Performance Management at the National Institute of Management

Performance Management at the National Institute of Management

Name:

Institution:

Performance Management at the National Institute of Management

The faculty at NIM (CI) likes the existing system because it is transparent. They are able to know the level of compensation they receive because the system defines the minimum and maximum units. The members of the faculty understand the minimum workload that they are supposed to do when the year begins. They also know the maximum units that they can be compensated during the course of the year. This enables them to manage their time and schedules properly. The system is also advantageous because it ensures that the faculty members work well without worrying about compensation and remuneration. Therefore, they can dedicate their time and energy towards teaching and other responsibilities assigned to them. In addition, the system acts as a motivation for the faculty because it encourages the members to conduct quality research and improve the performance of the students.

The faculty and the campus directors appreciate the system but the board of directors differs in their opinion. The board feels that the minimum workload is low and that there is a need to increase it. It relies on the suggestions presented by the advisory committee, comprised of academic experts dealing with management and business. The committee is of the opinion that the staff members should not base their work on incentives. The faculty does not want any revision of the system as this would mean an increased workload. The director is caught in between the faculty and the board. On one hand, he has to ensure that the institution performs in terms of profitability. On the other hand, he has to consider the needs of the faculty members because he realizes that they are instrumental towards the success of the institution. As the issue stands presently, the two roles collide. The decisions that the board decides to come up with during the meeting are likely to cause dissatisfaction among the faculty members, and this might lead to staff turnover.

The performance management cycle includes planning, managing, and reviewing stages. The planning stage sets the performance expectations and the different people involved agree on the way forward. The management sets the objective during this stage. The next step is the management stage, which comprises of different activities. The management provides employees with feedback, and the managers provide coaching where necessary. The final stage involves a review of the employees work (Houldsworth & Jirasinghe, 2006). The board did not involve the faculty members concerning its decision to do away with the incentives and revise the existing system. Instead, it informed the faculty concerning the decisions that it had already made and this cause disagreement.

The board has to consider the needs of the faculty members, even as it is concerned with improving the brand name and increasing the profitability of the institution. There has been a problem of high staff turnover at the institution, and this can be a major limiting factor to its growth. Deciding to eliminate incentives without offering an alternative idea for motivating the staff members is not prudent, as it will only worsen the problem of faculty turnover. The institution needs its staff members, and it cannot afford to deal with the high turnover if it expects to grow. It cannot depend on the executive programs offered because of the competition offered by other established institutions. There is a need to consider the hardships that the faculty members go through, especially considering that they have to travel for a long distance before reaching their destination. Therefore, despite the opinion given by the advisory committee, the board should consider offering some incentives to the faculty members. It should also identify other ways of ensuring that the education offered is of high quality so that it can build the brand.

References

Houldsworth, E., & Jirasinghe, D. (2006). Managing and measuring employee performance. London: Kogan Page Publishers

Nambudiri, R., & Jayasimha, K. R. (2008). Performance management at the national institute of management (central India campus) (A). Richard Ivey School of Business