Running Head: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Amanda Bryant
Performance Management
Siena Heights University

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Performance Management
According to Fried and Fottler (2008) Summit River Nursing Home (SRNH) is a 60-bed
nursing home. The hospital has a good reputation in the community and is well staffed (p. 278).
However, there have been some internal concerns such as: quality, communication breakdowns,
medication error, patient satisfaction, contract staff, inadequate teamwork, and the current rating
scale utilized. The current rating scale, 12-item graphic rating scale, does not include team
components. This researcher will proceed with the task of modifying the performance
management process by taking into consideration the concerns of Human Resources Director by
modifying performance management process; to improve team performance and contract
employees.
Contract staff are not integrated into the current performance management program,
which includes a performance appraisal. The distinct difference between performance appraisal
and performance management is a performance appraisal is a part the performance management
process. According to Fried and Fottler (2008) performance management comprises all of the
organizations activities involved in managing employees and the collection of performance
information. Performance appraisal is used to describe this process (pp. 257-258). According to
Maimako and Bambale (2016) performance appraisal is a process of systematically
evaluating performance and providing feedback upon which performance adjustments can be
made (p. 1). Completing a performance appraisal with allow contract staff to become a part of
SRNHs performance management program. Before performance appraisals can be completed on
contract staff, contracts should be negotiated.

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Considering patient surveys are already in place I will then take responses into
consideration while reviewing contracts, as patient satisfaction is important. Patient satisfaction
is important as well as employee engagement. According to Byrne, Peters, and Weston (2016)
although still striving to solidify its place in the nomological network of organizational
constructs, employee engagement (i.e., positive motivational state at work) has become a popular
construct characterized by high emotion and energy, and focused attention (p. 1). However,
employees must feel motivated to perform. When employees perform above the call of duty, the
next conversation is typically compensation. However, I do not feel compensation should be
discussed during a performance review.
Specific strategies I think should be considered include: including contract staff in the
performance manage process by utilizing tools such as multisource feedback (MSF) and 360
degree feedback. MSF and 360 degree feedback are formal ways an employee can receive
feedback from everyone in the organization. These tools are a great way to reexamine the culture
and also begin to create a team environment; by measuring responses. According to Kim et al.
(2016):
One rationale for using MSF is that feedback from multiple sources is more valid
than feedback from a single source (typically, the supervisor) and helps a target be
aware of his or her strengths and weaknesses, and motivates him or her to make
positive changes (e.g., reinforcing strengths and improving weaknesses) (p. 1).
As employees receive feedback from peers (in both tools) employees feel the need to take action.
As a result of taking action the employee becomes increasingly engaged. Which tool is selected

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

depends on goals of the organization. MSF and 360 feedback are very similar as both are not the
same as the performance management system, but are a part of needed feedback.
While performance management is a continuous process, an appraisal should be
completed every six months to keep employees on track with organizational goals. However,
employees should have the ability to prepare for their appraisals, and given the tools to do so. A
tool that can be utilized during this process includes multisource feedback (MSF). According to
Kim et al. (2016) MSF refers to a process whereby subordinates, peers, supervisors, and/or
customers provide recipients with feedback concerning their work behaviors
and/or performance (p. 1). With this in mind, it should come to no surprise to the employee
when (if needed) criticism is given. The timeframe to implement such process would depend on
organization goals. Most employers make major adjustments mid and toward the end of the year.
Both are times when directional strategies are revisited.
Obstacles I see in implementing my approach includes a prolonged contract negotiations
and topics of compensation; contract employees tend to be paid less than a regular employee.
The researcher will overcome the compensation problem by considering the advantages and
disadvantages to including the discussion of compensation during a performance management
review. According to Worrell et al. (2016) competition, a topic closely associated with
outstanding performance, continues to be a contentious topic (p. 1). If an employee has been
performing well, one advantage to including discussion of compensation during a performance
management interview is a fair and equitable compensation system may lead to higher levels of
employee performance (Fried & Fottler, 2008, p. 258). However, the researcher would say if the
employee is not performing well training should be the topic. Discussing compensation during a

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

performance review can have a negative effect. According to Fried and Fottler (2008) this
cynicism is clearly based in the reality that performance appraisals are traditionally punitive in
nature and particularly when tightly tied to employee compensation, have high emotional
content (p. 272). I will overcome the prolonged contract negotiation problem by gaining a better
understanding of how including contract employee in our performance management program
will effect SRNH.

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

6
References

Byrne, Z. S., Peters, J. M., & Weston, J. W. (2016). The struggle with employee engagement:
Measures and construct clarification using five samples. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 101(9), 1201-1227. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1794829636?accountid=28644
Fried, B., & Fottler, M. D. (2008). Human resources in healthcare: Managing for success.
Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.
Kim, K. Y., Atwater, L., Patel, P. C., & Smither, J. W. (2016). Multisource feedback, human
capital, and the financial performance of organizations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 101(11), 1569-1584. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1812943471?accountid=28644
Maimako, L. B., & Bambale, A. J. (2016). Human resource management practices and employee
job satisfaction in kano state owned universities: A conceptual model. Journal of
Marketing and Management, 7(2), 1-16. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1843743726?accountid=28644
Worrell, F. C., Knotek, S. E., Plucker, J. A., Portenga, S., Simonton, D. K., Olszewski-Kubilius,
P., & Subotnik, R. F. (2016). Competitions role in developing psychological strength and
outstanding performance. Review of General Psychology, 20(3), 259-271. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1807077930?accountid=28644