Information and Knowledge Management www.iiste.

org
ISSN 2224-5758 (Paper) ISSN 2224-896X (Online)
Vol.3, No.4, 2014

Performance Management System: The Practices in the Public

Organization in the Developing Countries

Zulystiawati
Educational Management, Faculty of Education State University of Gorontalo, Indonesia
[email protected]
Abstract

The performance management system is an important tool to help organization to achieve its goal. Both
Individual skills and contributions and organizational objective measurement is needed to develop the important
element of the organization, which is human capital. Staffs are the critical factor in performance management
system, where well designed model of system will result strong management commitment and better employees’
performance which lead to organization’s success. With to proper use, performance management system will
remarkably beneficial to an organization, particularly in the management practices in public organization in the
developing countries.

Keywords: Performance management system, Public Organization, Developing Countries

I. Management Performance and Performance Management System

I.1. Performance Management (Introduction)

One of the important elements in the organizational orderliness of human resource management is performance
management. These following are some definition of performance management:

1. “Performance management is the means through which managers ensure that employee’ activities and
outputs are congruent with the organization’s goals.” ( Noe, et al, 2003: 69)

2. “ Performance management is a set of deliberate policies & practices design to maintain or improve the
performance of individual staff and through them, work group and organizations” (Hilyard, 2001: 22)

3. “ Performance management is the process of creating a work environment or setting in which people are
enabled to perform to the best of their abilities” (Heathfield, 2007: 8)

4. “Performance management system as a strategic and integrated process that delivers sustained success to
organization by improving the performance of the people who works in them and by developing the
capabilities of individual contributions and fears” (Armstrong, 2000, cited in McAdam, Hazlett, Casey,
2005: 20).

As seen above, the management performance stresses the individual and personnel’s abilities to perform the
activities within organization as the major element, in order to achieve the organization objectives as a unit of
work, as Harper and Vilnikas (2007) suggest that in order to improve the performance of individual in an
organization, the organization should connect the performance management’s factors like performance review or
appraisal into human resource planning, including job design, recruitment, and selection.

There are some reasons why the performance management is considered important to be applied in the
organization; the existence of the performance management will help the organization to face the dynamic and
competitive environment (Lee, 2006) in the globalization and free trade era; with implemented the management
of performance, the organization performance and management will be improved (Lee, 2006). Other scholars
suggest that the performance management will facilitate the organization in increasing the financial condition
(Nankervis, Compton & Baird, 2007), employees’ satisfaction will increase (Dean, 2007), and become one
preference to organizational control strategy (Fenwick & De Cieri, 2001).

126
Information and Knowledge Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5758 (Paper) ISSN 2224-896X (Online)
Vol.3, No.4, 2014

I.2. Performance management system

I.2.1. Overview of Performance Management System

Over the years, the scholars and experts find any tools to measure and manage the performance management,
and as result, some of them as Lee (2006) points out such as the performance pyramid (Linch & Cross, 1991),
The result and determinant Matrix (Fitgerald and Moon, 1996), The Balance Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton,
1996), The Consistent performance measurement system (Flapper et al, 2006), and the integrated performance
measurement system (Bitichi at al, 1997), which are incorporated to Performance Management System.

Generally, there are several goals of Performance management system, like provide the clear staff’s expectation,
improve the dual communication among the personnel and employer, identify the specific training and career
development needs for personnel and manager, provide the base of review of rewards, and develop the better
organizational culture based on performance to increase the performance of the personnel and organization.
Below is several techniques that can be used in the performance management as quote in Roy (2012, pg. 67).

a. “Balanced Scorecard: The Balance Scorecard is a strategic performance management framework that has been
designed to help an organization monitor its performance and manages the execution of its strategy. It develops
specific performance areas where employees are expected to succeed,

b. 360 Degree Performance Appraisal: It is a method that employees will give confidential and anonymous
assessments on their colleagues. It is also known as “multi-rater feedback” or “multi-source feedback” where
feedback about the employees’ performance comes from all the sources that come in contact with the employee
on his job. Six parties are involved in 360-degree appraisal. The parties are – top management, immediate
superior, peers/co-workers, subordinates, self-appraisal, and customers,

c. Six Sigma: It is a business management strategy, originally developed by Motorola in 1986. It seeks to
improve the quality of process outputs by identifying and removing the causes of defects (errors) and minimizing
variability in manufacturing and business processes. This methodology provides the techniques and tools to
improve the capability and reduce the defects in any process. It is a valuable tool for data analysis and
measurement of performance and improvement.

