Number of Employees for Each Department
|
Team |
Total Number of Employees per team |
|
Administration Department |
11 |
|
Sales Department |
13 |
|
Logistics Department |
20 |
|
Research and Development |
10 |
|
Total Number of Employees |
54 |
Calculations for Each Department
First Quarter
|
Team |
Total Number of Employees per team |
Outstanding |
Percentage |
Meets set Individual KPI's |
Percentage |
Not quite there yet |
Percentage |
Underperforming |
Percentage |
Absent |
% Absent |
|
Administration Department |
11 |
2 |
2/11*100=18.18% |
2 |
2/11*100=18.18% |
3 |
3/11*100=27.27% |
3 |
3/11*100=27.27% |
1 |
1/11*100=9.09% |
|
Sales Department |
13 |
0 |
0/13*100=0% |
13 |
13/13*100=100% |
0 |
0/13*100=0% |
0 |
0/13*100=0% |
0 |
0/13*100=0% |
|
Logistics Department |
20 |
4 |
4/20*100=20% |
8 |
8/20*100=40% |
6 |
6/20*100=30% |
2 |
2/20*100=10% |
0 |
0/20*100=0% |
|
Research and Development |
10 |
3 |
3/10*100=30% |
3 |
3/10*100=30% |
1 |
1/10*100=10% |
3 |
3/10*100=30% |
0 |
0/10*100=0% |
Second Quarter
|
Team |
Total Number of Employees per team |
Outstanding |
Percentage |
Meets set Individual KPI's |
Percentage |
Not quite there yet |
Percentage |
Under performing |
Percentage |
Absent |
% Absent |
|
Administration Department |
11 |
1 |
1/11*100=9.09% |
4 |
4/11*100=36.36% |
4 |
4/11*100=36.36% |
1 |
1/11*100=9.09% |
1 |
1/11*100=9.09% |
|
Sales Department |
13 |
0 |
0/13*100=0% |
13 |
13/13*100=100% |
0 |
0/13*100=0.00% |
0 |
0/13*100=0% |
0 |
0/13*100=0% |
|
Logistics Department |
20 |
5 |
5/20*100=25% |
9 |
9/20*100=45% |
4 |
4/20*100=20.00% |
0 |
4/20*100=20% |
2 |
2/20*100=10% |
|
Research and Development |
10 |
5 |
5/10*100=50% |
3 |
3/10*100=30% |
1 |
1/10*100=10% |
0 |
0/10*100=0% |
1 |
1/10*100=10% |
First Quarter
The presented calculations above indicate that the logistics department had the most employees rated with outstanding performance at 20.00%, followed by the research and development team at 30.00%. Also, the administration team accounts for 18.18% the sales team had no employee with outstanding performance. The sales department had the largest number of employees who met the set individual KPI’s with all its employees followed by the logistics department accounting for 40.00%, then the research and development department accounting for 30% and the administration team accounting for 18.18% being the last. Additionally, the underperforming employee s were identified in the research and development, administration and logistics department at 30.00%, 27.77% and 10.00% respectively with the sales team having no employee.
Second Quarter
Calculations for the second quarter illustrate that the research and development, logistics, and administration departments had employees with outstanding performance at 5.00%,25.00%, and 9.09% respectively while the sales team did not have any employee. Among those employees who met the set KPIs, the sales, logistics, administration and research and development, and administration departments accounting for 100.00%, 45.00%, 36.36%, 30.00%, and 9.09% respectively and the sales department lacking representation. The absentees in this period were from the administration, logistics, and the research departments with one, two and one individuals respectively.
Comparing the first and second quarters, the logistics department improved in the most with more employees meeting the targets of outstanding and meeting individual KPIs ratings. This illustrates that the departments performance management is more effective than others. The research development department also reduced underperformance to zero while the sales department illustrated consistent performance.
