User:Ayersm/Sandbox
Performance management can be defined as 'an ongoing and continuous process of communicating and clarifying job responsibilities, priorities,and performance expectations in order to ensure understanding between supervisor and employee'[1]
An important aspect of performance management involves designing specific measurable indicators as a means of gauging progress. Outcome indicators are not to be confused with actual outcomes, although both are pertinent when measuring progress. Outcome indicators are assigned a specific numerical measurement "that indicates progress toward achieving an outcome," [2] but are not the outcomes themselves.
Example of Indicators vs. Outcomes:
[edit]Performance indicators are typically quantified, with measurable descriptors like ratio, incidence, proportion, or percentage, to demonstrate progress. When establishing progress between reporting periods, an indicator may also express measurement by using words such as the change in, or the difference in values for particular reporting periods. By contrast, an outcome might measure the 'number of cases correctly resolved during the time period or the percentage by which the number increased this reporting period as compared to the previous period.' Thus, if a transportation system outcome indicator measures the percentage of roads in good condition, the transportation system outcome would be that roads be in acceptable and durable condition. [3] Performance measurement systems are often criticized for putting emphasis on indicators, at the expense of important outcome characteristics, which can lead to a misallocation of program funding resources and strategic endeavor. It is vital that indicators include a comprehensive set of outcomes that anticipate undesired ones. Examples of putting more emphasis on indicators than outcomes, include a law enforcement agency focusing solely on the number of police arrests, or a tax agency focusing solely on amount of dollars collected. Such laser focus creates a perverse incentive that might 'tempt staff to harass individual citizens[and businesses] to increase these values,' giving way to unintended consequences. Lastly, comprehensiveness is contingent upon measurement resources available as well as any existing data problems. [4]
Challenging Outcomes to Measure:
[edit]- Prevention Programs (How does one measure the number of incidences prevented?)
- Basic Research and long range planning activities (Outcomes may take years to surface)
- Programs with anonymous customers (Ex: Hotlines)
- Programs in which major outcomes apply to a very small number of events
Control Systems in the Workplace
[edit]Companies encourage independence and innovation among employees in order to remain competitive, but in an effort to avoid unnecessary risk and control failures, companies must also put in place mechanisms to monitor employee progress. Included here are four major types of control levers or systems that enable managers to reconcile employee autonomy with effective control.
1) Diagnostic Control Systems
2) Belief Systems
3) Boundary Systems
4) Interactive Control Systems
- ^ "Program Management". Indiana University. Retrieved 20 September 2011.
- ^ Hatry, Harry P. (2006). Performance measurement : getting results (2nd ed. ed.). Washington: The Urban Institute Press. ISBN 9780877667346.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help) - ^ Hatry, Harry P. (2006). Performance measurement : getting results (2nd ed. ed.). Washington: The Urban Institute Press. ISBN 9780877667346.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help) - ^ Hatry, Harry. Performance Measurement.