d. Employee Recognition System: It helps for motivating employees and makes them involved in more
responsible projects.

e. Performance Ranking Method: It is used to assess the working performance of employees from the highest to
lowest levels. Managers will make comparisons of an employee with the others, instead of making comparison
of each employee with some certain standards.

f. Management by Objectives: This is a method of appraising performance of employees through setting goals
jointly by managers and subordinates in terms of company goals. The concept is based on participation of each
and every individual”

As the concept of the performance management is continues growing through the years, Armstrong and Baron
(1998), highlight the Paradigm Shift, which suggested the movement from the system that organization applied
to the process orientation, where the organizations choose their own framework to be applied in their
management system. With this development, the developing countries started to introduce the performance
management system called New Performance Management. The small number of studies conducted and the
requirement of the change perspective to market based development, modernization of accounting and
information system, and management control. Some limitations that indicate the weaknesses of the developing
countries performance management system such as; lack of management skills and expertise, poor management
practices, ineffectiveness of bureaucratic system, and low productivity level (Hilyard, 2001).

I.2.2. Performance Management System’ Features and Frameworks

Wall (2007) points out the several core of performance management system which are functioned in delegating
the authority, developing the positive competition, developing choice, providing the proactive services to be
performance oriented, focusing on efficiency by customer driven. However, the performance management
system’s elements that adopted by the developing countries in general are privatization and downsizing (Wall,

127
Information and Knowledge Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5758 (Paper) ISSN 2224-896X (Online)
Vol.3, No.4, 2014

2007). Three critical success factors for performance management system as follow; alignment with
organizational goals, credibility, and integration (Anao, 2005); can be shown on table below:

Table 1.

Critical Success Factors in PMS

Alignment Credibility Integration

Line of sight between corporate and

Outcome sought by government CEO and Executive commitment
individual goal

Consistency with organizational Progressive and interactive

Review and simplicity
value approach

Client and stakeholders

Management buy-in Online delivery
expectation

Maturity of system Addressing the rhetoric-reality gap

Dealing with under performance

Reporting outcomes

Staff ownership of the system

(Adopted from Performance Management in the Australia Public Service, Anao: 2005)

The framework of performance management system is begun with the traditional framework by R.N. Anthony in
1965 in Harvard Business School, when he studied management planning and control system, then he found the
differentiation between management control, strategic planning and operational control, with broaden the scope
of the accounting information using the approach of managerial motivation and behavior (Otley, 1999).
Furthermore, Otley (1999), mentioned five points of developing the framework for organizational performances,
but before that, he stressed that the points might be normally reflected the managerial perspective, but they can
be modified according to organization need and the change that happens around the organization. The points are
key objectives, strategies and plans with the assessment or the measurement, target setting, information flows,
and reward/ punishment. These following are some example of performance management system frameworks:

128
Information and Knowledge Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5758 (Paper) ISSN 2224-896X (Online)
Vol.3, No.4, 2014

Figure 1.
A Model of the Strategic Management Process

External Analysis HR Implementation

•Opportunities •Recruitment
•Threats •Performance management
•Industrial relations
•Job analysis
•Job design
•Selection
•Employee learning and development
•Pay structure
•Incentives
•Benefits

Mission Goals Strategic Human Resources

Choice Needs
•Skills
•Behaviors
•Culture

Internal Human
analysis Resources Human Resources
• Strength Capability Actions
• Weaknesses • Skills •Behaviors
• Abilities •Results (productivity,
•Knowledge absenteeism
Turnover)

Emergent
strategies

129
Information and Knowledge Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5758 (Paper) ISSN 2224-896X (Online)
Vol.3, No.4, 2014

Figure 2.
A strategic model of management performance

Dynamic Performance
environme management
Performance
Human Human Performance review
Vision resource resources management Employee
Strategic strategy plan and strategies and counselling
business policies processes Employee
plan discipline
Key Absence
stakehold management
Termination

Strategy Implementation
Dynamic Strategy formulation
environme

(Adopted from Strategic Human Resources Management (4th Edition), Nankervis, Compton, & Baird,
2002)

Firm Performance
•Productivity
•Quality
•Profitability

Strategy
Evaluation

130
Information and Knowledge Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5758 (Paper) ISSN 2224-896X (Online)
Vol.3, No.4, 2014

Figure 3.

