Introduction
During the Covid-19 crisis, many organizations moved away from performance management due to the setbacks and disruptions when measuring performance. Contrary to these shortcomings of measuring performance management during a crisis, companies must continue and strengthen their performance management (Eklund & Stern, 2021). This will ensure that organizations can retain talent, protect firms from legal risks, offer vital feedback to workgroups and individuals, collect valued business data and describe a firm’s strategic direction. To achieve this, organizations need to develop solutions to overcome the challenges related to performance management during times of crisis. The paper will review academic literature to identify approaches that can be used to improve performance management. This will include assessing methods that can be used to make performance management better.
Review of Academic Literature
Relevance of Performance Management during Crisis
Performance management refers to a corporate management tool used by managers to evaluate and monitor the performance of employees. Performance management aims to develop an environment where people can become productive to the best of their abilities and produce high-quality work that is done effectively and efficiently (Denisi & Smith, 2014). Performance management tools ensure that employees are productive and that their skills and abilities are maximized to the fullest (Aguinis & Burgi-Tian, 2021). Performance management programs consider traditional tools such as developing and measuring milestones, objectives, and goals. Performance management aims to describe the appearance of effective performance and create approaches to analyze performance. Therefore, performance management is an opportunity for employees to learn. Performance management is a vital aspect of talent management in organizations of all sizes and types.
Performance management should be viewed as a continuous process that identifies, measures, and develops the performance of workgroups and individuals, ensuring that they align their performance with the objectives of an organization (Aguinis & Burgi-Tian, 2021). During the Covid-19 pandemic, most organizations could not continue with performance management due to disruptions brought by the crisis. Many organizations were forced to hibernate and assume a survival mode. This saw many organizations discontinue their standard approaches to measuring performance. One of the significant difficulties during this period was measuring the employees’ performance because their production approaches had been altered by the Covid-19 crisis (Aguinis & Burgi-Tian, 2021). Before the pandemic, most organizations associated their performance with salary. However, many organizations sought to separate performance from pay decisions during the pandemic. During this crisis, most organizations reconsidered their approach of basing pay increases on performance (Tweedie et al., 2019). This made leaders and organizations to ask the question of whether performance management is of relevance and if it is essential during a crisis (Aguinis & Burgi-Tian, 2021). Additionally, there was the question of measuring performance since the workers could not do their work using the previously standard methods. The questions are dangerous because talent management is a significant determinant of organizational performance (Aguinis & Burgi-Tian, 2021). Performance management is beyond the concept of serving administrative purposes. It includes other purposes, such as supporting talent, maintaining a quality workforce, supporting the development of workers, reinforcing strategic agendas, and communication, to name a few.
For this reason, organizations need to continue with performance management if they want to meet their set goals and objectives. During crises, organizations should be able to measure performance. Several reasons support the need for organizations to conduct performance management during a crisis. During a crisis, organizations face much chaos and are forced to look upon the leaders and managers for guidance (Aguinis et al., 2012). It is only through performance management that leaders and managers can be able to provide guidance and strategic direction to the employees. Ending performance management during a crisis indicates that the management is not in control and does not know what the workers should do during a crisis. In times of crisis, organizations face numerous issues (Al-Jedaia & Mehrez, 2020). These issues faced by organizations result in performance issues that require immediate attention (Dodhia et al., 2020). Lack of performance management leads to these issues being ignored. This affects the ability of the organization to meet its set goals and objectives. Performance management puts mechanisms into place that make it easy to communicate empathy and provide a roadmap for dealing with the identified issues.
