Implementing Performance Measurement Systems

Enhancing Performance Measurement Systems in a Construction Company Name of Student Course Name of Professor University Date Enhancing Performance Measurement Systems in a Construction Company Performance measurement systems are the key tools for evaluating the employee’s performance and, thus, the organization’s success (Van Looy & Shafagatova, 2016). In a medium-sized construction company, the efficient use of these systems is the key to attaining strategic objectives. This essay will explore the benefits and drawbacks of the comparative and absolute performance measurement systems, discuss various types in each category, and provide thought-provoking suggestions for their smooth implementation into the company’s operations. By having a clear knowledge of these systems’ unique features and their effect, the company can create a climate of responsibility, ongoing improvement, and better performance at all levels of the organization. Comparative Performance Measurement System A comparative performance measurement system in the HR of the construction company brings many benefits. Firstly, it is the means to find out the top performers, which in turn helps allocate the award and retain the talent (Singh et al., 2016). For example, in a construction company, the top performers might be the project managers who always deliver the projects on time or under the budget, thus proving to be highly efficient and good at managing resources. Moreover, it fosters friendly rivalry between employees. Thus, it motivates them to enhance their performance. This rivalry can be seen in construction site supervisors trying to be better than their colleagues regarding safety records or adherence to project timelines. Nevertheless, a comparative system may cause dissatisfaction among staff if not executed transparently and justly. For instance, when the ranking process is not transparent and is regarded as unfair by the team members, it can lead to a loss of trust and motivation among the team members (Wong et al., 2015). Besides, the employees may feel unfairly treated if they are in a low position for a long time even though they worked and achieved a lot. Thus, there is a decrease in the department’s morale and engagement. Different comparative performance measurement systems are available, each with pros and cons. Examples are ranking, forced distribution, and behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) (Aguinis, 2013). The ranking arranges the employees from the best to the worst performers, giving clear differentiation. However, at the same time, it can also create rivalry among colleagues (Mehrpouya & Samiolo, 2016). The forced distribution gives a certain percentage of employees to the different performance categories, thus ensuring an even distribution. However, at the same time, it may ignore the individual strengths and weaknesses. BARS combines the qualitative and quantitative elements by evaluating the specific behaviors and results, thus making a complete picture of employee performance. However, implementing such a system requires a lot of time and effort. For our HR department, the forced distribution system would be the best method to implement. This system is designed to ensure a balanced rating distribution and prevent ex...