QUESTION 1 1.1 When discussing performance management, many people immediately think of the annualperformance review process. But the performance appraisal is only one (1) component of what isconsidered to be performance management. Discuss the performance management process thatyou will apply in the public sector. Use relevant examples from the case study to substantiate youranswer.1.2Managers struggle to balance positive feedback with the need for improvement. Employees are notsure how to take the feedback and begin to worry about their jobs. All this stress and struggle willsubside if management approach the task in the right way. In light of this statement, discuss therecommendations to be considered by managers in the public sector in order to provide effectiveperformance feedback to employees.1.3 Contemporary organisations have begun to modernise parts of their performance managementapproach to drive behaviours that are critical in today’s work environment. Using examples fromthe case study and relevant theory, examine the purposes of performance management in a business environment. SECTION A[40 Marks)Read the case study below and answer ALL the questions that follow.Performance & Performance Management in the Public Sector"Performance is often understood to be a combination of ability. knowledge, skills, experierce, and motivation. Failure toperform can be attributed to absence of one of the following: doing the job compatently (ability), the necessary informationto do the job accurately (knowledge), and motivation as the positive interest in performing the job well and even goingbeyond the expectations' (Kwelanga Training, People Management ard Leadership, 2009). Performance is at the heart oflabour process, and 'it is understood to be an act of executing or carrying out' (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edn.,2004) duties. It can only be fair that it ontributes to service delivery.Performarce Manaçement and Development Systems in the Public ServiceThe Business Times once shared an important lesson in one of their articles on the first 100 days of a manager thatsuccess of a manager is measured by how well each incividual on the team performs. In terms of the public serviceregulation, 2001, as amenced, all employses in the public services have to be evaluated. The understanding is that annualindividual performance appraisals should be linked to and be informed by evaluation of unit and organisational performarce(SMS, Remuneration and Concitions of Service, 2003). Performance measurement has cost implication; wherein certainlevels of achievemert qualify for incentives such as bonuses. The criteria upon which the performance of SMS members isassassed are based on two components and use the 80:20 weighting, respectively. They are (i) key result areas (KRAS)cover the main areas of work, focus on actions and activities that should assist units and ultimately the department inperforming effectively, and are weighted 80% and (ii) core managemert criteria (CMC) making up 20% are intended to helpbuild a common sense of good management practice in the public service. Both should be reflected in the performanceagreement (PA) (SMS Handbook, Performance Managemert and Development).In the light of enronism (from the Enron stage of capitalism), the public is unlikely to accept the efficiency bonuses paid topublic sector executives and managers as has been the case with ESKOM after the discovery that the performance of theelectricity utility has not been efficient. The credibility and legitimacy of the public servants can be doubted (T. B. Luthuli,Compliance to Performance: A Leadership Challenge in the South African Public Service, Department of PublicAdministration, 2009. p. 462). This reminds me of my frienc who exclaimed, "Gracious in defeat, wow, that's a first! That isyet to be seen in the public sector' When Maria Ramos, CEO of ABSA bank, concedec her failure and chose not to take abonus for 2012 financial year, I woke up to that reality. Performance bonuses shauld reward positive results that impact onthe needs of the citizens.Enabling Environment for PMDSThe effective implementation of the PMDS requires the creation of an enabling and supportive environment to ensure thatsenior managers and their supervisors can comply with the requirements of the system. This includes the provision ofappropriate information on the system itself and familiarising officials with the processes of implementation. It is alsoimportant to put in place appropriate processes for document management so that all the required records are properly filedand can be accessed when required in order to create a credible audit trail of the implementation of the process (Report onSenior Management Service Compliance with Performance Agreements in the Eastern Cape Provincial Administration,2007). DPSA's ather plans include ensuring full compiance by senior management with regard to performance agreements(PSM, July 2013, p. 43).Performarce ManagementPerformance management in the public service is legislated. Public Service Act, 1994 (Proclamation No. 103 of 1994),requires cepartments to manage performance in a consultative, supportive, and non-discriminatory manner in order toenhance organisational efficiency and effectiveness and accountability for the use of resources and achievement of results.The act requires also that employees strive to achieve the objectives of their institutions cost-effectively in the public'sinterest.Performance management is essential, and if it is not measured, it cannot be improved. Level progression of employeeshould rightfully be evaluated on a regular basis to allow for