How to measure employees’ performance Essay

ambition of strategies incorporated amongst brasss is a tell-tale whereby the former everyiance is performing admirably efficient and hard-hitting finished well formulated resources parceling on its outline. Of the many decisions a confederation must face to achieve triumph is how to measure employees exploit and how to reward them (Kleiner and Gautreau 2001).For the clean wave anxiety accounting selective information arrangement, it give the sack non merry on financial measure work outly because counseling basin manipulate such(prenominal) data by cutting cost, drop less and hence forth. The accounting system requires a mix of non-financial and financial data to give a much equilibrate view of firms overall carrying into action (Bushman et al. 1996). look into by Cumby and Conrod, 2001 indicates that non-financial information is highly set-relevant for knowledge-based industries and demonstraten as an effective animate beingness to evaluate an academ ic organization and install accountability to government and the public (Dorweiler and Yakhou 2005). contemporary non-financials could akinwise predict organizations future financial functioning (Smith 2005 Amaratunga et al. 2001). distant usual performance amounts system decades ago, more(prenominal) eventfully now, is to measure performances relative to organizations goals and strategies. Amongst former(a) key issues in the tuition of performance measurement rotating shafts in past decades direct been quandaries pertaining client loyalty. The emerging new genesis is more educated with their customer rights thus, more demanding. Declining customer loyalty is due to gigantic choices. Hence, corporations prolong to counselling dodging and manner to not merely selling products/services, just now also serving customers ( try for and Fraser 2001).Moreover, there has been a need to increase firms thou of innovation. Competitions begin proliferated and firms must const antly refresh their strategies and methods generating new business concepts and care fores while coping with the ever-changing nature of technology (Kaplan and Norton 2001). Additionally, prices ar fall and costs ought to reduce to remain matched and profitable. Hence, operation costs argon challenged (Inman 2000). Furthermore, able people are hard to harness even harder to attract. Firms then buzz off to ply a challenging work surroundings that enables personal groomment (Hope and Fraser 2001). Large businesses were spark advance and performing well financially still by early 80s they were displaced as trade leaders as competitors vie by quality, innovation, etc (Anthony 1998 cited by Kleiner and Gautreau 2001).Managing intellectual capital letter or Knowledge worry, is vital to gain emulous advantage at this era. Knowledge management being a long-term strategy, development of BSC helps the caller to align its management processes and focuses the broad(a) organi zation to implement it (Arora, 2002). By implementing importee turning the scorecard into a true(a) management system and sustaining the system (Rohm and Halbach 2006). With BSC, nonphysical assets are revalued (Marr and Adams 2004) while above issues have been supplementressed also. The scorecard in truth balances external measures with the inwrought measures, financial with non-financial information and short-run with long-run performance drivers (Johnsen 2001 Cobbold and impartialityrie 2002a). dodge of firm in BSC is matched between internal capabilities and external relationships (Kay 1993 cited by Johnsen 2001). Strategy executing is balancing internal and external demands. circumspection control and performance measurement are concerned with decision relevance, thus, performance indicators on the BSC are important to managers (Mayston 1985 cited by Johnsen 2001). information and product post in BSC can sustain efficient employees while shareholders and customers p ostulate are met by realigning values and sustaining nigh customer relationship in the customer perspective in BSC. Besides, business processes are innovated to keep up with the increasing pace of market uncertainties. BSC helps staff understand more, contrary before, how they could contribute to the strategic success of the organization as well as turn out to be a of import tool in linking vision and strategy to cursory actions (CIMA 2001).BSC appears to be very effective and valuable for a divisional manager in a large US company (Mouritsen et al. 2005). The BSC has definitely helped in daily training activities for different industries. The strength of the scorecard is that it has observed the reasons due to its balanced-nature (Carmona and Gronlund 2003). In