Performance Improvement

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Saravana Kumar on December 18, 2008 at 5:01pm

Hi Veena,

As per your query, It may be IT / non- IT industry, employer should be more focused on productivity on work and profit to the organization. I agreed the management use to give appointment letter for new joiners stated, probationary period for 6 months to the employees to undergo with company routine work and atmosphere. During the procession time, the employees have to prove themselves and right on their work. But, for proven staffs they use to fix deadlines (short time period) on their work to be productive and achieve the target at the right time.

Thanks,

Saravana
sharaan47@gmail.com

Permalink Reply by Shiva Tadi on August 3, 2009 at 10:46am

Hi Veena,

What i feel the time duration is depends on various factors like tolerance levels of the organization , Organization Life Cycle an Culture and what is the Business Model.

But what i feel the critical point is the defining and diagnosing the cause for Non Performance. Most of the times we tend to come into conclusions very fast with generalizations. But every Individual is unique may the problem might be same but the root causes will be different. If in case we find the right root cause, Action plan for Improvement will be fast.

Second the major area is involving the employee who is labeled as Non Performer ( why I said labeled most of the times concerned employee may not be the real reason ) .This makes a lot difference in the diagnosis and action plan. This demands a lot of support from Supervision with solid Counseling Skills and great attitude of Empathy
Why i wrote so detailed personally i don’t believe in exiting employees on the context of Non Performance ,that only should only last options.

Another main areas to be concerned Training the Supervisory and Managerial band width with Leadership Skills

Shiva

Permalink Reply by David Cotton on January 14, 2010 at 2:53pm

Hi Veena,

I think the focus of performance management varies quite widely according to the type, scale and complexity of the organisation. For example, in a major insurance company here in the UK, they effectively have three programmes - one for under-performers, one for average performers with potential and one for top talent. The talent programme was the last of the three to be introduced because for a long time there was an unspoken belief that talented people could look after themselves. They began to realise that talented people look after themselves by moving to other companies!

Trying to put a time limit on how much attention we should dedicate to each employee may be to deny individual circumstances and so I would prefer to treat people on a case by case basis. It could be argued, for example, that if we get recruitment and induction right, then in the early stages people should be as productive as we could expect for new joiners to an organisation. It could also be argued that if a team has a poor manager, then it doesn't matter how well we recruit and train - the staff will never perform at their best because they will be demotivated and demoralised. So I think the issue is rather more complex than allocating time - we need to look at the individual and the broader picture of their working circumstances and organisational issues which may have an effect on performance.

Now I'm not sure if this helps or simply adds confusion!

Kind regards

David