Lack of performance data for an extended period denies the managers an opportunity to provide meaningful and sound feedback to the workers. In such instances, it is difficult for the workers to improve their performance, and they end up misaligned with the organization’s goals and objectives (Gabriel & Aguinis, 2022). Ongoing and frequent feedback provides an opportunity for continuity and assists the employees in developing psychological safety and a sense of belonging. Feedback is essential to an organization’s success (Denisi & Murphy, 2017). Feedback provides clarity on what needs to be done as it helps people learn from the mistakes of other people and develop confidence. Timely and effective feedback resulting from performance management helps in the establishment of performance goals. Giving employees effective feedback on their progress toward set goals and objectives helps them improve their performance and develop approaches to deal with any difficulties that emerge during crises (Al-Jedaia & Mehrez, 2020). Companies that lack performance data for a prolonged period are placed in a risky legal position (Aguinis et al., 2012). During times of crisis, organizations tend to force some of the workers. In such instances, performance is considered a significant factor that helps in deciding which employees should be let go (Denisi & Murphy, 2017). Lack of performance data may lead to unfair dismissal, leading to legal lawsuits against the organizations. In such cases, performance data can be used to defend organizations in case lawsuits are presented.
According to Aguinis et al. (2012), performance management is also needed to identify and retain top performers. Performance management is the only way that organizations can accurately point out individuals who are top performers and make vital contributions to an organization (Teeroovengadum et al., 2019). In times of crisis, organizations sometimes decide to let go of some employees for a given period. At such times, organizations focus more on maximizing productivity while maintaining the quality of their services or products. This means that organizations need performance data to determine the most productive employees. The performance data is only available when performance management is put into consideration. The Covid-19 crisis forced many firms to abandon and curtail performance management (Eklund & Stern, 2021). The decision’s outcome was the realization of more harm than the intended good (Aguinis & Burgi-Tian, 2021). The dissolution of performance management was not in good faith, and instead, organizations should have focused more on adapting to new measurements for performance management. Neglecting performance measurements during the Covid-19 crisis resulted in the loss of viral information that was critical during this period.
Performance management during a crisis is essential as it identifies new ways to create value by encouraging employees to bring out their imagination and curiosity. Furthermore, performance management during a crisis helps identify approaches to handle pressure and enable multitasking within an organization’s various departments (Tanti et al., 2018). Only through performance management can an organization readjust its priorities to achieve organizational needs during such times. For organizations to meet their set goals and objectives in times of crisis, they must remain calm and resolute. Handling a crisis with pressure can lead to losses; however, organizations can handle change through performance management even in the face of seemingly inadequate resources (Gabriel & Aguinis, 2022). Furthermore, performance management provides the employees with a glimpse of the effects of the crisis on an organization, and these strategies can be developed to help reflect on the changing priorities of an organization. Organizations can translate strategies into action plans and objectives (Dodhia et al., 2020). During times of crisis, organizations significantly change their standard approaches to problems they face. Performance management ensures that an organization can cultivate a wide range of creativity, thought, and knowledge that can be used to handle changes resulting from the crisis.
Setbacks when Assessing Performance in Times of Crises
Performance management has faced challenges; however, the Covid-19 pandemic led to new disruptions and crises. According to Al-Jedaia & Mehrez (2020), organizations during the Covid-19 pandemic faced economic downturns; moreover, there were changes in strategic directions. On the same note, organizations tend to readjust their main concerns and daily activities during crises. The employees’ job duties also change significantly due to the cancellation of original work projects. These changes force organizations to reconsider their approaches to evaluating the performance of their employees.
During a crisis, practicality is also a significant issue of consideration. Employees at all levels are tasked with more work with reduced resources and pulled in different directions. During such times, time becomes a valuable asset. Assessing performance through the standard approaches takes a considerable amount of time, raising the burden on the managers and the employees (Denisi & Murphy, 2017). Such instances result in increased pressure for the workers to perform and meet the goals and objectives of their organizations. For this reason, organizations should reconsider their performance measurement approaches and consider comprehensive, concise, and shorter ones.
During times of crisis, the importance of performance management is put to the test. Standards and measures used to evaluate and assess job functions should be relevant and essential to developing meaning from performance management. Moreover, workers should control job functions (Denisi & Murphy, 2017). However, in times of crisis, many things in an organization are out of order and control, making most performance evaluation standards unavailable, irrelevant, and impossible to meet. This means that performance management should remain relevant despite changes in job functions and jobs.
