The objective of the performance management policy and performance management procedure for top management is to regulate the effective implementation of performance management requirements for high-level management, as reflected in various legislation. But a few weeks pass, and you haven`t seen any improvement in Bill`s performance. It just can`t seem to follow through and the improvements you`ve discussed. What else can you do before you throw in the towel or go through a disciplinary path? A lot! Performance chords are one-way. If you simply decide what the person is going to do, you may be disappointed with the result. If the objectives are agreed upon, you are more likely to see progress. Take the time to develop goals together and be prepared to discuss the „why“ in detail. It is a common process — both parties have to agree to make it work. Then it is important to decide on the methodology that informs your performance agreement. For example, the most common approach is the dashboard, which divides the PA into four important delivery areas: finance, customers, internal processes and organizational learning. This approach ensures that performance is measured holistically when both financial and non-financial indicators are considered. Before defining the key performance areas (KPA) and key performance indicators (KPIs) that will be part of each scoreboard, it is important to understand what the organization`s key strategic objectives are, as they would inform the CEO of the performance agreement. In addition, the CEO`s dashboard would serve as the highest performance agreement within the organization, which must be cascading by the company to ensure that each employee`s KPA staff is somehow tied to the organization`s key strategic objectives.
This is not a simple or quick task, but necessary for effective performance management. Other important elements of a performance agreement are: Each agency uses performance agreements to define accountability for certain organizational objectives and to help its leaders adapt their day-to-day operations to the agency`s program objectives. Performance agreements such as performance evaluation plans define individual employees` performance expectations and set results-based goals. When the Agency adapts executive performance agreements to its objectives, leaders can better understand the relationship between their organization`s day-to-day operations and the achievement of the Agency`s objectives. This research article examined the approaches to new public management (NPM) that have been implemented to improve Thailand`s public sector. The study was conducted on the basis of the Performance Agreement (PA) as a management tool at the Ministry of Justice as a case study. Documentary research and in-depth interviews were conducted by three groups. The target group was: 1) a central administrator (office of the Public Sector Development Commission); 2) 11 middle managers in the Department of Justice; and 3) two experts who had been public sector advisors. The results were verified by Department of Justice staff who were not included in the target group. The data were analyzed through content analysis. Analysis of the data showed that the implementation of the document performance agreement was successful, but it did not reflect the achievement of the objectives of the line agencies, since: 1) the indicators developed within the Palestinian Authority did not meet the objectives of the Organization, as a result of the centralization of the authority to determine the framework for evaluation of the central agency and the lack of participation of the online agencies; 2) the PA frame is „one size fit all“; and 3) the instruments of the Palestinian Authority have not been used in accordance with the principles, which has led to a decrease in cooperation within the Agency, an unfair allocation of incentives, falsification of documents and setting targets too low to ensure the achievement of these objectives.
Neueste Kommentare