The manager’s task in evaluation the members of the workforce is sometimes hidden with some ethical dilemma. Axline (1996) said “managers and non-supervisory employees alike cite concern about "politics and lack of fair treatment, honesty, and truthfulness" in connection with the performance review” (p. 44). Thus, there is a need for managers to review their process of employee evaluation. Determining the most acceptable and ethical actions to be done is taken at hand.
Evaluating the employees’ performance has fared to satisfy the organization (Debrah, et al. 2003). Evaluation seeks to monitor and improve effectiveness by giving the employee feedback on his/her performance. This process should be carried out at regular intervals and should follow specific protocols to maintain objectivity in the evaluation process.
According to the article, the overall objective of high-ethics performance review should be to provide an honest assessment of performance and to mutually develop a plan to improve the individual's effectiveness. Cliché as it may seem but honesty is still the best policy with regards to this matter. The manager is obliged to do the task in communicating to the individual employees. Communication, of course, is essential in the process for it enhances coordination and related beneficial outcomes (Rahim and Buntzman 1988, p.198). Through communication, the manager expresses all the necessary matters of concern directly to the affected members of the organization. Furthermore, communication serves as the linking mechanism between the management and the employees.
The manager of the company should have a clear set of evaluation or assessment tools that will be used in all levels of the organization. This will maintain the impression of objectivity. Then, the process should either be carried out as an individual consultation or a face-to-face evaluation. A standard review mechanism conducted by a third party should be commissioned for the reassurance of fair play and objectivity in the evaluation (Spencer 2004). This concept has its strengths as defined by Caruth and Handlogten (1997) for it helps the manager to be able to identify individual present performance along with the employee’s future potential. Evaluation also assesses the weaknesses and the accompanying disciplinary actions. The strength is that it can determine which training aspect should be developed for the particular employee. It also increases the communication line between the employer and the employee because of the feedback and evaluation process. Thus, objective performance appraisal or ethical means of evaluation for that matter is necessary. With honesty and fairness in mind, the manager’s assessment is valid and credible.
Indeed, performance review is a matter of ethics.
References
Axline, LL 1996, “The Ethics of Performance Appraisal,” SAM Advanced
Management Journal, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 44+. COPYRIGHT 1996 Society for the Advancement of Management
Caruth, DL & Handlogten, GD 1997, Staffing the contemporary organization,
in Riley, D (ed.), PDAS 313: Fundamentals of staff development resource book 2, University of New England, Armindale.
Debrah, YA, Horwitz, FM, Kamoche, KN, & Muuka, GN (eds.) 2003,
Managing Human Resources in Africa, Routledge, New York.
Rahim MA & Buntzman GF 1988, “Supervisory power bases, styles of handling conflict with subordinates, and subordinate compliance and satisfaction,” Journal of Psychology, vol. 123, pp.195-210.
Spencer, JD 2004, Fundamentals of staff development, in Bhindi, N & Davies,
C (eds.), PDAS 313: Fundamentals of staff development resource book 1. University of New England, Armindale.
Evaluating the employees’ performance has fared to satisfy the organization (Debrah, et al. 2003). Evaluation seeks to monitor and improve effectiveness by giving the employee feedback on his/her performance. This process should be carried out at regular intervals and should follow specific protocols to maintain objectivity in the evaluation process.
According to the article, the overall objective of high-ethics performance review should be to provide an honest assessment of performance and to mutually develop a plan to improve the individual's effectiveness. Cliché as it may seem but honesty is still the best policy with regards to this matter. The manager is obliged to do the task in communicating to the individual employees. Communication, of course, is essential in the process for it enhances coordination and related beneficial outcomes (Rahim and Buntzman 1988, p.198). Through communication, the manager expresses all the necessary matters of concern directly to the affected members of the organization. Furthermore, communication serves as the linking mechanism between the management and the employees.
The manager of the company should have a clear set of evaluation or assessment tools that will be used in all levels of the organization. This will maintain the impression of objectivity. Then, the process should either be carried out as an individual consultation or a face-to-face evaluation. A standard review mechanism conducted by a third party should be commissioned for the reassurance of fair play and objectivity in the evaluation (Spencer 2004). This concept has its strengths as defined by Caruth and Handlogten (1997) for it helps the manager to be able to identify individual present performance along with the employee’s future potential. Evaluation also assesses the weaknesses and the accompanying disciplinary actions. The strength is that it can determine which training aspect should be developed for the particular employee. It also increases the communication line between the employer and the employee because of the feedback and evaluation process. Thus, objective performance appraisal or ethical means of evaluation for that matter is necessary. With honesty and fairness in mind, the manager’s assessment is valid and credible.
Indeed, performance review is a matter of ethics.
References
Axline, LL 1996, “The Ethics of Performance Appraisal,” SAM Advanced
Management Journal, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 44+. COPYRIGHT 1996 Society for the Advancement of Management
Caruth, DL & Handlogten, GD 1997, Staffing the contemporary organization,
in Riley, D (ed.), PDAS 313: Fundamentals of staff development resource book 2, University of New England, Armindale.
Debrah, YA, Horwitz, FM, Kamoche, KN, & Muuka, GN (eds.) 2003,
Managing Human Resources in Africa, Routledge, New York.
Rahim MA & Buntzman GF 1988, “Supervisory power bases, styles of handling conflict with subordinates, and subordinate compliance and satisfaction,” Journal of Psychology, vol. 123, pp.195-210.
Spencer, JD 2004, Fundamentals of staff development, in Bhindi, N & Davies,
C (eds.), PDAS 313: Fundamentals of staff development resource book 1. University of New England, Armindale.
No comments:
Post a Comment