In regular times, there the behavior of the employees and their productivity outcomes are used to measure performance. These two performance measurement approaches are challenging to consider based on exceptional modern-day circumstances. For instance, workers in roles such as manufacturing or sales are evaluated via their outcomes; however, their outputs can be out of control in a crisis (Denisi & Murphy, 2017). Most of the objectives between supervisors and employees before a crisis become out of reach during a crisis. Assessing workers’ performance based on their behaviors requires a set level of first-hand interactions and observations between the employees and the supervisors. In times of crisis, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic, approximately 62% of the employees worked remotely, making it impossible to implement the open door policy of assessing the employees (Gabriel & Aguinis, 2022). This means that performance management should be adaptable and flexible.
In summary, the question of measuring performance during a crisis remains unanswered. On this note, there is a need to consider a tool that is clear, comprehensive, adaptable, informative, relevant, and straightforward. The performance measurement during a crisis should be helpful in different functional areas, concise, hierarchical in the various departmental levels, complete, and easy to understand. According to Gabriel & Aguinis (2022), prior to Covid-19, most performance measures involved using appraisal forms. The use of appraisal forms does not meet the criteria of performance measures because they are time-consuming and lengthy. During the Covid-19 period, adaptability and simplicity were more critical.
Managing Performance Management during Crises
Outila & Fey (2022) states that the Covid-19 pandemic significantly affected organizations’ performance. Many leaders and managers experienced difficulties due to limited guidance on handling change. A significant challenge for most organizations was how to mobilize the employees to perform when most of them were handling severe illnesses in their homes or the death of their close friends and family. As Eklund & Stern (2021) established, the Covid-19 pandemic increased the demand for management and leadership capacity. The management of performance management during crises calls for the definition of a practical approach before coming to critical decisions concerning the performance of the employees. Furthermore, all the decision-makers in an organization should be aligned (Franco‐Santos & Otley, 2018). During a crisis, decisions in an organization should be made in a shared context. In this context, the company policies on evaluation criteria should be clear (Tanti et al., 2018). Managers and leaders should be called together to align vital criteria and be open on how to assess the consistently and precisely. Furthermore, attention should be paid to overlooked skills and behaviors such as the management of team infrastructure.
Managers and leaders should also monitor each other when analyzing the context of performance (Outila & Fey, 2022). Management of change in an organization during a crisis calls for an organization to embrace changes in planning and direction (Cascio & Aguinis, 2018). Embracing this change leads to developing an inclusive and friendly environment (Tanti et al., 2018). Furthermore, embracing change makes it easy for an organization to handle pressure and communicate to the employees the changes that are made or are to be made. Performance management in such times ensures that team members are in a position to embrace change and adapt to the new normalcy of a crisis (Schleicher et al., 2018). In times of crisis, employees become less productive due to circumstances associated with the crisis. This means that the leaders and managers should review and lighten the performance evaluation approaches. Resetting expectations around responsiveness and work hours can help ensure that there are no biases during the assessment of the employees.
Therefore, during a crisis, there is a need to make it clear that an organization’s objectives experience a shift. This leads to a decline in the priority of objectives considered in the last review of the employees. Some employees are put on hold, while others experience increased duties outside their usual roles and responsibilities (Outila & Fey, 2022). Before a review, the employees should be informed of the changes in performance management. This ensures that surprises do not meet the employees during the performance assessments (Teeroovengadum et al., 2019). Times of crisis call for recognizing soft skills during performance management. During the Covid-19 crisis, workers were forced to devise new mechanisms for meeting the needs of both the consumers and the organization they work for (Efendi, 2021). This saw the employees double on their soft skills. From this, performance management metrics during crises should be able to consider soft skills during the analysis process. Performance management during times of crisis should be able to comprehend that setbacks are inevitable. Crises are unprecedented, as with Covid-19 (Outila & Fey, 2022). There were changes in plans due to government regulations, which saw many people work from their homes. Therefore, during Covid-19, most organizations were not critical during performance assessments. This means that during times of crisis, organizations should avoid being too critical of the staff members.