improvement or progression to higher levels within theparameters of the job in question (subject always, of course, to the outoome of the evaluation). This system has presentedproblems and fairness of an employer's conduct in doing a level progression' (Christianson et al., 2002, p. 287).Performarce AgreementsPerformance agreements are a must for every employee, for they assist with the definition of key performance areas(KPAS), responsibilities as well as priorities, development, and recognition for excellent performance. They should beidentified jointly by supervisor and employee. With the standard rating for key performance areas and generic performanceassessment elements, excellence in performance is defined as achievemert of results that far exceed the requirements imall areas through an excellent level of diligence, commitment, dedication, and innovation (PMDS and Public ServiceRegulation, 2001, as amended). It seems the problem of compliance is not only limitec to that of the country's labour laws,and policies but extended to even corporate governance basics wherein signing of performance agreements has remainedlower than expected (Towards a Fifteen Year Review, 2008).Performance management is an area which many managers find hard to deal with simply because it is not taker asseriously as it should be, noting its misuse and the reluctance to address under-performance. Many are, however, notimpressed by it and do not like it for it is very wall known as managers weapon to get at those urder their direction. As theperformance of the employees should be reviewed on a quarterly basis, most quarterly reports are said to be fictitious withlast one being the determining quarter, always marked by high levels of tersions at the workplace with people angry withone another, no speaking to each other due to difficulties in reaching consensus on the allocation of scores or difficulties ingiving feedback on the outcome of assessments. If there were honest and open ciscussions as is required by the PMDS,there would not be such unnecessary difficulties and tensions. 'Note that if the supervisor has been doing a good jobsupervising, then nathing should be surprising to the employee curing the appraisal. Any performance issues should hevebeen conveyed when they occurred, so nothing should be a surprise in the review meeting' explains McNamara (See thetopic "Employee Performance Appraisals/Reviews" in the Free Management Library at http:// managementhelp.org). Findingout about one's poor performance for the first time at an appraisal session does ro longer come as a shock to many. Whileaddressing poor performance may be cifficult anc uneasy, it still remains the best to do it promptly.PMDS is nothing more than a tool to manage employees performar ce that, while it aims at rewarding excellerce, alsodevelops them to be excellent. Thus, poor performance should be identified and addressed in good time to put employeesin better shape for appraisals ard not to be used as means to retaliate, thus, prejudicing and penalising subordinates.Performarce ard Feedback should rightfully be evaluated on a regular basis to allow for improvement or progression to higher levels within theparameters of the job in question (subject always, of course, to the outcome of the evaluation). This system has presentedproblems and fairness of an employer's conduct in doirg a level progression' (Christianson et al., 2002, p. 287).Performarce AgreementsPerformance agreements are a must for every employee, for they assist with the definition of key performance areas(KPAS), responsibilities as well as priorities, development, and recognition for excellent performance. They should beidentified jointly by supervisor and employee. With the standard rating for key performance areas and generic performanceassessment elements, excellence in performance is defined as echievemert of results that far exceed the requirements inall areas through an excellent level of diligence, commitment, dedication, ard innovation (PMDS and Public ServiceRegulation, 2001, as amended). It seems the problem of compliance is not only limitec to that of the country's labour laws,and policies but extended to even corporate governance basics wherein signing of performance agreements has remainedlower than expected (Towards a Fifteen Year Review, 2008).Performance management is an area which many managers find hard to deal with simply because it is not taker asseriously as it should be, noting its misuse and the reluctance to address under-performance. Many are, however, notimpressed by it and do not like it, for it is very well known as managers' weapon to get at those under their direction. As theperformance of the employees should be reviewed on a quarterly basis, most quarterly reports are said to be fictitious withlast one being the determining quarter, always marked by high levels of tersions at the workplace with pecple angry withone another, no speaking to each other due to difficulties in reaching consensus on the allocation of scores or difficulties ingiving feedback on the outcome of assessments. If there were honest and open discussions as is required by the PMDS,there would not be such unnecessary difficulties and tensions. 'Note that if the supervisor has been doing a good jobsupervising, then nothing should be surprising to the employee curing the appraisal. Any performance issues should havebeen conveyed when they occurred, so nothing should be a surprise in the review meeting' explains McNamara (See thetopic "Employee Performance Appraisals/Reviews" in the Free Management Library at http:// managementhelp.org). Findingout about one's poor performance for the first time at an appraisal session does ro longer come as a shock to many. Whileaddressing poor performance may be cifficult and uneasy, it still remains the best to do it promptly.PMDS is nothing more than a tool to manage employees performance that, while it aims at rewarding excellerce, alsodevelops them to be excellent. Thus, poor performance should be identified and addressed in good time to put employeesin batter shape for appraisals ard not to be used as means to retaliate, thus, prejudicing and penalising subordinates.Performarce ard FeedbackDifficulties with feedback can be a general problem or arise, particularly when dealing with performance. Performancereviews are important feecback sessions that take place at regular intervals during the course of the year while they shouldprovide an opportunity for members to receive feedback on how they are performirg and time for structured reflection by themember using the process of self-assessment (SMS Handbook, 2003, p. 20). While it is indeed common that the first timemary people hear about their poor performance is usually at an appraisal, and it can come as a shock (time-management-basics.com). Managers' biggest challenge, wherein appreciation and recognition of subordinates by their maragers, is alsofound disturbingly less than normal expectations (Towards a Fifteen Year Review, 2008). This is because they lack thehuman quality to genuinely and honestly comment or speak well about those under them as reported in the Gullup report.This attitude leaves many wondering if such managers understand what such ar attitude truly means and how it speaks ofthem.Unless the primary course is well understood and the system properly implemented and strictly monitored withconsequences, it wil remain disrespected and not compliec with but continued to be misused. It seems organisations lackthe necessary monitoring and evaluation systems that ensure people are effectively utilised. PMDS's objectives should bewell understood and shoud not be confused consciously or unconsciously as solely for rewarding good performarce but toman age poor performance and identify and adcress development employees' needs through planned training. It is resultoriented and should ensure openness, fairness, and objectivity to benefit organisations and should thus be linked to broadand consistent plans for staff development and aignec with the organisational strategic goals.To ensure this, PMDS requires supervisors to do the following:Be involved in all the levels of reporting and assessment of their junior colleagues.Be well prepared when presenting ar employee's assessment to the performance assessment committee.Ensure that appropriate recognition should be given to good performances and that corrective and supportive actionis taken regarding underperformers.Inform subardinates ir writing regarding the outcome and findings of the performance assessment committee,including fully documented reasons in cases where scores have been acjusted.Managers are found not helpful, distancing themselves despite having worked with very closely rather than playing theirrole, reminding, add ing, and beautifying what they already know; they will instead behave as though they know nothing.PMDS, being cevelopmental, simply means, where performance is found to be poor, corrective steps have to be taken toimprove, particularly for future assessments (Employee Performance Management and Development System, 2007).Therefore, when a manager has people under him stagnant, having not qualified for notch progression and even meritaward over long periods-for example three years and above and not to mention five, ten, and more years-it becomesclear that someone is not doing his job. Worse, when such managers cualify themselves for merits year in and out, it makesone to question the understanding of the system or organisational ethics.The process of informing subordinates of the outcome of the assessment process is statutory, and where information iswithheld or not transferred to subordirates, subordinates may lodge a grievance. The information contributes to developinga meaningful and relevant personal development plan for employees in order to identify areas that need improving orcapacity buiding. Hence, it is expected that employees should ultimately develop.A newly employed who qualifies alone amongst many old employees and in his first year for a merit award can only meantwo things: he is truly exceptional, and the impact of his outcomes can be felt or he is just a favourite. It, therefore, becomesridiculous for such managers to qualify for merit awards either year in and out, worse still, in isolation from theirsubordinates. This requires caution since it can send a bad message that suggests that subordinates are, after all, not avaluable source of intelligence and, as such, are not worth the trouble. However, beware, people can act what they arepurported to be. One is, therefore, tempted to state in response to the identified challenge by the govemment, which is theabsence of a strong performance culture, that, it seems, many employees have ability and knowledge and only lackmotivation to perform at their bestManagers have responsibilities and should be held accountable for iraccurate, inordinate, and incomplete appraisals oftheir units' performance. Performance appraisal should not be a battle between the power of appreciation and the power ofcriticising and undermining. Patterrs and trends with regard to how Performance Appraisals/Reviews are conductedparticularly with the issues of race and qualifications for notch and performance bonus (PMDS) remains a researchchalenge to the employer.

