Monitoring Performance Matters

Curious corporate businesswoman skeptically meeting looking at small employee standing on table through magnifying glass isolated grey office wall background. Human face expression attitude perception
pathdoc/Shutterstock

Through the course of our Human Resources studies, we have learned that effective performance appraisal systems for employees depend on continuous feedback and constant monitoring. Good performance management on the part of the employer includes a process of employee engagement and should not be viewed as a singular, one-time only performance appraisal event.

High quality performance management systems, therefore,  require a very high level of commitment and involvement on the part of the employer. This can be difficult to implement, especially in a large workforce where employees are spread across all levels of the physical work-space. Most employers simply do not have the time or the resources that allow for such intense day-to-day performance management methods.

This is where technology can step in to provide much needed support. Humanyze, a U.S. based technology provider, has developed wearable technology that tracks employee speech levels, tone of voice and body movements. While seemingly intrusive, if implemented properly these devices allow for immediate feedback to employees about their own behavioural patterns. This type of self-monitoring may have an impact on performance levels, without the need for constant intervention on the part of an individual manager.

Click here to read an article on wearable technology.

Click here to read how wearable technology is linked to monitoring employee performance.

As noted in the second article, these devices allow for data analysis based on patterns of employee behaviours. The data analysis can be used to promote constructive changes in the workplace that create opportunities for increased performance resulting in increased productivity and reduced levels of stress.

All of these have a direct impact on the organization’s bottom line and, as we know, the better the bottom-line – the better the rewards for the organization’s humans.

Discussion Questions:

  1. From a Human Resources perspective, what benefits do wearable technology bring to support constructive performance management practices?
  2. What are the negative implications of wearable technology in the workplace?
  3. Would you be comfortable wearing monitoring technology in your current workplace?

 

Perilous Productivity

productivity chart sign on blackboard
woaiss/Shutterstock

In our strategic HR planning discussions, we focus heavily on the cost-benefit relationships of Human Resources operations to the organization. Using the human capital approach, the value that employees as a commodity bring into any organization is linked directly to the output that is produced for the organization. We assess employee value by ensuring that human productivity is constantly measured, evaluated and monitored as part of a best practice approach to human resources management.

It all makes sense from a pure HR planning perspective. When we move from theoretical planning to actual implementation, however, the human element of the human resources equation pops up again to remind us that we are always dealing with people, not just products.

In a recent research article the authors explore the negative impact of the incessant need modern organizations have to monitor employee productivity.

Click here to read the article.

As noted in this article, it seems that the Human Resources function has been trapped into measuring and promoting policies that contribute to increased employee anxiety. Increased employee anxiety leads to lower productivity and more employee dis-engagement. Are we, as HR professionals, responsible for contributing to the ‘mirage’ of successful productivity by avoiding the real implications of constant workplace pressure on our fellow human beings? In an effort to measure what people do, are we also contributing to the mechanism of who gets blamed when the results of what is measured go wrong?

Human Resources champions have fought long and hard for a seat at the corporate table. We argue that Human Resources has the strategic edge to brings the business numbers and the people numbers together so that decision-making produces organizational benefit. While our Human Resources champions do not want to give up that seat or that fight, we must be reminded of why we wanted to contribute to organizational success in the first place.

We represent the Humans in any organization. Human Resources must champion human achievement and organizational success, but not at the cost of worsening the human condition in the workplace.

Discussion Questions:

  1. What types of employee productivity measures do you think contribute to increased employee anxiety?
  2. Why would organizations (like the example of Volkswagen mentioned in the article) knowingly engage in the ‘misrepresentation’ of productivity data?
  3. In your opinion, does an ‘accountability culture’ breed a trust environment in the workplace? Why or why not?

Swan Song for the Public

By the time this blog is posted, the Canadian federal election will be a thing of the past.  One of the more interesting moments that happened during the election campaign was the suspension of a Federal employee, Tony Turner, for writing a song about Prime Minister Steven Harper.

Mr. Turner provides his perspective on what happened in an interview with MetroNews.

As with many things that did not go as planned during the recent election campaign, the suspension of Mr. Turner received international media and extensive social media coverage.

The suspension brings forward very interesting questions about the employment boundaries that may or may not exist for employees in the public service.  They are employees of the federal government, which is led by the Prime Minister of Canada.  There is generally an accepted understanding that employees should not cause harm to or malign the reputation of their employer in the public domain.  In the case of Mr. Turner, does this mean that he should not have made his personal political opinions public? On the other hand, were his actions significant enough to merit a suspension from employment?

It is not surprising that the union representing Mr. Turner filed a grievance in this case.   As for the outcome, Mr. Turner retired from his work with the public service sector, which means that there will be no formal resolution to this grievance.

While we all know what the outcome to the federal election was, we will never know what the outcome for Mr. Turner through his union, would have been.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Should public sector employees be subject to disciplinary action for voicing or engaging in personal political activities?
  2. What advice would you, as the HR Practitioner for the Prime Minister’s office, give to the Prime Minister in this case?
  3. From the employer’s perspective, what specific factors merited disciplinary action against Mr. Turner?
  4. Do you think employees in the public service have a ‘higher’ duty of responsibility to their employer? Why or why not?