.5539/mas.v12n6p17CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

·         Bakker, A. B. (2009). “Building engagement in the workplace,” in The Peak Performing Organization, eds R. J. Burke and C. L. Cooper (Milton Park: Routledge), 50–72. doi: 10.4324/9780203971611.ch3CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

·         Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20, 265–269. doi: 10.1177/0963721411414534CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

·         Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., and Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 20, 4–28. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

·         Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., and Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Pers. Psychol. 64, 89–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.xCrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

·         Demerouti, E., Cropanzano, R., Bakker, A., and Leiter, M. (2010). “From thought to action: employee work engagement and job performance,” in Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory Research, eds A. B. Bakker and M. P. Leiter (Hove: Psychology Press), 147–163.Google Scholar

·         Ergashev, B. (2006). Public administration reform in Uzbekistan. Probl. Econ. Transit. 48, 32–82. doi: 10.2753/PET1061-1991481202CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

·         Ernazarov, D. (2020). Analysis of the policy of the republic of Uzbekistan regarding international non-governmental organization. J. Polit. Sci. Int. Relat. 3, 9–15. doi: 10.11648/j.jpsir.20200301.12

·         Grzywacz, J. G., and Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: an ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 5:111. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.111

·         Ismail, H. N., Iqbal, A., and Nasr, L. (2019). Employee engagement and job performance in Lebanon: the mediating role of creativity. Int. J. Prod. Perf. Manag. 68, 506–523. doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-02-2018-0052CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

·         Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. 33, 692–724. doi: 10.5465/256287CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

·         Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: psychological presence at work. Hum. Relat. 45, 321–349. doi: 10.1177/001872679204500402CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

·         Karatepe, O. M., and Karadas, G. (2015). Do psychological capital and work engagement foster frontline employees’ satisfaction? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 27, 1254–1278. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0028CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

·         Kim, C. D., and Oh, S. J. (2020). Impact of employee’s gratitude disposition on organizational citizenship behavior: focus on multi-mediated effects of perceived organizational support and job satisfaction. J. Korea Cont. Assoc. 20, 686–701.Google Scholar

·         Lee, S. H., Shin, Y., and Kim, M. (2018). Why work meaningfulness alone is not enough: the role of social identification and task interdependence as facilitative boundary conditions. Curr. Psychol. 40, 1031–1047. doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-0027-0

·         Mostafa, A. M. S., and Abed El-Motalib, E. A. (2020). Ethical leadership, work meaningfulness, and work engagement in the public sector. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 40, 112–131. doi: 10.1177/0734371X18790628CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

·         Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., and Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 617–635. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.51468988

·         Schaufeli, W., Taris, T., Le Blanc, P., Peeters, M., Bakker, A., and De Jonge, J. (2001). Maakt arbeid gezond. Op Zoek Naar Bevlogen Werknemer 2001, 422–428.

·         Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., and Bakker, A. B. (2002a). Burnout and engagement in university students: a cross-national study. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 33, 464–481. doi: 10.1177/0022022102033005003CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

·         Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., and Bakker, A. B. (2002b). The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 3, 71–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326

·         Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., and Demerouti, E. (2010). “Not all days are created equal: the concept of state work engagement,” in Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, eds A. B. Bakker and M. P. Leiter (Hove: Psychology Press), 25–38.Google Scholar

·         Zheng, Y., Graham, L., Epitropaki, O., and Snape, E. (2020). Service leadership, work engagement, and service performance: the moderating role of leader skills. Group Organ. Manag. 45, 43–74. doi: 10.1177/1059601119851978CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar