Human Resources Performance Management System Report 2022

Running head: HUMAN RESOURCES- PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
HUMAN RESOURCES- PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1HUMAN RESOURCES- PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Executive Summary
Dissatisfaction among the employees are the result of many factors. One such factor
is quantum compensation for their work. If the employees are given quantum based
on their rank in the organizational hierarchy, then it creates a resentment among the
lower cadre employees like the MSO’s. The aim of this report is to identify such
issues within an organization and providing recommendations on resolving such
issues.

2HUMAN RESOURCES- PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................3
Background and location..........................................................................................3
Description....................................................................................................................3
Current situation........................................................................................................3
Problem and its analysis...........................................................................................4
Recommendations....................................................................................................5
Critical success factors.............................................................................................5
Resource constraints................................................................................................6
Implementation plan..................................................................................................6
Conclusion....................................................................................................................8
References and bibliography........................................................................................9

3HUMAN RESOURCES- PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Introduction
Background and location
Singtel TV is one of the biggest television service provider in Singapore. It
deals in “Pay television service” and was previously known by the name of Singtel
IPTV and Mio TV. The signal distribution for this television service provider company
is done through a broadband network using IPTV platform. This IPTV platform uses
Ericson Mediaroom which was originally developed by Microsoft. This company
offers multimedia content as well as content or video on-demand and such content
can be viewed by any television set. The television service of Singtel TV utilizes IP
Set Top Box which are connected with optical fibres broadband service provided by
Singtel. Singtel TV operates in whole Singapore that started business on 20th July.
Presently it has more than 425,000 subscribers. The present CEO is Allen Lew.
The backdrop of the situation relies on the quantum or allowance given to
different employees of the organization. All the employees were previously given the
same quantum irrespective of the ranks they hold within the organization (Dusterhoff,
Cunningham and MacGregor 2014). The Multiple System Operators (MSO) and the
Engineers both were given the same quantum of 0.85 months under the same
grading- C. However, the situation has changed in recent times where an Engineer
and a MSO are not given the same quantum. They are given quantum according to
their ranks by the management though both the Engineer as well as the MSO have
similar grades (Inuwa 2016). For instance, an Engineer in grade C gets a quantum of
1.5 months while a MSO in the same grade gets a quantum of 1.25 months. While
an Engineer and MSO present in grade A gets a quantum of 3.5 months and 2.5
months respectively. This fixation of quantum according to the employee’s
designation has spread a wide spread resentment among the employees especially
among the employees at the lower cadre. This has hampered the normal working of
the organization as well.
Description
Current situation
Public Utilities Board is a statutory organization under the Ministry of
Environment and Water Resources which is responsible for sustainable supply and

4HUMAN RESOURCES- PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
use of water throughout Singapore. It has got a system of reward that depends upon
the performance of the employees and does not discriminate them on the grounds of
department or superiority. However, this is not the case with our company Singtel TV
where quantum depends on the rank the employee is in. This implies that a lower
rank gets lower quantum and higher rank official or employee gets a higher quantum.
This situation within Singtel TV created a lot of resentment among the lower cadre
employees because they think this system is not true and fair. Owing to this situation
the communication channel within the organization has fallen apart disrupting the
flow of necessary information within the organization. This situation has greatly
impacted the productivity of all the employees especially the ones at the lower cadre
with some have even thought of a full-fledged exuberance of feelings before the
management through strikes and lockouts (Dugguh and Dennis 2014). The situation
is going out of management’s hand with every passing day hampering the overall
productivity, client satisfaction, delivering less or poor value to the clients. The
organization is losing its clients at a faster rate than ever before which is hampering
its overall market standing and profitability. The situation is worsening with every
passing day and need crucial attention at the earliest.
Problem and its analysis
The major problem that can be identified through a thorough study of the
background is that an Engineer will receive 1.5 months quantum in grade C and 3.5
months in grade A irrespective of working. It can also be seen that the Engineer will
get the same minimum quantum whether or not he is promoted. On the other hand, a
Multiple System Operators will get only 1.25 in grade C and 2.5 in grade A and is not
entitled to get an enhancement of quantum if they work harder. An engineer is not
required to operate machines on their own, they are only required to formulate plans
relating to engineering and get the work done by others like a MSO and laborers
(Flory et. al. 2014). They just have to do the more of a mental job rather than a
physical job. They just have to supervise the sites and most of the time operates
from an indoor facility enjoying the ambience of a wonderfully decorated workplace.
On the other hand, the work of an MSO is a real tough one. They always operate in
project sites or in factories operating all kinds’ machines and doing the laborious
work they are asked to do by their immediate supervisors sanctioned by the top level
management and the Engineers. However, these MSO’s are given a lower quantum

5HUMAN RESOURCES- PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
as compared to the Engineers when they work harder than the Engineers and at the
same time the engineers enjoys the same minimum which is obviously higher than
the MSO’s irrespective of promotion. This creates a wide spread resentment among
the MSO’s which are evident in their attitude of work that hampers the production
and organizational culture.
From the above discussion it is evident that the management wanted higher
quantum for all employees however they did not want a same quantum for all
employees under the same grade and instead they gave preference to the ranking
system in fixation of quantum for an employee. The employees at the higher rank
would be given higher quantum than an employee present in a lower rank under the
same grade and irrespective of their efforts on the fulfilment of the respective jobs. It
was also found that the management had plans of merging technical support with the
Engineers scheme (Sarker 2014). It is also evident from the discussion that the
decision of the management relating to payment of quantum based on ranking of the
employees irrespective of the grade and effort of work has created a wide spread
resentment among the lower cadre employees like the MSO’s who demand for same
level of quantum for all employees present in the same grade irrespective of ranks
they hold within the organization.
Recommendations
From the thorough analysis of the above discussion, it can be recommended
that:
Modification of the existing system: The existing system of disbursal of quantum
should be modified and should be enhanced to 3 months to 3.5 months for all grades
irrespective of ranks held by each employee. This will reduce the increasing
resentment among the lower cadre employees like the MSO’s.
Reverting back to the older system: From the thorough analysis of the above
discussion, it can be recommended that reverting back to the older system where
every employee got the same quantum irrespective of their designation will reduce
the resentment among the employees and normal operation of the organization
could be restored.

6HUMAN RESOURCES- PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Critical success factors
The success of the organization greatly depends upon the following factors:
Training and development of employees: The employees always desire for an all,
round development being associated with the organization (Noe et. al. 2014). The
development need of the employees can be achieved through proper arrangement of
proper training facilities which will allow them to do difficult tasks in future and grow
through the organization.
Effective communication: A good communication will ensure better flow of
information within an organization. This will ensure flow of necessary information
between different departments, downward movement of directives and upward flow
of suggestion and grievances thereby solving bigger organizational issues in an
effective manner.
Management commitment: The management should keep their commitment in
fulfilling the basic demands of the employees and this is how they can secure
responsibility and commitment from the employees (NATH and Agrawal 2015).
Resource constraints
Organizational culture: The company culture can be considered as the principal
resource constraint (Blattner and Walter 2015). If the organization has a good
organizational culture then it will automatically reflect in the working and attitude of
the employees as well.
Inter-personal relationships: If there is better relationships of the employees within
the organization and also among the employees and their bosses then the
organizational performance is ought a better figure.
Resistance to change: Resistance to change occurs in all kinds of organization
owing to common human psychology (Simoes and Esposito 2014). No employees
wants to accept new things at the first instance. It truly depends on the
organizational culture and employees to accept the change.
Lag in innovation strategy: Innovation is considered as a pillar of success for every
organization (Sung and Choi 2014). A company that can innovate and adapt
according to the changing business scenarios exists in the market for a long time
and vice-versa.

