Employment Relationship

 

Training and development

 

Research also shows that interventions that use integrative methods for encouraging and learning from diverse cognitive perspectives have a significant impact on organizational performance (Van de Ven et al., 2008). (Beechler and Woodward, 2009)

As Williams (1998) defined it, ‘learning is goal directed, it is based on experience, it impacts behavior and cognition, and the changes brought about are relatively stable’. Honey and Mumford (1996) explained that: ‘Learning has happened when people can demonstrate that they know something that they did not know before (insights, realizations as well as facts) and when they can do something they could not do before (skills)’. Mumford and Gold (2004) emphasized that: ‘Learning is both a process and an outcome concerned with knowledge, skills and insight.’

According to the Harrison (2005) There are four types of learning:

 1. Instrumental learning – learning how to do the job better once the basic standard of performance has been attained. Helped by learning on the job.

 2. Cognitive learning – outcomes based on the enhancement of knowledge and understanding.

 3. Affective learning – outcomes based on the development of attitudes or feelings rather than knowledge.

 4. Self-reflective learning – developing new patterns of understanding, thinking and behaving and therefore creating new knowledge (Harrison, 2005)

Learning is a continuous process that not only enhances existing capabilities but also leads to the development of the skills, knowledge and attitudes that prepare people for enlarged or higher-level responsibilities in the future (Armstrong,2006) further contribute by Armstrong, (2005) There are two type of learning Formal and informal learning. Following Table 1:1 detailed a comparison on two leering meteors.

 

Table 1:1 Characteristics of formal and informal learning

Source: (Armstrong, 2006)

Personal development planning is carried out by individuals with guidance, encouragement and help from their managers as required. A personal development plan sets out the actions people propose to take to learn and to develop themselves. They take responsibility for formulating and implementing the plan, but they receive support from the organization and their managers in doing so. Figure 1:3 detailed The purpose is to provide what Tamkin et al (1995) call a ‘self-organized learning framework.

 

 Figure 1:3 Stages in preparing and implementing a personal development plan

Source: Tamkin et al (1995)

 

Adapting a systematic Improvement (Toyota KATA)

 

Figure: 1:4 provide a concept overview of the lean business system reference model that Toyota company inherited. The purpose of the reference model is an architectural framework of integrated concepts, processes, and best practices that is used as a guide to communicate, educate and create as hared understanding of a holistic, enterprise wide lean business system.  (Burton, 2015) further detailed that the model helps organizations to design, integrate, adapt, and systematize improvement in a variety of different industry environments, business requirements, situational conditions, cultures and industry segment. Toyota production system is the success behind the Toyota and with Lean and continuous improvement in general (Burton,2015).

 

 Figure: 1:4 Lean Business System Reference model (Toyota)

Source: Global KATA (Burton, 2015)

 

Performance Apprises

 

According to Oberg (2006) Performing Appraisal helps to provide backup data for management decisions concerning merit increases, transfers and dismissals. It also helps to improve organization development by identifying people with promotion potential and pinpointing development needs and should lead directly to increased productivity. An effective Performance Appraisal helps keep people’s attention focused on the work results they are trying to achieve. Oberg (2006), states further that Performance Appraisal helps in salary administration. The results of appraisal can be used to determine both salary increases and bonus payments. It also facilitates career development because their results can serve as a base for coaching and counseling.

Delpo (2005) states that Performance Appraisal motivates employees by providing feedback on how they are doing. Carry out helping supervisors to observe their subordinates more closely and to do a better coaching job. Further Armstrong and Baron (2004) reported that the limitations of performance appraisal, enables managers to manage effectively, that they ensure the team they manage know and -understand what is expected of them and to have skills and ability to deliver on these expectations.

The faults of appraisal systems are many and widespread, Harvey (1994) pointed out four failings; First it does not meet all needs, second a top-down, single source appraisal is inherently problematic, third developmental feedback given during the appraisal interview tends to get lost or overshadowed, fourth effective performance appraisal require skills that many managers do not have sufficiently. Therefore, the traditional approach to performance appraisal focused on evaluating performance for the purposes of promotions, transfers, rewards, feedback, diagnosing training needs and the like, and was generally bound to remuneration. The disadvantage of this was that "dealing with salary generally overwhelmed and blocked creative, meaningful, or comprehensive consideration of performance goals" (Hansen, 2002).

Overall, the traditional performance appraisal endeavored to appraise past and current performance, however, these appraisals were often viewed as an opportunity to criticize rather than give recognition or meaningful support for performance improvement (Performance Appraisal Services, 2002).

360 Degree Feedback.

 

Utah (2006) pointed conclude feedback differs significantly from performance reviews because, whereas performance appraisal is typically used to determine the rewards employees will receive, 360 degrees’ feedback is used to facilitate employee improvement and development

·         360 degrees’ feedback is used to facilitate employee improvement and development

·         Performance appraisals give employee feedback on their results - what they have already done. In contrast, 360-degree feedback is aimed at how they go there, how

they do their job thus instead of getting feedback on their “bottom line” employees receive information on critical skills needed for their jobs.

·         Unlike performance appraisal, 360 degrees’ feedback gives employees ratings from several sources including their bosses. They often uncover differences in how these people rate them and between “other” ratings and self-ratings

·         The data provided by 360-degree feedback is both comprehensive and specific. A lot of careful work goes into specifying the critical skill from jobs and the definition of the performance levels for each.

·         Though the 360-degree feedback process employees receive “: normative feedback” that is they get information on how they compare to people in their jobs.

·         Sixth, employees are completely responsible for what they do with the results of the 360-degree feedback. They make self-directed action plans and communicate them to others in their own way.

·         Employees receive a lot of information on themselves, more than probably they have ever received before. Feedback sessions help them to make sense out of all their data and to develop their plans for improvements

 

Google’s 360-degree review process serves the purpose of giving managers a holistic picture of their direct reports, since they may carry a biased and restricted impression of reports’ impact and behavior for contribution of the organization (de Mello, 2016). The process starts with a back-and-forth between employee and manager, so as to pick a representative, fair sample of peers to participate. The employee suggests a shortlist, that is discussed and validated with the manager, taking into account how close the peer was to the employee’s contributions, and how well she can assess the employee’s performance. Peers are expected to give assessments in three different media: strengths, or things that the person should keep on doing, and weaknesses, or things that the person should consider working on/developing; rating each other on the five criteria discussed above; and finally, commenting on the reviewee’s contribution to specific projects. These two open-ended fields (positives and negatives) have evolved from a larger form a few years ago. Laszlo Bock, Google’s SVP, People Operations, observes in his Work Rules that the simplification reduced aggregate time spent on this step by more than 25%, while improving the share of participants who perceived it as useful from 49% to 75% (de Mello, 2016).

Key Results (de Mello, 2016).

·         increase revenues by 10%

·         Reduce costs by 3%