Performance management: Creating high performance, not high anxiety

Abstract

Anxiety about the evaluation of performance in the Australian Public Service (APS) affects both supervisors and those being assessed.We will explore some of the reasons for this anxiety, how it affects these organisations and the gap between the ideal of performance management and the more complex reality of practice.Our research suggests that we need a substantial change in the way we think about performance management conceptually and the way in which it should be implemented across the APS.We believe that performance management systems could be reoriented to enable high performance across individual, group, organisation and system levels, rather than following a more typical focus on underperformance.The preoccupation with underperformance in practice has, we argue, contributed to performance management being used as a pejorative term-something that is 'done to me', something I am going to 'do' to people, which leads to higher levels of anxiety in both employees and managers (see Kahneman and Tversky 1979 in Alford and O'Flynn 2012, 78;de Vos et al. 2003).Instead we will argue that by framing performance management as being about the more positive notion of high performance, we can reduce the associated anxiety.Performance anxiety emerges when an individual is concerned about something to do with their employment and this affects the way that they perform.In an ideal situation, performance management systems are focused on encouraging high performance and supporting innovation through setting clear goals and identifying learning and development needs.This enables individuals to undertake more challenging work, thereby increasing the capacity of a workforce and reducing anxiety.However, in practice the processes involved in performance management systems could, in themselves, create anxiety.The tensions between these points are important as they reflect the promise and pitfalls of performance management systems, enabling us to discuss the source of performance anxiety in organisations.We observed several sources of anxiety, including a lack of clear performance expectations, over-measurement, and a focus on process compliance rather than outcomes.In the first part of this chapter we outline our research project, 1 explaining how it was established and the aims.In the second part we set out the data collection processes.The third part explains the reconceptualisation of performance management which developed from the project.In the fourth part we set out the key elements of the new performance management framework the project team developed, explaining how these can be used to manage and, potentially, reduce performance anxiety.In the final part we make the case that focusing on high performance and aligning individual and organisational goals can reduce anxiety and increase innovation in practice. Why this project?The project developed as part of the implementation of the Ahead of the Game: Blueprint for Reform of Australian Government Administration (AGRAGA 2010) report.The Blueprint set out a program of reforms, including attention to strengthening the performance framework and developing more collaborative relationships between academic and practitioner experts.A key driver for 1This chapter is based upon a partnership between The Australian National University, the Australian Public Service Commission, the University of Canberra and the University of New South Wales, Canberra, which led to a new performance framework for the Australian Public Service.A partnership approach was seen as important to enable the partners to learn from each other and develop strong links between theory and practice.The three-year time frame enabled deep exploration of the literature, rigorous data collection and analysis, and ongoing interaction between academics and practitioners to develop a framework with practical implications.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.