7HUMAN RESOURCES- PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Implementation plan
The implementation plan for eliminating the wide spread resentment among
the employees can be represented with the help of a flow chart as follows:
Create a new grading scale
Consultation with the union
Briefing new changes to the employees
Communicating
information
Identify the need to
move forward
Monitoring system for continuous
improvement

8HUMAN RESOURCES- PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Firstly, a thorough analysis of the new system has to be done. Secondly, a
new grading system has to be designed. Thirdly, a formal consultation with the union
has to be done seeking their views on it. Fourthly, a formal briefing to the employees
has to be done informing about the change. Fifthly, all information has to be
communicated to all levels of the organization, sixthly, the need for any further
change has to be identified. Lastly, but more importantly, the system has be
continuously monitored for further improvement.
Conclusion
From the above discussion it can be concluded that the root cause of
resentment among the employees is that they are given quantum based on the ranks
they hold in organizational hierarchy not the effort they employ on their work and
also irrespective of their gradation. It can be concluded that, in order to reduce such
widespread resentment among the employees the management may resort to older
system of quantum and also enhance the values of quantum as well.

9HUMAN RESOURCES- PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
References and bibliography
Afshar, H.S. and Doosti, M., 2016. Investigating the Impact of Job
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction on Iranian English Teachers' Job Performance. Iranian
Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(1), pp.97-115.
AlBattat, A.R., Som, A.P.M. and Helalat, A.S., 2014. Higher dissatisfaction higher
turnover in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, 4(2), p.45.
Blattner, J. and Walter, T.J., 2015. Creating and sustaining a highly engaged
company culture in a multigenerational workplace. Strategic HR Review.
D'Arcy, J., Herath, T. and Shoss, M.K., 2014. Understanding employee responses to
stressful information security requirements: A coping perspective. Journal of
management information systems, 31(2), pp.285-318.
Dugguh, S.I. and Dennis, A., 2014. Job satisfaction theories: Traceability to
employee performance in organizations. IOSR journal of business and
management, 16(5), pp.11-18.
Dusterhoff, C., Cunningham, J.B. and MacGregor, J.N., 2014. The effects of
performance rating, leader–member exchange, perceived utility, and organizational
justice on performance appraisal satisfaction: Applying a moral judgment
perspective. Journal of business ethics, 119(2), pp.265-273.
Inuwa, M., 2016. Job satisfaction and employee performance: An empirical
approach. The Millennium University Journal, 1(1), pp.90-103.
Flory, M., Bonet, E., Guillon, O. and Cezanne, C., 2014. Employee loyalty and
organizational performance: a critical survey. Journal of Organizational Change
Management.
NATH, G.K. and Agrawal, R., 2015. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment:
Is it important for employee performance.
Noe, R.A., Wilk, S.L., Mullen, E.J. and Wanek, J.E., 2014. Employee Development:
Issues in Construct Definition and Investigation ofAntecedents. Improving Training
Effectiveness in WorkOrganizations, ed. JK Ford, SWJ Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E.
Salas, and MS Teachout (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997), pp.153-189.

10HUMAN RESOURCES- PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Sarker, A.R., 2014. Increasing employee job satisfaction as well as organizational
performance through effective HRM practices in private commercial banking sector
of Bangladesh. Journal of Economics and Sustainable development, 5(10), pp.157-
165.
Simoes, P.M.M. and Esposito, M., 2014. Improving change management: How
communication nature influences resistance to change. Journal of Management
Development.
Singh, S.K., Burgess, T.F., Heap, J., Almatrooshi, B. and Farouk, S., 2016.
Determinants of organizational performance: a proposed framework. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
Sung, S.Y. and Choi, J.N., 2014. Do organizations spend wisely on employees?
Effects of training and development investments on learning and innovation in
organizations. Journal of organizational behavior, 35(3), pp.393-412.
Vazifehdust, H. and Khosrozadeh, S., 2014. The effect of the organizational
socialization on organizational commitment and turnover intention with regard to
moderate effect of career aspirations intention. Management Science Letters, 4(2),
pp.277-286.