Performance Management Case

The above table shows the evaluation of performance management system of a small clothing company in which I was doing a part-time job. The company is family-owned, with a factory of about 100 people and 2 management departments. As the table indicated, there are only 5 characteristics in the current system, which meet the ideal standards.

Thoroughness is absent from the current system. As most employees are factory workers, the quantity produced in certain time unit is considered the predominant evaluation criteria, and some important job responsibilities (such as the quality of products, the ways of handling equipment, the treatment to co-workers, etc.) are ignored if an employee significantly outperforms others in quantity. However, a clear knowledge of the job is one of the prerequisites of developing an effective performance management system, without which the manager will be confused of what should be evaluated and how, and decrease some employees’ motivation to perform as they see the system is not fair enough to reward those who produce slower with much higher quality.

In addition, there is almost no openness in the system, as the information of employee performance is a one-way system from a few managers to about 100 workers, and the workers cannot participate in developing performance measurement system. The feedbacks are spontaneous. Depending on the department managers, feedbacks are usually given to a few best and worst performing employees. The lack of communication results in mystery of how ratings rare delivered and thus decreases employee’s job satisfaction, as some of them see it unfair. This also lowers their work motivation and willingness of personal improvement; as some factory workers are totally unaware of the process and just do not care.

Specificity is clearly present in the system. As some workers are illiterate, the managers has elected 5 supervisors from the workers, who is in responsible of orally delivering