Framework for an Effective Performance Management System Design

Phase 1 Phase 2A
Consult regarding system Determining system objectives
objectives and performance Planning related, or
environment organizational

Phase 3
Phase 2B Design system feature and assess for
Assess performance consistency against other
management

Phase 4
Develop support materials & design
support and implementation strategy

Phase 5
Implement and monitor effectiveness

Phase 6
Evaluate

(Adopted from Contemporary Issues for Managing Performance in the APS, Katherine Hilyard, 2001)

The first and the second figure show the importance of the dynamic environment and the major elements of the
strategic plan with the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis, and the components
of the balance scorecard; stakeholders, financial, process, and learning & growth. The third figure shows the
deeper and more specific phases in framing the performance system design, by involving the major factors that
contributing the completion of the performance management system, as seen above, there are organization
objectives consulting phase, planning phase, developing phase, and evaluation phase, even they are still in the
general sense of whole process in performing the management system. Some scholars point out several elements
of performance management system, which are significant to organization strategy in implementing the
performance management system, such as; organization’s objectives and criteria, performance review with the
feedback, include the 360 degree feedback, merit ratings/ payment ratings, and dialogue/ discussion (Demirkaya,
2007; Bloom, 1999 in Fenwick & de Cieri, 2007; Dodo, 2007), performance appraisal and The Reward System
(Edwards et al, 2003), and organizational learning culture and development (Harrison, 2005).

II. Performance Management System in Public Sector

II.1. Background, Purpose, and Stakeholder Framework

The performance management system is considered brought the successful change in the western and develop
countries, however, the idea of implanting the same performance management if developing countries seek the
adjustment because the difference in the social and cultural environment between them. there are two main
purpose of the introduction of performance management system to developing countries as Radnor & McGuire
(2004) suggested that the existence of the performance management system is expected to improve public
services, through increased economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the service delivery system, and reinforce
the organization accountability with the intention that the public organizations are clearly held to account for the

131
Information and Knowledge Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5758 (Paper) ISSN 2224-896X (Online)
Vol.3, No.4, 2014

resources they used as well as the outcomes that achieved. In developing countries, particularly for the public
organization, the accountability is very important, because it can help the organization to control the abuse and
misuse of public authority, provide the assurance to respect the use of the public resource and adherence the law
and public service values, encourage and promote learning to pursue the continuous improvement in governance
and public management (Aucoin & Heitzman, 2000).

Public organization as the organization that provide the public services, does not put the main priority in gaining
the profit as much as it could, the organization, which is working for the public sector maximize the focus on
empowering every small potential resource for income generation for the public/ civic, differs with private
organization, which is optimizing the profit with less effort and finance . The implementation of the performance
management system in public organization are basically based on the general scene that public organizations
have been under pressured to improve the performance due to the current climate of management changes and
public sector reforms. Another background for the enforcement of the performance management system is tied to
the philosophy of new public management, and an assumption that public sector institutions could be more
successful by the application of private management techniques and processes. Performance management system
in public sectors has strong link with stakeholders, as Bendheim and Graves point out that all the factors that
involved in performance management system are influenced by the overarching effects on multiple stakeholders,
then supported by Bryson (1995) acknowledges that the success of public organization depends on the satisfying
of the key stakeholders according to their opinion of what is valuable, thus, the further action of developing the
performance management approach is needed to address the complexity and multiplicity of the stakeholders
(Fletcher et al, 2003).

The figure below is an example of connection between the performance management and stakeholders in the
public organization:

Figure 4.

