Employee Performance, Satisfaction, and Commitment

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

In general, the performance appraisal is a recurrent process of evaluation of employees’ job performance which is primarily based on the quantity and quality of their output, communication skills, creativity, knowledge and competence, reliability, responsibility, and so on. There are a great number of performance appraisal methods, which are usually divided into two main types, namely, traditional and modern. For the past several years, the former has been actively ousting the latter, mostly due to its efficiency (Anstey, Fletcher, & Walker, 2017). Although modern real-time feedback also has certain disadvantages, the overall result of this change is positive.

Traditional Annual Evaluation Method

The traditional annual evaluation method is a technique used by managers to assess the performance of their employees for a particular fiscal year. This method was widely used in the twentieth century and earlier. However, nowadays, it is considered outdated and not used almost anywhere. The main reason for this is that it is inefficient and too subjective. The first is true because the evaluation occurs once a year, which is quite a long period for such an activity, as employees usually change their performance much more often and, besides, it can be either to the worse or to the better (College of Business – CSU, 2016a). The second is true because these traditional annual appraisals are usually based on a manager’s perception of an employee’s performance.

As a result, the assessment can be influenced by other factors which are not connected with employee performance. These factors include likeability, focus on employees’ previous successes and failures, personal prejudices, and others (“Traditional methods,” 2016). Thus, employees are often assessed subjectively instead of being evaluated objectively according to their real-time performance.

Modern Real-Time Feedback Coaching

Modern real-time feedback coaching was first introduced in the 1970s. Although it was very promising, most companies were reluctant to change their conservative approach to evaluating employee performance. Only at the end of the millennium, organizations began adopting this method and found out that it was much more efficient than their traditional annual evaluation. According to the statistics, ongoing feedback improves employees’ motivation and commitment, which are crucial for their overall performance (Kedenburg, 2015). Moreover, technological advancements allowed improving the process of providing feedback even more.

There are many benefits of the real-time feedback system. First of all, it constantly promotes learning using allowing managers to identify high and low performers. The second advantage is that this system eliminates recency bias, thereby taking into consideration every failure and success that happened in a particular period. Another benefit is that this system allows managers to recognize particular skills and attributes in their employees, such as work in collaboration, leadership and communication skills, risk-taking, and others (College of Business – CSU, 2016b). One more advantage of real-time feedback is that it makes monthly and annual reviews more accurate and objective. Additionally, employees always know what to expect from the reviews, as the recurrent feedback from their managers eliminates the element of surprise (Heller, 2017). Furthermore, much less time is spent on making reviews.

A Comparison Between Traditional and Modern Methods of Employee Performance Evaluation

As it was already mentioned, modern real-time feedback is more efficient than traditional annual reviews. Taking into account contemporary technological advancements, it is evident that traditional methods in this sphere are no longer relevant. The main reason for this is certainly the rarity of its occurrence, which does not correspond to the rapid development of information technologies and the fast pace of modern people’s lives (Anstey et al., 2017). Earlier, everything was slower, and the traditional method was quite appropriate.

The biggest advantage of the traditional method is probably its simplicity. Although the analysis of employee performance takes quite a lot of time, it happens only once a year, whereas, on real-time feedback coaching, much more time and other resources must be spent (Heller, 2017). Thus, it was probably not even necessary in the twentieth century and earlier to introduce a method of real-time coaching, as, at that time, the traditional annual evaluation was enough to control employee performance.

In my opinion, I support the method of real-time feedback coaching for all the reasons mentioned above. However, the most important reason is that this method places a much greater focus on employees’ individual needs rather than on their working capacity only.

Frederick Winslow Taylor’s Opinion on Real-Time Feedback Coaching

Frederick Taylor was a founder of the so-called scientific management, which is sometimes referred to as Taylorism. Taylor was obsessed with pursuing economic efficiency, mostly using maximizing employee performance (Sandrone, 2016). His ideas were widely accepted at the beginning of the twentieth century and improved later.

However, Taylor’s views of workers were sometimes very insulting, as he regarded them as slow-witted animals that needed good management to do their work well. Although he admitted that it is important to choose the right person for a particular job, and the better result they provide, the more payment they get, he was completely deprived of the feeling to pay attention to workers’ personal needs (Bell, 2012). Therefore, it is quite logical to assume that even though Taylor was obsessed with the improvement of efficiency, his condescending attitude towards workers would not allow him to like real-time feedback coaching.

Conclusion

Thus, nowadays, real-time feedback coaching is considered much more efficient than traditional annual appraisals. In the past, traditional methods were enough to control employee performance. However, now, although requiring more resources, real-time feedback coaching can increase not only employee performance but also their satisfaction and commitment to the job.

References

Anstey, E., Fletcher, C., & Walker, J. (2017). Staff appraisal and development. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Bell, R. L. (2012). Teaching present-day employees the value of scientific management. Supervision, 7(2), 5-8.

College of Business – CSU. (2016a). MHR 6451 – Bad performance evaluation [Video file]. Web.

College of Business – CSU. (2016b). MHR 6451 – Good performance evaluation [Video file]. Web.

Heller, M. (2017). Real-time, ongoing employee feedback: The perk that actually retains. Strategic HR Review, 16(3), 125-130.

Kedenburg, G. (2015). Why real-time feedback is the future of employee development? Web.

Sandrone, V. (2016). F. W. Taylor & scientific management. Web.

Traditional methods of performance appraisal. (2016). Web.

Click Here To Order Now!