Comparative Analysis: Performance Management in Three Organizations

This report provides a comparative analysis of performance management systems (PMS) across three diverse organizations: the Bank of England, Allen and Hanbury's (GSK), and Uber. It begins by defining PMS and outlining common methods such as appraisals, feedback, and various evaluation tools. The report then delves into the specific PMS employed by each company, highlighting the Bank of England's traditional approach, GSK's focus on production and international HR, and Uber's integration of both traditional and modern techniques, including 360-degree feedback and SMART goals. The comparison reveals that while all three organizations prioritize customer interaction and evaluate behavior, Uber uniquely incorporates a reverse rating system. The evaluation section emphasizes the importance of PMS in assessing competency gaps and concludes that while ranking systems, as seen in Uber, may have drawbacks, appraisals remain crucial for comprehensive employee assessment.

Performance Management
- A comparative analysis

CONTENTS
 What is performance Management
System?
 PMS in Bank of England
 PMS in Allen and Hanbury’s
 PMS in Uber
 Comparison
 Evaluation

WHAT IS PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM?
 A systematic approach to measure the
performances of the employees in an organization
(Shields, Brown, Kaine, Dolle-Samuel North-
Samardzic et al. 2015)
 What are the methods?
 Appraisals
 Feedbacks
 Discussion
 Tools:
 Graphic Rating scales
 BARS
 Management by Objectives
 Alternation Ranking Model

BANK OF ENGLAND
 Established in 1646
 Later became a public ownership organization
 Being a traditional organization the Bank of
England followed a traditional model of
performance appraisal (
https://www.bankofengland-ar.com /)
 appraisals, rewards and recognitions, salary
benefits, promotion and demotion policies are
appraised and evaluated in performance
appraisal system.
 since they have high sales target as well as
customer handling targets, honesty, motivation
and productivity is evaluated. (Teresienė 2018)

ALLEN AND HANBURY’S
 Originally a British pharmaceutical farm, later
acquired by GlaxoSmithKline.
 A production oriented farm
 It has overseas branches and hence the
management of the human resource at
international level is required.(Shabaninejad
Mirsalehian and Mehralian 2014)
 PMS includes appraisals, behavior rating and
promotion policies.
 Appraisal are done by immediate supervisors,
customer appraisals, peer as well self
appraisal. (https://
www.medicines.org.uk/emc/company/5 )

UBER
 Performance Management in Uber follows a
traditional as well as modern approach.
 A goal is set which is SMART in approach.
This becomes their bench mark. (Jenk 2015)
 feedback process initiated to gain the point
of view from a 360 degree angle.
 if the driver rating of the uber driver drops
below 4 he will be dismissed.
 the T3 B3 approach helps the employees
know about their strengths and weakness
and work effectively in accordance.
(Möhlmann and Zalmanson2017)

A COMPARITIVE STUDY
 All the three organization deals directly with
the direct contact with customers.
 Thus apart from productivity, behavior is
also evaluated and managed (Mone and
London 2018)
 Uber being a comparatively new
organization takes into account a vice versa
rating system as well as the opportunities
of the employees to list their own strength
and weaknesses.

EVALUATION
 Performance management is
necessary for an organization to
asses the competency gap of the
employees.
 be it banking sector or pharmacy
sector, appraisals will be an all
rounded approach that will not only
evaluate productivity but other
aspects as well. (Kallio ,Kallio, Tienari
and Hyvönen 2016. )
 Ranking system in Uber, however
has been analyzed as ineffective

REFERRENCE LIST
 https://www.bankofengland-ar.com/
 https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/company/5
 Jenk, J., 2015. Theory meets practice in the taxi industry: Coase and Uber.
 Kallio, K.M., Kallio, T.J., Tienari, J. and Hyvönen, T., 2016. Ethos at stake:
Performance management and academic work in universities. Human
Relations, 69(3), pp.685-709.
 Möhlmann, M. and Zalmanson, L., 2017, December. Hands on the wheel:
Navigating algorithmic management and Uber drivers'. In Autonomy’, in
Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS),
Seoul South Korea (pp. 10-13).
 Mone, E.M. and London, M., 2018. Employee engagement through effective
performance management: A practical guide for managers. Routledge.
 Shabaninejad, H., Mirsalehian, M.H. and Mehralian, G., 2014. Development of
an integrated performance measurement (PM) model for pharmaceutical
industry. Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research: IJPR, 13(Suppl), p.207.
 Shields, J., Brown, M., Kaine, S., Dolle-Samuel, C., North-Samardzic, A.,
McLean, P., Johns, R., O'Leary, P., Plimmer, G. and Robinson, J.,
2015. Managing employee performance & reward: Concepts, practices,
strategies. Cambridge University Press.
 Teresienė, D., 2018. Performance measurement issues in central banks.