Introduction In 2012, Forbes contributor Sebastian Bailey professed, “Bad performance management costs a lot and delivers very little. In fact when it goes wrong, he tells us, it dilutes the effect of every other people investment. Yet, when done right the impact is significant (Bailey, 2012). If the investment in people is a top priority for organizations, why then, is the reality as Aquinis (2013) points out, “Performance management systems are seldom implemented in an ideal way” (p. 18)? With knowledge of what constitutes an ideal performance management system in our grasp, why is it companies still struggle to properly manage and reward the performance of their most vital asset? T-Mobile, a major player in the wireless industry, in my
…show more content…
The system should be congruent with the unit and organizational strategy. Aguinis (2013) teaches us that individual goals must be aligned with unit an organizational goals (p. 19). A positive characteristic of T-Mobile’s performance management plan is that congruency is built into performance management plans at each job level, however there is a lack of cohesiveness across the board in that congruency plan. For example, a large bonus for store managers was based on scores of secret shoppers. Superior customer service ratings was an overall goal of the organization, however, this was not built into the reviews or compensation plans for District Manager’s and above. District managers on the other hand, had a goal to align with company objectives to remain profitable which came from selling data plans, yet this goal was not on the radar for store managers and sales representatives. Aquinis (2013) points out an effective performance management system minimizes employee misconduct. The end result of this lack of congruence with company goals at different levels in the organization resulted in misconduct. District Managers would in turn, inform store managers that there overall merit increases were based on how they contributed to merit increases of the DMs. This practice is evidence of what Aquinis (2013) teaches about the disadvantages and dangers of poorly implemented performance management …show more content…
The first purpose of performance management systems is to help top management achieve strategic business objectives (Aguinis, 2013). This reinforces behaviors that are consistent with the company’s cultures and goals and also plays an important role on the commitment, engagement and loyalty of company employees. Employees whom have clear expectations, can align their values and vision with the company’s, understand what is expected of them and what they earn in return will have higher satisfaction and longevity within an organization. In closing, Meryl Lynch’s approach as Aguinis tells an excellent insight into what employees truly desire. “This is what we expect of you, this is how we are going to help you in your development, and this is how you’ll be judged relative to compensation”. (p.
The system should be congruent with the unit and organizational strategy. Aguinis (2013) teaches us that individual goals must be aligned with unit an organizational goals (p. 19). A positive characteristic of T-Mobile’s performance management plan is that congruency is built into performance management plans at each job level, however there is a lack of cohesiveness across the board in that congruency plan. For example, a large bonus for store managers was based on scores of secret shoppers. Superior customer service ratings was an overall goal of the organization, however, this was not built into the reviews or compensation plans for District Manager’s and above. District managers on the other hand, had a goal to align with company objectives to remain profitable which came from selling data plans, yet this goal was not on the radar for store managers and sales representatives. Aquinis (2013) points out an effective performance management system minimizes employee misconduct. The end result of this lack of congruence with company goals at different levels in the organization resulted in misconduct. District Managers would in turn, inform store managers that there overall merit increases were based on how they contributed to merit increases of the DMs. This practice is evidence of what Aquinis (2013) teaches about the disadvantages and dangers of poorly implemented performance management …show more content…
The first purpose of performance management systems is to help top management achieve strategic business objectives (Aguinis, 2013). This reinforces behaviors that are consistent with the company’s cultures and goals and also plays an important role on the commitment, engagement and loyalty of company employees. Employees whom have clear expectations, can align their values and vision with the company’s, understand what is expected of them and what they earn in return will have higher satisfaction and longevity within an organization. In closing, Meryl Lynch’s approach as Aguinis tells an excellent insight into what employees truly desire. “This is what we expect of you, this is how we are going to help you in your development, and this is how you’ll be judged relative to compensation”. (p.