Managing Employee Performance Essay

In the article under review, Hoogenboezem and Hoogenboezem (2005) discuss the introduction of performance measurement in the Dutch Police service since 2002. This phenomenon followed radical changes in Dutch political organization largely precipitated by the rise of politician Pim Fortuyn who had government performance on top of his political agenda. The Dutch government, like most of its Western counterparts had been cited for underperformance with regards to public service delivery. The government had frequently shifted this blame on non-performance of its civil servants. This was taken as a key political agenda in the run up to the 2002 elections in the Netherlands. Fortuyn’s argument was that government had refused to exercise control by holding public sector managers accountable and setting targets for them. The authors examine the Dutch political system. Traditionally, the system has thrived on consensus building. This had affected efficiency in performance within the public sector which gave rise to a ‘’political attention for performance measurement’’ (2005:571). They also investigate the collapse of the Dutch pillars of society, the nature of policing and the community policing approach in the Netherlands and conclude that performance measurement will eventually become ineffective as a performance enhancing instrument. This they ascribe to the fact that the whole process of targeting in the Dutch Police administration does not have a firm philosophical base. It is based on loose arguments of a loud politician and an electorate that wanted change at all cost. Importing management practices like performance targeting from the private sector to the public sector comes with complexities (Adcroft and Willis, 2005). This is manifest in the struggle to cope with t argets by the Dutch Police. Effect of Targets on Performance Measurement The consequence of the political waves in the Netherlands in 2002 was the setting of quantitative law enforcement targets for political heads of the Police force. Specific figures for the number of suspects to be prosecuted for public violence and juvenile crime, for example were set. It appears to me that the targets are the result of undue political pressure rather than a carefully thought through system of performance management. Performance management systems are implemented to produce tangible results for organizations based on their mission statement and strategic objectives. Performance measurement is only one component of a performance management system. There is no indication, at least from the journal article, that the due processes for establishing a performance management process, namely prerequisites, planning, execution, assessment, review and renewal/recontracting (Agunis, 2009:32) are followed in the Dutch Police example. The effect is the general cynicism towards tar geting by the Police and the public. Again, employees react differently to performance measurement. This requires that organizations must be able to predict employee reaction to targets and factor these reactions into the management process (Selden and Sowa, 2011). Feedback from the parties involved in the Dutch Police targeting differs hugely. Whilst one group (senior management) appear enthused about the targets, another group (the operational policemen) are aggrieved. This suggests lack of consultation of all stakeholders which is a key component to successful performance management; especially in the setting of targets and measurement criteria. The essence of policing is to make society safer. Any ‘’†¦system that will not make the Netherlands safer†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (Hoogenboezem and Hoogenboezem, 2005:573) is doomed to fail ab initio. Such a system lacks strategic congruence and becomes a public relations gimmick. This is the position expressed by some in Police leadership. However another group are inspired about getting more money ((Hoogenboezem and Hoogenboezem, 2005:573). The ‘’more money’’ factor will tend to obscure an impartial assessment of the scheme. This is also the case with Police chiefs expressing some support for targeting, with targets linked to reward in their case. Policemen at the operational level have problems with the targets because they make their jobs a routine; leaving them with few choices in the maintenance of law and order. The exercise of discretion appears to be of intrinsic value to the operational policeman. Where targets have placed a strict regiment on the use of discretion the intrinsic motivation in being a Policeman gets lost. An unmotivated Policeman could be a danger to society. Although officers in lower and middle management appear inspired about targets and their alignment to rewards, this is not necessarily a motivator for performance. Job enrichment and job enlargement have been recognised as essential motivators in the not-for-profit organizations (Selden and Sowa, 2011) and the Dutch politicians must recognise this. Any perception of unfairness in the Performance management system could lead to decreased employee commitment (Aguinis, 2009) and eventually undermine the whole system. In this regard the conclusion of the authors that the performance measurement in the Netherlands Police is a mixture of cynicism and a public relations ritual of signing contracts is validated. This is largely the result of it being a knee jerk reaction not involving employees in the determination of the entire process. Employee involvement helps translate targets into operational language that is understood by all participants in the process (Chamberlain, 2011) and bought into. Employee buy-in is essential for the success of every performance management system. Worst still is the fact that the new requirements of the Dutch Policeman under the present circumstance has not come with any training package. It is also not evident that systems of recruitment and selection have been amended to reflect the expected outcome in view of the radical changes in nature of the job. Conclusion In my opinion performance of Policemen should not be measured against outcomes. It should be exhibited in various agreed behaviours and programmes. Take the example of Washington State in the US where pperformance data indicated an increase in motorcycle accidents. Several Agencies like the Department of Licensing, Washington State Patrol, Traffic Safety Commission and the Department of Transportation, worked together to provide more education for motorcycle operators and manufacturers as well as stricter licensing. These measures (programs and behaviours) resulted in fewer accidents (http://www.agacgfm.org/research/downloads/CPAGNo23.pdf). The case for quantifying performance outcomes for the public sector does not have much merit in my opinion. References Aguinis, H. (2009) Performance management. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Chamberlain, L (2011). ‘Does your performance management need a tune-up?’ Strategic Finance. November. pp.18-20. Available at: http://content.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/pdf27_28/pdf/2011/5Y6/01Nov11/67179179.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=67179179&S=R&D=buh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLe80SeprY4wtvhOLCmr0mep69Ssam4SrWWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMOzprkmvqLJPuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA . Accessed on: 7 December 2011) Hoogenboezem, J. A., & Hoogenboezem, D. (2005) ‘Coping with targets: performance measurement in The Netherlands police’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54 (7), pp. 568–578. http://sfx7.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=International+Journal+of+Productivity+and+Performance+Management&volume=54&issue=7&spage=568&date=2005&issn=&eissn Seldon, S., & Sowa, JE (2010) ‘Performance management and appraisal in human service organizations: management and staff perspectives.’ Public Personnel Management. 40(3), pp. 251-262. Available at: http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=8b3e34b3-2e4c-4ffe-bcb5-f57ceb9d50f7%40sessionmgr113&vid=4&hid=120 (Accessed on: 7 December 2011) Adcroft, A., & Willis, R., (2005) ‘The (un)intended outcome of public sector performance measurement’ International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(5) pp. 386-400. DOI 10.1108/09513550510608859. Available at: http://www.alternativeminds.co.uk/AA4.pdf. (Accessed on: 28 December 2011)