Question

QUESTION 1 1.1 When discussing performance management, many people immediately think of the annualperformance review process. But the performance appraisal is only one (1) component of what isconsidered to be performance management. Discuss the performance management process thatyou will apply in the public sector. Use relevant examples from the case study to substantiate youranswer.1.2Managers struggle to balance positive feedback with the need for improvement. Employees are notsure how to take the feedback and begin to worry about their jobs. All this stress and struggle willsubside if management approach the task in the right way. In light of this statement, discuss therecommendations to be considered by managers in the public sector in order to provide effectiveperformance feedback to employees.1.3 Contemporary organisations have begun to modernise parts of their performance managementapproach to drive behaviours that are critical in today’s work environment. Using examples fromthe case study and relevant theory, examine the purposes of performance management in a business environment. SECTION A[40 Marks)Read the case study below and answer ALL the questions that follow.Performance & Performance Management in the Public Sector&#34;Performance is often understood to be a combination of ability. knowledge, skills, experierce, and motivation. Failure toperform can be attributed to absence of one of the following: doing the job compatently (ability), the necessary informationto do the job accurately (knowledge), and motivation as the positive interest in performing the job well and even goingbeyond the expectations' (Kwelanga Training, People Management ard Leadership, 2009). Performance is at the heart oflabour process, and 'it is understood to be an act of executing or carrying out' (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edn.,2004) duties. It can only be fair that it ontributes to service delivery.Performarce Manaçement and Development Systems in the Public ServiceThe Business Times once shared an important lesson in one of their articles on the first 100 days of a manager thatsuccess of a manager is measured by how well each incividual on the team performs. In terms of the public serviceregulation, 2001, as amenced, all employses in the public services have to be evaluated. The understanding is that annualindividual performance appraisals should be linked to and be informed by evaluation of unit and organisational performarce(SMS, Remuneration and Concitions of Service, 2003). Performance measurement has cost implication; wherein certainlevels of achievemert qualify for incentives such as bonuses. The criteria upon which the performance of SMS members isassassed are based on two components and use the 80:20 weighting, respectively. They are (i) key result areas (KRAS)cover the main areas of work, focus on actions and activities that should assist units and ultimately the department inperforming effectively, and are weighted 80% and (ii) core managemert criteria (CMC) making up 20% are intended to helpbuild a common sense of good management practice in the public service. Both should be reflected in the performanceagreement (PA) (SMS Handbook, Performance Managemert and Development).In the light of enronism (from the Enron stage of capitalism), the public is unlikely to accept the efficiency bonuses paid topublic sector executives and managers as has been the case with ESKOM after the discovery that the performance of theelectricity utility has not been efficient. The credibility and legitimacy of the public servants can be doubted (T. B. Luthuli,Compliance to Performance: A Leadership Challenge in the South African Public Service, Department of PublicAdministration, 2009. p. 462). This reminds me of my frienc who exclaimed, &#34;Gracious in defeat, wow, that's a first! That isyet to be seen in the public sector' When Maria Ramos, CEO of ABSA bank, concedec her failure and chose not to take abonus for 2012 financial year, I woke up to that reality. Performance bonuses shauld reward positive results that impact onthe needs of the citizens.Enabling Environment for PMDSThe effective implementation of the PMDS requires the creation of an enabling and supportive environment to ensure thatsenior managers and their supervisors can comply with the requirements of the system. This includes the provision ofappropriate information on the system itself and familiarising officials with the processes of implementation. It is alsoimportant to put in place appropriate processes for document management so that all the required records are properly filedand can be accessed when required in order to create a credible audit trail of the implementation of the process (Report onSenior Management Service Compliance with Performance Agreements in the Eastern Cape Provincial Administration,2007). DPSA's ather plans include ensuring full compiance by senior management with regard to performance agreements(PSM, July 2013, p. 43).Performarce ManagementPerformance management in the public service is legislated. Public Service Act, 1994 (Proclamation No. 103 of 1994),requires cepartments to manage performance in a consultative, supportive, and non-discriminatory manner in order toenhance organisational efficiency and effectiveness and accountability for the use of resources and achievement of results.The act requires also that employees strive to achieve the objectives of their institutions cost-effectively in the public'sinterest.Performance management is essential, and if it is not measured, it cannot be improved. Level progression of employeeshould rightfully be evaluated on a regular basis to allow for improvement or progression to higher