higher acquire institutions, the European Foundation for Quality attention was employ as performance measurement, do not reflect interests of all stakeholders and not linked to strategic management. Studies show th at BSC is adopt instead (Cullen et al. 2003). Hotels also rely on non-financial and financial indicators with increasing confidence in strategic issues (Harris and Mongiello 2001). By using BSC, organizations can also minimize the negative consequences of peril (Scholey 2006) and identify cost reduction opportunities, resulting in overall improvement (Anand et al. 2005).Albeit Cobbold and Lawrie, 2002a claimed BSC to be complete as no additional perspective of believed worth is added, in reality, variations in introductory BSC are common some add a fifth perspective such as stakeholders, economic factors (Rohm nd master copy and Shanahan 2006). Some express skepticism round the claimed positive results and commented that BSC is just a egress crunching-exercise by accountants or just some other latest management fad (Angel and Rampersad 2005). Norreklit, 2000 argued that 4 perspectives do not accommodate all intangible assets, changing the BSC framework may put the causal l ogic of BSC into seek (cited by Marr and Adams 2004). She also argued that the BSC is not a strategic control baby-sit because of its inflexibility and static focus (Lord et al. 2005). BSC has also been criticized because it is diverge towards shareholders and fail to address to employees and suppliers (Smith 2005). Hoque, 2003 states that with wide ranges of measures, may lead to information overload.But findings show that BSC is not perceived to be a fad (Lord et al. 2005). There also appears to have no cause and effect impaired organizational behavior as claimed, the lonesome(prenominal) causal is the improved performance in one perspective leads to an increase in another (Lord et al. 2005). BSC is maturing and approached because of its flexibility (Lord and Shanahan 2006 leger et al. 2006). It has been argued that BSC does conceptualise employee satisfaction through the learning and growth perspective (Hoque 2003). Numbers of performance measures used were satisfactory and information overload was cut across through BSC (Yeniyurt 2003 McWhorter 2003 Arora 2002).However, BSC experiences difficulty in linking performance measures to strategy (Lord et al. 2005). Other issues include it does not tackle human resource and uncertainties issues usually done in PESTEL analysis (Smith 2005). In recent years, the Porters sham had made its debut to help managers develop and implement long-term strategy (Sims 2001). The model is used to gain competitive advantage over another but does not define for the strategic unit or as a corporation (Sims 2001). It also does not take into account the kinetics of markets which is rapidly changing. Another development adopted by large number of companies is the economical Value Added EVA, which includes the cost of capital, hence creating value but was heavily criticized for not being different from traditional methods (Yeniyurt 2003).The Skandia Navigator SN was by and by developed to measure intellectual capital by adding human perspective to the financial, customer, process and learning perspectives (Roslender and Fincham 2001 Shaikh 2004). Although this opened new research fields on intellectual capital, the SN lacks incorporating financial and non-financial measures which is required to provide make better performance measurement (Scarbrough and Carter 2001). Works have been done to modifying the traditional budgeting system-Beyond Budgeting Round circumvent BBRT emerged coping faster with changes and uncertainties of product and strategy lifecycles leading to lower costs and value creation (Hope and Fraser 2001). Management By Objectives MBO by Drucker, 1954 is found consistent with BSC-retained emphasis on achieving financial objectives, focusing on merchandise and customers and pursuing innovation (Johnsen 2001). MBO is more unrestricted but lacks a valid performance measure while BSC is focused (Anand et al. 2005).BSC role is higher than other management tools like TQM or ABC (Hen dricks et al. 2004). BSC initially was a performance measurement tool, after placing strategy into it, BSC evolved to a strategic performance measurement system, illustrating flexibility and maturity (Bible et al. 2006 Cobbold and Lawrie 2002). Failure to focus attention and commit onto scorecard management and communicating them are reasons BSC whither and die albeit how prosperous the tool has been (Richardson 2004 cited by Hendricks et al.2004). In conclusion, it is important to realize the limitations of BSC. However, successful implementation by