Performance Management in Parastatals: The Cases of the Zimbabwe United Passenger Company and the National Railways of Zimbabwe

The Empirical Analysis of Performance Management System : A Case Study of a University in South Africa

“…The study findings confirm findings of similar studies that have confirmed and emphasised the negative perceptions of employees regarding implementation of the PMS, who raised insconsistencies of the system and resistance to it as the main causality (De Waal & Cournet, 2009;Maybodi, 2010;and Matunhu & Matunhu, 2008). The perceptions of employees also embody past experiences as the research findings indicate a high percentage of employees who disagreed or were undecided about the need of the PMS policy and its procedures.Furthermore, the disproportionately high percentage of employees who were undecided and disagreed that the PMS will commence in 2012 and be piloted to senior management indicates the low confidence by the employees that the university is capable of implementing initiatives and projects successfully having been arleted in advance about the implementation of the system.…”

“…The negative effect of excessive use of consultants who are working in silos with existing staff members in designing institutional structures and policies, as well as PMS policies and procedures which lack ownership and consistency cannot be overestimated (Ngcamu, 2012). Furthermore, unregulated promotions, nepotism and corruption (Matunhu & Matunhu, 2008)as well as political deployment in universities are some of the causes of the failure of PMS, as deployees fail to take concrete decisions as they consult their political masters who are mostly academically illiterate. Ngcamu (2012) argues that "politically incorrect" deployees are appointed to serve to university Councils and who often fail to understand the council's mandate of governance, but who interefere on operational issues favouring politically inclined key stakeholders either union(s) or student representatives or both.…”

“…At South African universities, performance management systems are more or less obsolete as a result, there is little or no accountability of staff with regard to their performance which makes it difficult to be able to measure the university's overall performance in relation to its strategic objectives. Performance management deals with the challenge organizations face in defining, measuring and stimulating employee performance with the ultimate goal to improve organizational performance (Hartog, Boseli & Paauwe, 2004: 2).Thus, the failure of the system is exacerbated by factors such as strategic objectives that are not cascaded down to the level of employees, unfair and unequal systems on which remuneration and reward is based (Burney, Henle &Widener, 2009 andChan, 2004), absence of continual feedback (Matunhu & Matunhu, 2008), inadequate internal communication, and unrealistic expectations in terms of rewards (Brennan & Shah, 2000). However, a number of commentators, especially those within the education sector, regard this managerialistic approach to performance appraisal as unwarranted, counter productive (Scholtes, 1999) and unworkable and unacceptable in knowledge-based organisations (Simon, 2001).…”