levels within theparameters of the job in question (subject always, of course, to the outoome of the evaluation). This system has presentedproblems and fairness of an employer's conduct in doing a level progression' (Christianson et al., 2002, p. 287).Performarce AgreementsPerformance agreements are a must for every employee, for they assist with the definition of key performance areas(KPAS), responsibilities as well as priorities, development, and recognition for excellent performance. They should beidentified jointly by supervisor and employee. With the standard rating for key performance areas and generic performanceassessment elements, excellence in performance is defined as achievemert of results that far exceed the requirements imall areas through an excellent level of diligence, commitment, dedication, and innovation (PMDS and Public ServiceRegulation, 2001, as amended). It seems the problem of compliance is not only limitec to that of the country's labour laws,and policies but extended to even corporate governance basics wherein signing of performance agreements has remainedlower than expected (Towards a Fifteen Year Review, 2008).Performance management is an area which many managers find hard to deal with simply because it is not taker asseriously as it should be, noting its misuse and the reluctance to address under-performance. Many are, however, notimpressed by it and do not like it for it is very wall known as managers weapon to get at those urder their direction. As theperformance of the employees should be reviewed on a quarterly basis, most quarterly reports are said to be fictitious withlast one being the determining quarter, always marked by high levels of tersions at the workplace with people angry withone another, no speaking to each other due to difficulties in reaching consensus on the allocation of scores or difficulties ingiving feedback on the outcome of assessments. If there were honest and open ciscussions as is required by the PMDS,there would not be such unnecessary difficulties and tensions. 'Note that if the supervisor has been doing a good jobsupervising, then nathing should be surprising to the employee curing the appraisal. Any performance issues should hevebeen conveyed when they occurred, so nothing should be a surprise in the review meeting' explains McNamara (See thetopic &#34;Employee Performance Appraisals/Reviews&#34; in the Free Management Library at http:// managementhelp.org). Findingout about one's poor performance for the first time at an appraisal session does ro longer come as a shock to many. Whileaddressing poor performance may be cifficult anc uneasy, it still remains the best to do it promptly.PMDS is nothing more than a tool to manage employees performar ce that, while it aims at rewarding excellerce, alsodevelops them to be excellent. Thus, poor performance should be identified and addressed in good time to put employeesin better shape for appraisals ard not to be used as means to retaliate, thus, prejudicing and penalising subordinates.Performarce ard Feedback should rightfully be evaluated on a regular basis to allow for improvement or progression to higher levels within theparameters of the job in question (subject always, of course, to the outcome of the evaluation). This system has presentedproblems and fairness of an employer's conduct in doirg a level progression' (Christianson et al., 2002, p. 287).Performarce AgreementsPerformance agreements are a must for every employee, for they assist with the definition of key performance areas(KPAS), responsibilities as well as priorities, development, and recognition for excellent performance. They should beidentified jointly by supervisor and employee. With the standard rating for key performance areas and generic performanceassessment elements, excellence in performance is defined as echievemert of results that far exceed the requirements inall areas through an excellent level of diligence, commitment, dedication, ard innovation (PMDS and Public ServiceRegulation, 2001, as amended). It seems the problem of compliance is not only limitec to that of the country's labour laws,and policies but extended to even corporate governance basics wherein signing of performance agreements has remainedlower than expected (Towards a Fifteen Year Review, 2008).Performance management is an area which many managers find hard to deal with simply because it is not taker asseriously as it should be, noting its misuse and the reluctance to address under-performance. Many are, however, notimpressed by it and do not like it, for it is very well known as managers' weapon to get at those under their direction. As theperformance of the employees should be reviewed on a quarterly basis, most quarterly reports are said to be fictitious withlast one being the determining quarter, always marked by high levels of tersions at the workplace with pecple angry withone another, no speaking to each other due to difficulties in reaching consensus on the allocation of scores or difficulties ingiving feedback on the outcome of assessments. If there were honest and open discussions as is required by the PMDS,there would not be such unnecessary difficulties and tensions. 