Performance Management at the National Institute of Management (Case Study Sample)

Performance Management at the National Institute of Management
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
A comparison of the perspectives of the various stakeholders, particularly the board of directors and faculty
The massive number of faculty members asserts that the system performance management and work assessment are transparent. The director highlighted that the system apparently outlined the minimum workload that was anticipated from the faculty members (Nambudiri & Jayasimha, 2008, p. 2). The system satisfied the requirements, and duties of the department members set at the beginning of the year.
The system enhances the designation of administrative responsibilities at the institution. The ongoing system of performance evaluation, and work assessment meets the administrative responsibilities according to the institutional specification. For instance, the specific activity constituted by certain units that were assigned based on the diverse nature of the activity. A crucial example is by tutoring a postgraduate course, a departmental member could learn approximately between 40 and 210 units. This is based on the number of sections and the number of students in each department (Nambudiri & Jayasimha, 2008, p. 2).
The performance management system promotes assignments of various units for research publications according to nature, and quality of publications. This system facilitates efficiency at the administrative and teaching level via allotting units based on the same criteria. Additionally, it facilitated the remuneration process for each extra unit that was secured above the minimum requirement (Nambudiri & Jayasimha, 2008, p. 2).
The system did not outline any importance on output quality. The board of directors of NIM accentuated that this performance assessment system did not conform to the requirement regarding faculty performance. Additionally, it was unsuccessful in meeting the quality of research, and academic productivity (Nambudiri & Jayasimha, 2008, p. 4).
The advisory committee opposed the introduction of the incentive systems in an academic organization. The board of directors did not regard it as a wise step precisely at the academic setting. Because of this, it was the recommendation of the advisory committee that the board of executives to audit the unified system for faculty accomplishment.
How might you align the two perspectives?
The board of directors and faculty members need to continue utilizing the existing performance management system since it promotes efficiency. The board of executives needs to realize that the system enables faculty members to plan their diverse activities for the whole year. This facilitates work efficiency, and improves performance, according to their area of specialization. Furthermore, the system approximately outlines the extra remuneration that the staff members need to get a variable pay at the end of the ...