Business Leadership and Market Competitiveness by Andrée Marie López-Fernández

Author:Andrée Marie López-Fernández
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783030033477
Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Strategic goal indicators are measurements commonly utilized as standards for individual performance evaluations (Kaufman 1988) to establish each collaborator’s degree of competency (Bussin 2013). Measuring is compulsory to determining performance (Popova and Sharpanskykh 2010) based on SGA. For an indicator to be measurable, it must be defined and verifiable. Furthermore, for it to be objective it must be solely dependent on the collaborator’s efforts and evidence of the latter ought to be attainable. Do the indicators pertain to each collaborator’s scope of work? The greater the number of collaborators and/or external factors involved in the achievement of the strategic goal, and therefore the indicator, the lower the probability that the collaborator in question can be held accountable. If the leader or manager deems necessary to evaluate indicators associated with goals to be completed through the efforts of several collaborators, then it should not be included in individual performance evaluations; rather, it should be an indicator for a collaborative, team, department, and/or organizational evaluation. And, if indicators and SGA require the input of external actors (such as other stakeholders) or are directly impacted by external factors (such as natural disasters, policy making and change, and domestic and international social, political, and economic climate), then the collaborator’s actual performance is not being evaluated; rather, the collaborator is being held liable for other people’s efforts, results and the effects of external actions. Therefore, an indicator is only appropriate when measurability is defined by each collaborator’s scope of work. By not doing so, leadership may be holding collaborators accountable for the performance of others rather than their own and, therefore, the results of individual performance evaluations are neither objective nor fair and cause negative effects on a collaborator’s engagement and satisfaction.

Evidence is gathered for each indicator to determine compliance which is, in turn, rated to define the achievement of each strategic goal and overall performance. Evidence is a strong word, however pertinent, as no evaluation should be carried out without acquiring relevant facts. Demonstrability, source, and partiality are elemental to evidence objectivity. Facts not only ought to be demonstrable but should also be provided by the collaborator her/himself. If the leader or manager is requesting evidence from sources other than the collaborator in question, then it is not conclusive of her/his performance. Partiality refers to potential biasness of facts gathered for decision making; in other words, is the evidence more prejudicial than probative? Although this element is mostly associated with evaluator objectivity (discussed in question 4), it also refers to potential evidence biasness; specifically, is it fact or fiction, or, is it based on real or alternative facts? A favored indicator in many organizations is collaborator attitude and, for some reason, managers tend to query other collaborators to obtain associated details. Can leadership be certain that evidence gathered from others is objective and probative? The fact is that if leadership is not aware of the collaborator’s attitude she/he is not working closely with the collaborator, therefore, should not be in charge of such individual performance evaluation.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.