'Note that if the supervisor has been doing a good jobsupervising, then nothing should be surprising to the employee curing the appraisal. Any performance issues should havebeen conveyed when they occurred, so nothing should be a surprise in the review meeting' explains McNamara (See thetopic &#34;Employee Performance Appraisals/Reviews&#34; in the Free Management Library at http:// managementhelp.org). Findingout about one's poor performance for the first time at an appraisal session does ro longer come as a shock to many. Whileaddressing poor performance may be cifficult and uneasy, it still remains the best to do it promptly.PMDS is nothing more than a tool to manage employees performance that, while it aims at rewarding excellerce, alsodevelops them to be excellent. Thus, poor performance should be identified and addressed in good time to put employeesin batter shape for appraisals ard not to be used as means to retaliate, thus, prejudicing and penalising subordinates.Performarce ard FeedbackDifficulties with feedback can be a general problem or arise, particularly when dealing with performance. Performancereviews are important feecback sessions that take place at regular intervals during the course of the year while they shouldprovide an opportunity for members to receive feedback on how they are performirg and time for structured reflection by themember using the process of self-assessment (SMS Handbook, 2003, p. 20). While it is indeed common that the first timemary people hear about their poor performance is usually at an appraisal, and it can come as a shock (time-management-basics.com). Managers' biggest challenge, wherein appreciation and recognition of subordinates by their maragers, is alsofound disturbingly less than normal expectations (Towards a Fifteen Year Review, 2008). This is because they lack thehuman quality to genuinely and honestly comment or speak well about those under them as reported in the Gullup report.This attitude leaves many wondering if such managers understand what such ar attitude truly means and how it speaks ofthem.Unless the primary course is well understood and the system properly implemented and strictly monitored withconsequences, it wil remain disrespected and not compliec with but continued to be misused. It seems organisations lackthe necessary monitoring and evaluation systems that ensure people are effectively utilised. PMDS's objectives should bewell understood and shoud not be confused consciously or unconsciously as solely for rewarding good performarce but toman age poor performance and identify and adcress development employees' needs through planned training. It is resultoriented and should ensure openness, fairness, and objectivity to benefit organisations and should thus be linked to broadand consistent plans for staff development and aignec with the organisational strategic goals.To ensure this, PMDS requires supervisors to do the following:Be involved in all the levels of reporting and assessment of their junior colleagues.Be well prepared when presenting ar employee's assessment to the performance assessment committee.Ensure that appropriate recognition should be given to good performances and that corrective and supportive actionis taken regarding underperformers.Inform subardinates ir writing regarding the outcome and findings of the performance assessment committee,including fully documented reasons in cases where scores have been acjusted.Managers are found not helpful, distancing themselves despite having worked with very closely rather than playing theirrole, reminding, add ing, and beautifying what they already know; they will instead behave as though they know nothing.PMDS, being cevelopmental, simply means, where performance is found to be poor, corrective steps have to be taken toimprove, particularly for future assessments (Employee Performance Management and Development System, 2007).Therefore, when a manager has people under him stagnant, having not qualified for notch progression and even meritaward over long periods-for example three years and above and not to mention five, ten, and more years-it becomesclear that someone is not doing his job. Worse, when such managers cualify themselves for merits year in and out, it makesone to question the understanding of the system or organisational ethics.The process of informing subordinates of the outcome of the assessment process is statutory, and where information iswithheld or not transferred to subordirates, subordinates may lodge a grievance. The information contributes to developinga meaningful and relevant personal development plan for employees in order to identify areas that need improving orcapacity buiding. Hence, it is expected that employees should ultimately develop.A newly employed who qualifies alone amongst many old employees and in his first year for a merit award can only meantwo things: he is truly exceptional, and the impact of his outcomes can be felt or he is just a favourite. It, therefore, becomesridiculous for such managers to qualify for merit awards either year in and out, worse still, in isolation from theirsubordinates. This requires caution since it can send a bad message that suggests that subordinates are, after all, not avaluable source of intelligence and, as such, are not worth the trouble. However, beware, people can act what they arepurported to be. One is, therefore, tempted to state in response to the identified challenge by the govemment, which is theabsence of a strong performance culture, that, it seems, many employees have ability and knowledge and only lackmotivation to perform at their bestManagers have responsibilities and should be held accountable for iraccurate, inordinate, and incomplete appraisals oftheir units' performance. Performance appraisal should not be a battle between the power of appreciation and the power ofcriticising and undermining. Patterrs and trends with regard to how Performance Appraisals/Reviews are conductedparticularly with the issues of race and qualifications for notch and performance bonus (PMDS) remains a researchchalenge to the employer.

Accepted Answer

The aim of the performance process is to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, economy, and equity…