PRINCIPLES OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Do a Performance Improvement Analysis
Measure the frequency of behavior (what the individual says or the physical movements made) and the outputs (the physical evidence of completed work produced by those behaviors) prior to any management change. This analysis can be done for just one behavior and output or for many by job category, department and organization. Through this analysis, one measures present performance, establishes standards, specifies why behavior is deficient, calculates the net economic value of improvement after the cost of solutions, and places them in priority order. The result of this analysis is identification of potentially high-payoff behaviors and outputs that can be improved - an important first step, because, surprisingly, key behaviors and outputs are often overlooked or undervalued in organizations.
Introduce the procedures used in Performance Management and quantify the amount of change that occurs in specific time periods. Because the investment in changing behavior is often very low and the economic payoffs may be high, the potential high return on investment usually excites top management Be specific
Describe and communicate desired performances and the standards for judging them in terms that are measurable, observable and objective. A description of the events that are signals prompting the response should be included. In training, coaching, measuring performance, feeding back performance data, conducting a performance appraisal, writing procedures, and delivering positive reinforcement, it is essential to be specific. Alas, if the language used is vague, the desired behavior may not occur.

Measure
For any performance shown by the analysis to have sufficient economic value to an organization, measure the frequency of the performance against the desired standards. While most organizations measure some performance, there are, unfortunately, many key outputs and behaviors that are not measured.

Give Feedback
Provide feedback on performance to the individual involved and to the individual's manager, supervisor, or group leader, rapidly-preferably immediately-with sufficient information to allow for self-correction. Too often, feedback systems for many key behaviors and outputs are either absent or flawed.

Deliver Positive Consequences
Deliver to each individual positive consequence immediately after completion of the performance of the desired behaviors and outputs. The frequency of an individual's behavior is affected by the consequences that follow it. If the consequences are positive to that individual, the behavior tends to increase; if they are negative, the behavior tends to decrease. Consequences should be delivered for as long as the performance is desired, or until naturally occurring consequences are strong enough to support the behavior. How frequently you provide positive consequences is determined by how often the behavior occurs, the phase of behavior change you are in (causing the first new behavior to occur, changing its frequency, or maintaining it) and the pattern of responses you desire (steady, maximum output, peak for certain periods.

Unfortunately, in many organizations the wrong consequence system is in place. Consequences of desired behavior are often negative or neutral. Undesired behavior may be rewarded. The reinforces are badly delayed. They are delivered only on a group basis (annual company-wide profit sharing). The rewards are short-lived for behavior that is desired long-term. And almost always the positive reinforcement is too infrequent.

MONITORING AND EVALUATING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Performance measurement analyzes the success of a work group, program, or organization's efforts by comparing data on what actually happened to what was planned or intended measurement. While, Performance management uses performance information to manage organizational capacity and processes: for example, to review programs; assesses and revises goals and objectives; progress against targets; conduct employee evaluations; and formulate and justify budgets. Performance measurement is needed as a management tool to clarify goals, document the contribution toward achieving those goals, and the benefits received from the investment in each program. Therefore, performance measurement (management for results) seeks to assess, verify and demonstrate results, while performance management (management by results) focuses more on experimentation, innovation, process, learning and responsiveness. Thus, performance management helps set agreed-upon performance goals, allocate and prioritize resources to meet those goals, and report on the success in meeting those goals.

Monitoring is defined as a continuing function that aims primarily to provide the management and main stakeholders of an ongoing intervention with early indications of progress, or lack thereof, in the achievement of results. An ongoing intervention might be a project, program or other kind of support to an outcome. It provides managers and stakeholders with regular feedback on program performance.

Evaluation on the other hand, provides a judgment based on assessments of relevance, appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of development efforts. It involves a rigorous and systematic process in the design, analysis and interpretation of information to answer specific questions. It highlights both intended and unintended results, and provides strategic lessons to guide decision-makers and inform stakeholders. Though monitoring can provide critical inputs to evaluation by way of systematic collection of data and information, yet an evaluation system serves a complementary but distinct function from that of a monitoring system within a performance management framework.
The evaluation of results should be anchored on the following aspects: o Period of Evaluation - The evaluation covers the entire agreement period of one financial year. o On methodology of determining performance as agreed during the determination of the agreement. o Focus of Evaluation -The evaluation should target the performance of the institution rather than that of the top management. o Evaluation should preferably be carried out by the independent assessors.
The evaluation should be undertaken by an independent entity to ensure objectivity and integrity to both the process and the results o To ensure controllability of resultant outcomes the results should be owned by both the institution and the top managers, with the latter taking greater responsibility.

Choice of evaluation criteria
The criteria for evaluating performance will have been agreed during negotiations. During the development of the performance agreement a number of other issues pertaining to evaluation will also have been addressed. The critical ones include weights given to the various criteria, criteria value and approaches to developing composite scores.

Weighting the Evaluation Criteria
During the negotiations on the performance targets, agreement will have been reached on
Weights to be accorded to each criteria depending on the importance attached to it by the principal and the institution. For example, the financial indicator will tend to be given greater weight in business organizations compared to public service delivery institution. During the evaluation stage, it is advisable the weighting that was agreed earlier will be used.

Criteria Value
The other important point to consider is the criteria value which distinguishes merit levels of performance for each criterion. Good practice from organization that have instituted PMS successfully would suggest the adoption of a five point scale as indicated in the table below

Table that show attributes for Determining Performance

1. Excellent any significant achievement above the agreed target

2. Very Good Achievement of the agreed target

3. Good Performance below agreed target but above last year’s achievement

4. Fair Performance equal to last year’s achievement

5. Poor Performance below last year’s achievement