managers would bring about many benefits.Amaratunga D, Baldry D and Sarshar M (2001) Process Improvement through carrying into action Measurement, Work Study, 50 5, p. 179-188Anand M, Sahay B and Saha S (2005) balance placard in Indian Companies, Vikalpa diary for end Makers, 30 2, p. 11-25Angel R and Rampersad H (2005) Do cards Add Up?, CA Magazine, p. 12-18Arora R (2002) Implementing KM-A Balance carte advent, Journal of Knowl edge Management, 6 3, p. 240-249Bible L, Kerr S and Zanini M (2006) The fit lineup Here and Back, Management method of accounting Quarterly, 7 4, p.18-23Bushman R, Indjejikian R and Smith A (1996) CEO Compensation The Role of someone death penalty Evaluation, Journal of be and Economics, 21 2, p. 161-193Carmona S and Gronlund A (2003) Measures vs. Actions the equilibrize Scorecard in Swedish Law Enforcement, International Journal of Operations and production Management, 23 12, p. 1475-1496Cobbold I and Lawrie G (2002) The development of the Balance Scorecard as a strategic Management Tool, cover presented at the PMA Conference, 17-19, July, BostonCobbold I and Lawrie G (2002a) Classification of Balance Scorecards Based on their Intended Use, paper presented at the PMA Conference, 17-19, July, BostonCIMA (2001) The fit Scorecard-An Overview, CIMA Technical Briefing, Harvard origin School Press, USACullen J, Joyce J, Hassal T and Broadbent M (2003) Quality in Higher readi ng from Monitoring to Management, Quality Assurance in Education, 11 1, p. 5-14Cumby J and Conrod J (2001) Non-financial arrangeance Measures in the Canadian Biotechnology persistence, Journal of knowing gravid, 2 3, p. 1469-1930Dorweiler V and Yakhou M (2005) Scorecard for Academic brass instrument actance on the Campus, managerial Auditing Journal, 20 2, p. 138-144Harris P and Mongiello M (2001) Key Performance Indicators in European Hotel Properties General Managers Choices and alliance Profiles, International Journal of Contemporary cordial reception Management, 13 3, p. 120-127Hendricks K, Menor L and Wiedman C (2004) The equilibrise Scorecard To Adopt or not to Adopt?, Ivey Business Journal, 11/12, p. 1-9Hope J and Fraser R (2001) Figures of Hate, financial Management, February Issue, p. 22-25Hoque Z (2003) Total Quality Management and the balance Scorecard Approach A Critical Analysis of their Potential Relationships and Directions for research, Critical Perspectiv es on news report, 14, p. 553-566Inman M (2000) The fit Scorecard, ACCA Students Newsletter, February Issue, p. 37-41Johnsen A (2001) Balanced Scorecard Theoretical Perspectives and Public Management Implications, Managerial Auditing Journal, 16 6, p. 319-330Kaplan R and Norton D (2001) Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to Strategic Management Part 1, account Horizons 15Kleiner B and Gautreau A (2001) modern Trends in Performance Measurement Systems-The Balanced Scorecard Approach, Management investigate News, 24 3/4, p. 153-156Lord B and Shanahan Y (2006) Management Accounting in the Corporate Sector Recent Research, Chartered Accountants Journal, 3, p. 29-31Lord B, Shanahan Y and crapper M (2005) The Balanced Scorecard A New Zealand Perspective, Pacific Accounting Review, 171, p. 49-77Marr B and Adams C (2004) The Balanced Scorecard and Intangible Assets Similar Ideas, Unaligned Concepts, criterion Business Excellence, 8 3, p. 18-27McWhorter L (2003) Does the Balanced Scorecard Reduce Information plume?, Management Accounting Quarterly, 4 4, p. 23-27Mouritsen J, Larsen H and Bukh P (2005) Dealing with the Knowledge delivery Intellectual Capital versus Balanced Scorecard, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6 1, p. 8-27Rohm H (nd) A Balancing Act, Perform Magazine, 2 2, p. 1-8Rohm H and Halbach L (2006) A Balancing Act Sustaining New Directions, Perform Magazine, 3 2, p. 1-8Roslender R and Fincham R (2001) mentation Critically about Intellectual Capital Accounting, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 14 4, p. 383-398Scholey C (2006) Risk and the Balanced Scorecard, CMA Management, 6/7, p. 32-35Shaikh J (2004) Measuring and Reporting of Intellectual Capital Performance Analysis, Journal of American Academy of Business Cambridge, 3, p. 439-448Scarbrough H and Carter C (2001) Towards a Second propagation of KM?-The People Management gainsay, Education and Training, 43 4/5, p. 215-224Sims A (2001) Generating Str ategic Options, CIMA Insider, September Issue, p. 24-26Smith M (2005) The Balanced Scorecard, Financial Management, February Issue, p. 27-28Yeniyurt S (2003) A Literature Review and consolidative Performance Measurement Framework for multinational Companies, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 21 3, p. 134-142