Today most of the organizations are struggling to provide the employees a vivid and transparent way to achieve individual success, just because they avoid prospects to evaluate their behaviors. This situation raise different questions of what procedures to follow and what necessary measures have to be taken to be prominent and what parameters must be set to carry on with routine jobs in a smooth and efficient manner.
For example, mutual discussions with the employees to find out their prospective and to know how they conceive given directions play key role to move ahead in any task professionally.
In numerous organizations, employees face difficulty to make friendly relation with their superiors or managers. They could not explain their intentions, although most of them want to be an outstanding performer but either their job task does not match their capability or some times their performances can not be recognized by their bosses. Even though in some cases, if they would succeed to show their performances and efficiency before their superiors, the management then, behaves like an ordinary manner, which causesdepressionamong the workers eventually make them de-motivated.
“ It’s easier to sell something to a group which has already invested in the product. Codes of conduct are an important first step to managing ethics in your workplace. ” (Priest, 1999) Many employees even don’t have any knowledge about what management expects from them unless there are being told by their bosses to make them active and self-accountable. Most employees come to know about their performance appraisal with negative/worse seniors, when they are given a walking paper. Managers would move into fewer dilemmas, how to manage behaviors of their staff. Employee Performance
Conventional performance management approaches are followed by several organizations based on their nature of businesses and sizes. If employee X and employee Y do their jobs and both have different nature and different ways in which they conceive their assignments. But management as a whole carries out similar rules and regulations for every employees and expects that every employee will behave monotonously. A little consideration of the issue enables us to get the conclusion that the execution is not preservative, and a amount of the factors that impress an individual’s behavior are not handled directly by case-by-case approach.
We are commencing to comprehend that performance is appeared due to the result of work system, and all its components, not just every individual employee. Employees impress each other’s capabilities to do their single job projects. One bad fish can spoil theenvironmentof the whole pond; similarly a bad employee can actually affect on many others, whereas a nice employee may not only act his/her own work, but also make a helpful hand to the others. The success of work depends upon the attitude towards argument, disagreement or disliking regarding at one’s job premises or at home.
When the rules ofcommunicationwould be learnt that how should argue and fight fairly, the positive difference can be seen in the relationships and others recognize the same in a friendly manner. It is even more significant if there is an appropriate association between supervisor or manager and staff member to increase behavioral skills and develop teamwork. One way of imagining this is that as the staff member works for the boss, the boss also works for them.
In realistic terms, that possibly mean creating and getting resources so the employee can be successful, driving out barriers, treating troubles directly handled by the boss but not influence-able by employee, etc. It is called bi-directional influence. Barriers In Behavioral Management There are some unintelligent things that Managers do and they often destroy individual-behavior-evaluation-system. Mostly they take help from Admin. or H. R. Department in preparing the appraisal of the employee, that situation destroys the worth of performance evaluation procedure. Some negative approach between management and employee as under: –
Untrained Managers In The Course When a case for misbehavior or unethical attitude of employees is sent to the manager of concerned department, the concerned manager does not take such cases on a professional ground. Upon shouting of the evidences, the managers often take wrong decisions based on no deep research and just listening to other employees. “ Although no ” hard” data support allegations of malicious behavior by laid-off workers, we can speculate that having management personnel accompany laid-off workers to their workstations and then escort them off the premises may provide a certain degree of protection against reprisals.
” (Lewis, 2004) This situation often creates an unhealthy behavioral environment and employees to not take assignments willingly. Managers require a thorough training about the appraisal and its importance within the organization. In absence of this awareness, one gets an empty paper pursue. “ It seeks to guide managers as they try to behave ethically and socially responsibly, without jeopardizing their careers or companies. ” (Schminke, 1998) Untrained Employees It is essential to train employees in their part of the assessment course because it only works when both employee and manager work jointly, in affiliation.
Both employee and manager require grasping the same realizing bout the purpose of making appraisal, about its preparation and anticipations from them. “ We have chosen to use face-to-face training because we can model behaviors and have our participants practice, review and practice again. ” (Tyler, 2008) One cause managers delay inrespectof preparation appraisals is that believe it as dissipate of time even don’t care to see the points, mentioned in the said forms. Unluckily, most organizations consider it’s only an inquiry of dictating, screaming or supplicating managers to get them completed.
If the managers sense the forms are beneficial, they must do them. There is only way to get them done is to make them beneficial. One-Sided approach Consider the problem for management if each and every manager employed a different form, or different procedure, how would it be kept on one track and organized the same. Problem is that the management anticipates managers to employ a single instrument for every one, frequently a rating form. This sort of rigidity deals with lodging problems. Unluckily, management gets trapped with the obligations of acquiring appraisals prepared by managers.
Possibly it is not their liability but it is a firm sign that the prevailing system is unsuccessful. “ Without a people-based information management system to acknowledge and support the interrelatedness of all areas of behavioral risk, the movement from internal to external models will continue. ” (Johnson, 2004) Every manager is evaluated on a number of things in an appropriately operating organism, one of that would be accomplishment of the functioning management and appraisal process. The obligation stands with the management.
If theresponsibilityis not driven out by the manager, the concerned boss ought to be assessing the manager. Conclusion Whilst grading may appear to afford an accusative way of assessing, the grading themselves is only as better as the standards employed to enhance behaviors of employees. They could be misleading, seeming to appear that there is a purpose valid assessment process in progress, in real, it does not happen. The worth of an employee regarding equal standing with another in the group is immaterial to the progress of any organism.
It doesn’t make any difference that whether a folk is the most excellent or the most horrible towards the job, the only matter is his/her complete involvement to the objectives of the organization. The grading system can ruin the morale and faith of an organization, with the reason it is too hard to grade objectively, and employees almost disagree with such kind of grading. The cause is that many of employees think that they are well above average in work efficiency. References Lewis, Gerald. (2004). A subtle form of workplace hostility. The Journal of Employee Assistance. April edition.
Kalinoski, Glenn J. (2005). HR firm finds niche inleadership. Westchester County Business Journal. October edition. Johnson, Robert B. (2004). Behavioral risk: a systemic approach: The Journal of Employee Assistance. September edition. Priest, Jim T. (1999). Managing business ethics. The Journal Record. Oklahoma City. January 15th. Schminke, Marshall. (1998). Managerial Ethics: Moral Management of People and Processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tyler, Kathryn. (2008). Generation gaps: millennials may be out of touch with the basics of workplace behavior. HR Magazine. January edition.