Handling Performance Measurement Challenges through the Performance Promoter Score
The Performance Promoter Score (PPS) borrows its working approaches from the Net Promoter Score (NPS). As stated by Hyken (2016), the NPS is a measurement tool used to measure customer loyalty by asking simple but great questions on a scale of 1 to 10. According to this scale, customers rated 9, and above are referred to as promoters; those in the range of 7 and 8 are regarded as being passively satisfied, while those rated on a scale of 1 to 6 are referred to as detractors (Hyken, 2016). After the ratings, the NPS is arrived at by subtracting the percentage total of the promoters from the percentage total of the detractors. Drawing from the NPS, it is evident that the PPS can be utilized as an effective tool for measuring the performance of employees, including the top management, workgroups, and departments (Aguinis & Burgi-Tian, 2021). The approach can be applied in crises such as Covid-19 and even after crises.
Using PPS can address performance management setbacks and challenges in several ways. The approach provided flexibility; in times of crisis, unique job responsibilities are fluid due to environmental changes (Aguinis & Burgi-Tian, 2021). Because PPS does not consider technical details of different job roles, or the primary key performance indicators (KPIs), the approach can be utilized under any circumstance. PPS applies to all working environments (Efendi, 2021). The approach is also practical and convenient. A major problem with measuring performance is that the standard approach involves long hours of data collection. Moreover, the appraisal forms are, in most cases, lengthy. The PPS approach is simple and takes less than 5 minutes for an employee to consider and go through. The PPS tool is standardized and can handle employees from different geographical locations, departments, and functional areas (Aguinis & Burgi-Tian, 2021). The PPS is also comprehensive and has two main dimensions: contextual and task performance. PPS also analyzes both task performance and contextual performance. When there is a crisis like the Covid-19 pandemic, many organizations are forced to include their employees in contributing ideas to help their organizations to stay afloat (Outila & Fey, 2022). In such instances, many employees go above their way to utilize their innovations, networks, skills, and talent. In most instances, these efforts are not captured; however, they are essential in times of crisis and can be captured in the PPS.
The use of the PPS is also effective when it comes to the implementation of multisource feedback systems. Multisource systems can be described as using labels that get information from different sources (Aguinis & Burgi-Tian, 2021). The PPS tool can be used for administrative purposes because performance management is associated with administrative work. This means that PPS can be used to make decisions on merit increases, recognitions, terminations, promotions, and salary adjustments (Brenan, 2020). Rewards and recognitions play a vital role when it comes to employee motivation. Therefore, in times of crisis, the PPS approach can be used for administrative purposes (Aguinis & Burgi-Tian, 2021). During times of crisis, organizations are affected by stagnation in their development purposes due to strains that emerge in times of crisis. The PPS tool can be used to generate feedback from employees (Outila & Fey, 2022). The employees can use the feedback to identify areas that require improvements and areas that have strength. The feedback can also be used to identify areas that require additional resources. In times of crisis, performance management is called to improve constructive and timely feedback. The fact that the PPS tool is simple to use means that it can be used to offer frequent performance assessments (Efendi, 2021). In times of crisis, organizations need to remain adaptable and flexible. Increased conversations on performance can play a vital role in helping employees adjust priorities, responsibilities, and work hours.
Conclusion
During the Covid-19 crisis, organizations faced a struggle trying to survive. This saw many organizations discontinue performance management. The outcome of the discussion shows that organizations tend to face challenges in times of crisis, forcing them to discontinue important organizational activities such as performance management. However, the discontinuity of performance management results in more harm when compared to good. Doing away with performance management leads to losing essential and valuable information. During a crisis, organizations require data to make vital decisions that enable them to thrive and survive during the crisis. However, a lack of performance management makes it difficult for an organization to measure the performance of employees. Therefore, organizations should find better solutions and adapt to new performance measurements instead of doing away with performance management. In times of crisis, organizations must identify clear, comprehensive, adaptable, informative, relevant, and simple forms of performance management. The discussion recommends the Performance Promoter Score (PPS), an extension of the Net Promoter Score (NPS), as the best performance management approach in times of crisis. The PPS approach can be used on workers at all levels of an organization. Furthermore, the PPS can tabulate the Net Performance Promoter Score (NPPS), providing room for effective and easy comparisons between collectives and individuals. The analysis shows that the Covid-19 pandemic had a long-lasting impact on the performance of organizations. However, the crisis led to essential discoveries in conducting performance management during the crisis, including the innovation of the PPS. The tool is useful, relevant, and practical not only during a crisis but even when there is no crisis.
