Register to read the introduction…
Managers of organizations have two options: Either to master the riding (which means ‘to learn how to enjoy variations in the trajectory of the organization’s performance) or to master the ride (which means ‘to smooth out the variations’). He argues that HR managers are often partner or tool in this ‘ride’. To make it more clearly he uses an example: There is the question if HR professionals teach the employees how to manage personal stress or if they try to change conditions that cause the stress. The first variant keeps HRD from contributing to and supporting the business strategy and is more a reactive activity than a deliberate long-term strategy. He argues those organizational roller coasters are often closely linked to leadership deficits.
Leopold et al. (2005) are of the same opinion as they see a huge difference between short-term and long-term approaches to strategy and HR. They argue that the work of organizations is resulting in a tension between control and development. Here, control is plain the reaction to circumstances like the ‘personal stress’ in Swanson’s example. A sophisticated HRD program has to set the conditions that allow employees to develop on their …show more content…
They do not see the strategic links between this vital HRM process and the bottom line nor do they appreciate the powerful management tool they have at their disposal.” (Nankervis et al., 2005)
Monitor or control people is - or should be - not the primary aim of a performance management system. The aim is to align the outcomes produced by the people with the overall business strategy. (The University of Sunderland, 2007) That means not only monitoring but integration in a continuous improvement process of individuals or teams.
PMS also helps to achieve SHRM in another way. Already mentioned was the improvement of individual performance and skills or the supporting of business strategy and business profit. But a further essential aim of performance management is to align the attitude and the values of the staff with those of the organization. (The University of Sunderland, 2007)
A sophisticated or advanced performance management system focuses on the commitment and engagement of the employees
Leopold et al. (2005) are of the same opinion as they see a huge difference between short-term and long-term approaches to strategy and HR. They argue that the work of organizations is resulting in a tension between control and development. Here, control is plain the reaction to circumstances like the ‘personal stress’ in Swanson’s example. A sophisticated HRD program has to set the conditions that allow employees to develop on their …show more content…
They do not see the strategic links between this vital HRM process and the bottom line nor do they appreciate the powerful management tool they have at their disposal.” (Nankervis et al., 2005)
Monitor or control people is - or should be - not the primary aim of a performance management system. The aim is to align the outcomes produced by the people with the overall business strategy. (The University of Sunderland, 2007) That means not only monitoring but integration in a continuous improvement process of individuals or teams.
PMS also helps to achieve SHRM in another way. Already mentioned was the improvement of individual performance and skills or the supporting of business strategy and business profit. But a further essential aim of performance management is to align the attitude and the values of the staff with those of the organization. (The University of Sunderland, 2007)
A sophisticated or advanced performance management system focuses on the commitment and engagement of the employees