“What do you understand by performance management? Critically evaluate the effects of using performance management and performance measurement in any public organization of your choice” According to previous years, the last quarter of the twentieth century witnessed great developments in all areas such management. The change of structure and functions of the organizations, the growing importance of employee, contributed to increase the professional performance development and also contributed to manage the employee’s performance effectively. Managers of the organizations needs performance management in administrative decisions, in employees’ wage increases, in promotion and dismissal decisions, in determining the strong and weak aspects, in training, discipline, and the budged preparation. For organizations, assessment of performance of the employees in a professional way makes it easier to achieve their goals. After 1980s with The New Public Management concept the public sector organizations started to implement the Performance Management System. Governments have taken various regulations to increase accountability and efficiency in public organizations. In this paper it is aimed to define performance management, explain rising importance of performance management in public sector and evaluate using the performance management and performance evaluation system on local government in the UK. In daily use performance can be defined as achieving a process, completing a good or a service. According to Pugh (1991, p.7-8) performance is producing the good, service or opinion in order to fulfilling the duty and achieving the objectives. Also Basaran (1991, p.179) argues in terms of the organizational behavior performance can be defined the produce which the employee produced towards the organizational objectives. This produce may be goods, service or thought. The performance management system started use in the Human Resources area in the early 1990s. Before performance management system, objective-setting, assessment and review, performance related pay was widely used but in the late of 1980s organizations started to be interested in management of individual performance in a holistic way (Armstrong, & Baron, 2005, p.1). Performance management can be defined as to evaluate the performance of individuals, departments and processes in an organization and to determine and carry out the measures which can improve the performance. According to Armstrong (2006, p.1-2) Performance management can also be defined as a systematic process for improving organizational performance by developing individuals and teams. It is a means of getting better results from the organization, teams and individuals by understanding and managing performance within an agreed framework of planned goals, standards and competence requirements. Processes exists for establishing shared understanding about what is to be achieved, and for managing and developing people in a way that increases the probability that it will be achieved in the short and longer term. It is owned and driven by line management. On the other Bouckaert and Halligan (2008, p.100) defines performance management as a full program which performance information is systematically and coherently generated, integrated and used. Performance management focuses on self management. Managers help the employees and encourage them to improve their working skills. With the performance management in order to achieve to organizational aims the necessity of the education comes to light. In this process the employees get feedback, their performance will be examined by the managerial board and they get guidance and counseling service (Torrington, & Hall, 1995, p.317). It is obvious with this definition performance management shows to the employees the expectations of the organizations, what the employees need to do for meeting the expectations and shows to the managers the current situation and gives the...
References: ARMSTRONG, M. (2006). Performance management: key strategies and practical guidelines. London, Kogan Page
ARMSTRONG, M., & BARON, A
BASARAN, I. E. (1991). Orgutsel davranıs: insanin uretim gucu [Organizational behavior: the production power of human]. Ankara: Gul Yayınevi.
BARZELAY, M. (2001). The new public management improving research and policy dialogue. The Aaron Wildavsky forum for public policy, 3. Berkeley: University of California Press.
BOUCKAERT, G. & HALLIGAN, J. (2008). Managing performance: international comparisons. London, Routledge.
CANMAN, D. A. (1995). Cagdas personel yonetimi [Modern personel management]. Türkiye Orta Doğu Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü yayınları, no: 260. Ankara: TODAİE
Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA). (2009). Retrieved February 4, 2010, from the Audit Commission website:
ERSEN, H. (1997). Toplam Kalite ve Insan Kaynakları Yonetim Iliskisi [Relation between total quality and human resource management]. İstanbul: Alfa
Hood, C. 1991. A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19
Plans & Policies. Retrieved February 4, 2010, from Portsmouth City Couincil website: http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/learning/52.html
Portsmouth City Council Best Value Performance Indicators (2007/8)
SANDERSON, I. (1992). Management of quality in local government. London: Longman.
PUGH, D. (1991). Organizational Behaviour. London: Prentice Hall Interneational (UK) Ltd.
TORRINGTON, D., & HALL, L. (1995). Personnel management: HRM in action. London: Prentice Hall
VAN DE WALLE, S., & VAN DOOREN, W
WALTERS, M. (1995). The performance management handbook. Developing practice. London: Institute of Personnel and Development.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document