References
Aguinis, H., & Burgi-Tian, J. (2021). Measuring performance during crises and beyond: The Performance Promoter Score. Business Horizons, 64(1), 149-160. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505577/
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2012). Delivering effective performance feedback: The strengths-based approach. Business Horizons, 55(2), 105-111. https://www.academia.edu/download/38599344/BH2012.pdf
Al-Jedaia, Y., & Mehrez, A. (2020). The effect of performance appraisal on job performance in governmental sector: The mediating role of motivation. Management Science Letters, 10(9), 2077-2088.
Brenan, M. (2020). US workers discovering affinity for remote work. Gallup, available at https://news. Gallup. com/poll/306695/workers discovering-affinity-remote-work. aspx.
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2018). Applied psychology in talent management. SAGE Publications.
Denisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress?. Journal of applied psychology, 102(3), 421. https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fapl0000085
Denisi, A., & Smith, C. E. (2014). Performance appraisal, management, and firm-level performance: A review, a proposed model, and new directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 127-179.
Dodhia, N., Jakhariya, R., Dedhiya, V., & Zalte, M. J. (2020). Employee Appraisal Evaluation (No. 4605). EasyChair.
Efendi, S. (2021, June). Implementation of Talent Management as an Effort to Improve Employee Performance. In 2nd Annual Conference on blended learning, educational technology and Innovation (ACBLETI 2020) (pp. 537-542). Atlantis Press.
Eklund, M. A., & Stern, H. J. (2021). How COVID-19 reshapes businesses and executive pay for sustainability. Corporate Governance and Sustainability Review, 5(1), 107-119. https://virtusinterpress.org/IMG/pdf/cgsrv5i1sip2.pdf
Franco‐Santos, M., & Otley, D. (2018). Reviewing and theorizing the unintended consequences of performance management systems. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(3), 696–730. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/125634/2/Franco_Santos_Otley_2018_Reviewing_and_theorizing_the_unintended_consequences_of_performance_management_system_as_submitted.pdf
Gabriel, K. P., & Aguinis, H. (2022). How to prevent and combat employee burnout and create healthier workplaces during crises and beyond. Business Horizons, 65(2), 183-192. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681321000392
Hyken, S. (2016). How effective is the net promoter score (NPS). Forbes Magazine, pp. 12–13. https://romanrepublic.org/roma/wp-content/uploads/mediapress/members/2/309/How-Effective-Is-Net-Promoter-Score-NPS.pdf
Outila, V., & Fey, C. F. (2022). “We have performance appraisal every day and every hour”: Transferring performance management to Russia. Journal of International Management, 28(2), 100901.
Schleicher, D. J., Baumann, H. M., Sullivan, D. W., Levy, P. E., Hargrove, D. C., & Barros-Rivera, B. A. (2018). Putting the system into performance management systems: A review and agenda for performance management research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2209–2245. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul-Levy-3/publication/323040479_Putting_the_System_Into_Performance_Management_Systems_A_Review_and_Agenda_for_Performance_Management_Research/links/6106c0661ca20f6f86f11911/Putting-the-System-Into-Performance-Management-Systems-A-Review-and-Agenda-for-Performance-Management-Research.pdf
Tanti, L., Puspasari, R., & Triandi, B. (2018, August). Employee performance assessment with profile matching method. In 2018 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://www.academia.edu/download/65094225/Prosiding_Internasional_1_Agustus_2018.pdf
Teeroovengadum, V., Nunkoo, R., & Dulloo, H. (2019). Influence of organizational factors on the effectiveness of performance management systems in the public sector. European Business Review.
Tweedie, D., Wild, D., Rhodes, C., & Martinov‐Bennie, N. (2019). How does performance management affect workers? Beyond human resource management and its critique. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(1), 76–96. https://asset-pdf.scinapse.io/prod/2793384939/2793384939.pdf
write