Managing Workplace Performance (Verizon Communication INC)

The balanced stigma card was a measure taken by the Human Resource department, towards judgeing the quality of their let operations. The head of marketing J. Randall McDonald thought of referring to the framework for the Balanced Score placard (Datar & Epstein, 2001), as set by Kaplan and Nortan in their book, to assess the performance of the HR and both in term of quantitative and qualitative measures.ImplementationThe implementation of the balanced score card approach, for the performance measurement, was strategically implied by GTE. The HR department appearlined five factors to categorize the measure to be include in the score card. They were (Datar & Epstein, 2001)Talent To invest and advocate in a diverse and talented workforce.Leadership Groom the prospective leaders, assess their contributions and attributes. dimension them responsible for(p) and giving them incentives for tasks accomplished.Customer service and support Train the customers with the end up knowledge o f the lodges products and services. Foster a customer-oriented approach.Organizational integration Establishing healthy relations with the internal customers/employees and supporting the free flow of information.HR capability Investing in the necessary technologies to improve the productivity of the employees (Cascio, 2002) and assess the performances of individuals for job rotation and enrichment.To develop certain performance measures, for the balanced score card, the HR department formed a team named PMA. This team was responsible for assessing the general situation and categorizing different developed as well as suggested performance measures under the five categories defined above.The feedback from the presidents of the different divisions of the company had a huge amount of questions gathered to be answered. These questions involved issues regarding (Datar & Epstein, 2001)The competencies of the workersPlacement of workers at the correct jobGTEs concerns towards encouraging g a participative surroundProductivity and efficiency of the Human resource of the organizationCost persuasiveness of providing services to customersCost of employees turnoverEmployees reward and compensation scheme vindication and Cost-Benefit analysis of the investment in the HR by the company almost of the questions posed in Exhibit 2 (Datar & Epstein, 2001) which seem superfluous are ar we investing in growing our HR? Of course they are, in fact that is the reason why they initiated to develop such a scorecard. Are we using technology to improve HR efficiency? Yes, the company is already investing and employing technology in improving the work performance of its employees. around of the questions that should have been included areHow can the company ensure that employees in truth get the advantage of the investments done on them? How to make the employees realize that the company really cares for their development? Are we recruiting the rectify people for the company? What makes the employees, quick as well as prospective, to fit in the company? The chip of existing as well as prospective employees should always be balanced against the revenues. save, the non-financial measures also play a vital role in the assessment of the performance of the employees. As per the works of the authors Christopher D. Ittner and David F. Larcker, the activities performed should be directly link to the operations, productivity, costs (reductions) and revenues of the company when linking the non-financial measures with productivity and performance of the employee(s) special care should be taken (Christopher & Larcker, 2003). Making inefficient use of controls to measure employees performance business leader instead lead to employees and customers dissatisfaction. As identified by the two authors, Ittner and Larcker, out of the four mistakes GTE was making the First and the Third one.First Mistake non linking measures to strategy.By developing the scorecard, the HR o nly attempted to justify these investments against the in short tem incentives such as increase in sales and/or productivity. However they did not analyzed, at any stage, whether there move was consistent with the overall corporate strategic objectives (Gareth & Charles, 2005). This can be proved by the forecasted increase, by the managers, in the revenues from 1997 through out till 2006 at 10% per annum. This seemed soused when the figures of high employees turnover and low customer retentions were revealed.Third Mistake not setting the right performance targets.Mr. MacDonald needed to have set the right targets to be achieved by each individual that he hired, trained and placed within the organization. When defining their roles and responsibilities, Mr. Randall should have taught the workforce to better understand their targets in correspondence with their positions.ConclusionThus in the end we can translate that GTE, despite being the largest local landline telephone provider in the U.S., had the difficulties with its employees, which are an asset to any company. The company should exercise a more(prenominal) participative approach, to be successful. It was estimated, as per the article, that 1% increase in the Employee Engagement forefinger (EEI) reflected a direct increase of 0.48% in the level of customer satisfaction, which is a positive result.ReferencesDatar Srikant & J. Epstein Marc (2001) Verizon Communication INC, Implementing a Balanced Scorecard Harvard furrow Review.D. Ittner Christopher & F. Larcker David (2003) overture Up Short on Nonfinancial Performance Measurement Harvard Business Review. Gareth R. Jones, Jennifer M. George & Charles W. L. Hill (2005) Principles of Management. McGraw-Hill Cascio Wayne (2002) Managing Human Resources Productivity, Quality of Work Life, Profits McGraw-Hill/Irwin