Performance Management Framework that Integrates the Role of Stakeholders

Stakeholders identification and categorization

Stakeholders (1) Stakeholders (2)

Voices and Network Voices and Network

Stakeholders analysis Stakeholders analysis

Stakeholders scorecard Stakeholders scorecard

Integration of stakeholder based scorecard and

development of a differential strategy

(adopted from Performance Management in The UK Public Sector, McAdam, Hazlett, & Casey, 2005)

The figure above shows that the performance management system strategy is based on the ability of the public
organizations to recognize their stakeholders, analyze the role of the stakeholders for the organization

132
Information and Knowledge Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5758 (Paper) ISSN 2224-896X (Online)
Vol.3, No.4, 2014

performance and servicing process into the stakeholder’s scorecard in order to have the clear pictures of
organization decision regarding the performance improvement and development.

Case study examples:

1. The Department of Justice and Human Right the UK. It was a large government with
many stakeholders categories, such as policing and police reforms, security, prison
services, compensation for criminal damage and injuries, criminal justice, probation
service, legal and forensic services, and Human Right Commission. The department is
bound by a service delivery agreement, stating how government targets will be met and
how the department is using management tools to improve its overall performance in
line with prevailing government initiatives. Based on the framework, the organization
decides to develop its approach to performance management by combining the
stakeholders approach to performance measurement with a balanced scorecard
approach. A key element in developing and deploying scorecards for each stakeholder
category was establishing links to a new appraisal system.

(McAdam, Hazlett, & Casey, 2005)

II.2. Performance Management System Measurement and Feedback

The performance of an organization is evaluated with certain measurement, but what is measurement and why
the organization performance needs to be measured? Rador and Mcguire (2004) define performance
measurement as the act of measuring performance, and McAdam et al (2005) suggest the reason of measuring
the organization performance as the instrument of improvements in performance, whether the goals and
objectives have been achieved. The public organization formulate envisaged performance to indicate how the
performance can be measured by defining performance indicators (Bruijn, 2002), although it is difficult to the
outcome (final effect) which provide a complete picture, so normally, the measurement is specified in the direct
effects of output with limited picture, ensuring that products of services are defined, production or targets are
agreed with organization, and output is measured and reported annually (Bruijn, 2002).

Performance management has been the way to ensure administrative accountability, the meeting of standards and
the provision of value added services (Bratton and Gold, 2007). Traditionally, the performance management was
based on accountancy, turn over, cost and profit, underpin rational for control, at the present, the performance is
measured in order to manage them by using the strategic performance management tools to measure range of
values not just in the financial matter (Bratton and Gold, 2007). One of the suitable tools that public organization
in developing countries adopt is Balance Scorecard, which is a strategic measurement (Wang, 2006) that has a
variety of perspectives, namely; customer perspective, financial perspective, internal business perspective, and
learning & innovation perspective (Bratton and Gold, 2007; Wang, 2006; Nankervis et al, 2005). In the public
sectors, the public scorecards designed by Moulin (2002) has five perspectives as follows:

1. “ Strategic refers to the key performance outcomes reflecting why the service exists and what it hopes to
achieve”

2. “ Services is concerned with how the organization looks to service users and other key stakeholders”

3. “ Operational excellence refers to the effectiveness of process and of staff, and includes measures such as
staff satisfaction”

4. “ Financial refers to how well an organization manages its funds and keep costs down’

5. ‘ Innovation and learning looks at whether it is continuing to improve, learning from others, and creating
additional value for service users and other stakeholders”

(McAdam, Hazlett, and Casey, 2005:261)

133
Information and Knowledge Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5758 (Paper) ISSN 2224-896X (Online)
Vol.3, No.4, 2014

By using the balance scorecard, the objetives are fulfilled; help the management to focus on the specific strategic
objectives, promote the integration of strategic objectives and organizational perform, ensure the investment of
time and resource in activities are identified, highlight the importance of engaging in continuous process of
change and learning, and ensure compatibility of goals and rewards with organization as well. (Andrew et al,
2000, in Wang, 2006)

Another important element in performance management system is Feedback or feeding back performance
information. In performance management system, feedback remains integral to successful practices (Heatfield,
2007), which is distinct with two purposes as evaluation (provide the information about the work behavior and
outcomes and provide direction for correct actions) and development (provide opportunities for training and
development of employees) (Fenwick & de Cieri, 2001).

The feedback involves discussion on progress to both personal and organizational goals, both the employee and
the manager have equal opportunity to bring the information to the dialogue, multi-directional or 360 degree
feedback, data is gathered from customers, peers, direct reporting staff and managers, and occurs regularly
(Fenwick & De Cieri, 2001; Nankervis et al, 2005). Research shows that in Australia, 14% of the companies
adapted this method; for example Ampol, Big W, Citibank, Gillette, BP, Yellow Pages, Telstra, Qantas, etc.
(Nankervis et al, 2005). However, in fact, generally the leaders have tendency to avoid giving feedback to poor
performers, delay giving feedback, and distort feedback to make performance seems less negative (Yariv, 2006).
With performance management system, the ongoing feedback can be enhanced the productivity and assess
performance not personal characteristic (Fenwick & De Cieri, 2001)

III. Conclusion

Performance management system is important as it needed in facing the dynamic and competitive environment,
align with organization’s goals and objectives and continuously implemented and developed, particularly to
public organization in developing countries to keep the various perspective in measuring performances by using
the balance scorecard, completed with giving feedback to employees’ performance based on the multi-
directional information sources.

References:

ANAO. 2004. Performance Management in the Australia Public Service. Canberra, Australia: Australian
National Audit Office

Aucoin & Heintzman. 2000. The Dialectics of Accountability for Performance in Public Management
Reform, International Review of Administrative Sciences. Vol. 66. p. 45

Bratton, J. & Gold, J. (2007). Human resource management: Theory and practice (4th ed.). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan

Bruijin, H. (2002). Performance measurement in public sector: strategies to cope with the risk of the
performance measurement. The International Journal of Public Sector Management. Vol. 15, No. 6;
ABI/INFORM Global p.578

Dean, J. 2002. Implementing Performance Management: A Handbook for School. London: Routledeg
Falmer

De Waal, A. A. (2007) is performance management applicable in developing countries? The case of

Tanzania College. International Journal of Emerging Market Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 69 – 83

Fenwick, M. & De Cieri, H. (2001). Performance management: Linking strategy and human resources.
Working Paper Vol.10, No. 1; Monash University, Faculty of Business and Economy

Harper, S. & Vilnikas, T. 2007. Determining the Impact of an Organization’s Performance Management
System, Asia pacific Journal of Human Resources. Retrieved 20 August 2007 from
http://apl.sagepub.com

134
Information and Knowledge Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5758 (Paper) ISSN 2224-896X (Online)
Vol.3, No.4, 2014

Heathfield, S. 2007. Performance appraisal don’t work – what does? The Journal for Quality and Participation
Vol. 30, No. 1. ABI/INFORM Global p. 6

Hilyard, K. 2001. Contemporary issues for managing performance in the APS. Canberra Bulletin of Public
Administration No.102, pp. 22 – 26. Retrieved on September 27, 2007, from
http://www.admin.utas.Edu.au/hr/staff/per_mgmg/pm-ext-review_2001.pdf

Lee, N. 2006. Measuring the performance of public sector organizations: a case study on public school in
Malaysia. Journal of Measuring Business Excellence Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 50-64

McAdam, R., Hazlett, S. & Casey, C. 2005. Performance management in the UK public sector: Addressing multi
stakeholder complexity. International Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 256
– 273

Nankervis, A., Compton, R. & Baird, M. 2005. Human resource management: strategies and processes. (5th
ed.). Victoria: Nelson Australia Pty Limited.

-------------------------------------------------------. 2002. Strategic Human Resource Management (4th ed.). Victoria:

Nelson Australia Pty Limited

Radnor, Z. & McGuire, M. 2004. Performance management in the public sector: fact or fiction?
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management Vol. 53, No. 3;
ABI/INFORM Global p. 245.

Stone, R. J. 2006. Managing Human Resource. Miltion, Queensland: John Wlly & Sons

Yariv, E. 2006. ‘Mum effect’: Principals’ reluctance to submit negative feedback. Journal of Managerial
Psychology Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 533 – 546

Wang, J. 2006. Corporate strategic management and business re-engineering efforts analyzed by the
balanced scorecard model. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, Vol.10, No. 1;
ABI/INFORM Global p. 102

135