Bonus for Each Quarter
First Quarter
|
Team |
Outstanding 1st Quarter |
Calculations |
Bonus |
|
|
Administration Department |
Robin Bird |
£31,500.00 |
0.04* £31,500.00 |
£1260 |
|
|
Saffron Finch |
£24,000.00 |
0.04*£24,000.00 |
£960 |
|
Sales |
0 |
£0.00 |
0.04*0 |
£0 |
|
Logistics Department |
Sally Rigbye |
£23,750.00 |
0.04*£23,750.00 |
£950 |
|
|
Julie Chisnall |
£19,500.00 |
0.04*£19,500.00 |
£780 |
|
|
Rick Lovall |
£19,500.00 |
0.04*£19,500.00 |
£780 |
|
|
Gill Jamieson |
£19,500.00 |
0.04*£19,500.00 |
£780 |
|
Research and Development |
Ethan Brar |
£32,500.00 |
0.04*£32,500.00 |
£1300 |
|
|
Tasha Graham |
£29,500.00 |
0.04*£29,500.00 |
£1180 |
|
|
Jennifer Frost |
£29,500.00 |
0.04*£29,500.00 |
£1180 |
|
Total Bonus |
£9170 |
|||
Second Quarter
|
Team |
Outstanding 2nd Quarter |
Bonus |
||
|
Administration Department |
Saffron Finch |
£24,000.00 |
|
£960 |
|
Sales |
0 |
0 |
0.04*0 |
£0 |
|
Logistics Department |
Ruth Sixsmith |
£23,750.00 |
0.04*£23,750.00 |
£950 |
|
|
Wendy Boot |
£23,750.00 |
0.04*£23,750.00 |
£950 |
|
|
Jean Livesey |
£26,000.00 |
0.04*£26,000.00 |
£1040 |
|
|
Julie Chisnall |
£19,500.00 |
0.04*£19,500.00 |
£780 |
|
|
Gill Jamieson |
£19,500.00 |
0.04*£19,500.00 |
£780 |
|
Research and Development |
Ethan Brar |
£32,500.00 |
0.04*£32,500.00 |
£1300 |
|
|
Harrison Briggs |
£32,500.00 |
0.04*£32,500.00 |
£1300 |
|
|
Steve Owens |
£29,500.00 |
0.04*£29,500.00 |
£1180 |
|
|
Tasha Graham |
£29,500.00 |
0.04*£29,500.00 |
£1180 |
|
Jennifer Frost |
£29,500.00 |
0.04*£29,500.00 |
£1180 |
|
|
Total Bonus |
£11600 |
|||
Total Bonus= £9,170+£11,600= £20,770
The outstanding performance from the above departments excluding the sales department were paid £9170 for the first quarter. This was less than the second quarter bonuses Which amounted to £11,600 leading to the grand total of £20,770. There were instances of missing data from the absent employees from some departments. This was however did not affect the integrity of these findings and can thus be considered informative to the organisation.
Table 2 Data: Feedback from Line Managers
|
|
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
|
I'm given time to prepare to for employee appraisals |
3/50*100=6.00% |
29/50*100=58.00% |
11/50*100=22.00% |
7/50*100=14.00% |
|
I feel confident in carrying out a performance appraisal |
4/50*100=8.00% |
22/50*100=44.00% |
23/50*100=46.00% |
1/50*100=2.00% |
|
I have no concerns when applying ratings when conducting appraisals |
7/50*100=4.00% |
34/50*100=68.00% |
9/50*100=18.00% |
0/50*100=0.00% |
|
I'm confident that I'm able to assess employees performance fairly |
3/50*100=6.00% |
26/50*100=52.00% |
11/50*100=22.00% |
10/50*100=20.00% |
|
I have had training to enable me to undertake appraisals |
0/50*100=0.00% |
0/50*100=0.00% |
44/50*100=88.00% |
6/50*100=12.00% |
|
I have no issue in challenging underperforming employees |
0/50*100=0.00% |
9/50*100=18.00% |
37/50*100=74.00% |
4/50*100=8.00% |
|
I'm good at providing feedback and agree set performance targets |
12/50*100=24.00% |
4/50*100=8.00% |
15/50*100=30.00% |
19/50*100=38.00% |
From the above calculations the most concerning results from the line managers; feedback includes the training for appraisals where 88.00% of the managers disagreed or strongly disagreed on having been trained to conduct performance appraisal indicating that they have low confidence levels in challenging the underperforming employees with 74.00% of the managers reflected low confidence. Additionally, the line managers’ feedback feel that they have insufficient training and support to perform appraisals illustrated by a lack of confidence indicated by the minority of them at 8.00% supporting this position. Overall, from this data, a positive issue on this feedback is that line managers have no concerns when applying ratings during appraisals with most of them agreeing or strongly agreeing.
Feedback from Employees
|
|
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
|
My line manager provides clear and direct guidance |
2/235*100=0.85% |
111/235*100=47.23% |
121/235*100=51.49% |
1/235*100=0.43% |
|
During my reviews my line manager listens to the ideas I put forward |
5/235*100=2.13% |
39/235*100=16.60% |
187/235*100=79.57% |
4/235*100=1.70% |
|
My line manager provides positive feedback |
6/235*100=2.55% |
141/235*100=60.00% |
82/235*100=34.39% |
6/235*100=2.55% |
|
My line manager possesses good people management skills |
15/235*100=6.38% |
99/235*100=42.13% |
89/235*100=37.87% |
32/235*100=13.62% |
|
My line manager has time to listen to me |
84/235*100=35.74% |
79/235*100=33.62% |
15/235*100=6.38% |
57/235*100=24.26% |
|
My line manager provides a balanced response when conducting my reviews |
0/235*100=0.00% |
143/235*100=60.85% |
92/235*100=39.15% |
0/235*100=0.00% |
|
My line manager provides me with constructive feedback |
69/235*100=29.36% |
65/235*100=27.66% |
56/235*100=23.83% |
45/235*100=19.15% |
|
My line manager provides me with learning and development opportunities so I can do my job better |
54/235*100=22.98% |
101/235*100=42.98% |
70/235*100=29.79% |
10/235*100=4.26% |
The most concerning results from the above calculations from the feedback given by employees was that the employees feel that their manager does not listen to their ideas during reviews at 79.57% and 51.49% of the employees also disagreeing that their line managers providing clear and direct guidance suggesting that employees feel that their performance management is lacking. This indicates a correlation with the line manager results who lack confidence and support in their performance management. Also, this indicates that employees and line managers have a discordant relationship. One positive issue in this data is that 60.00% of the employees agree that line manager provide positive feedback.
Table 1 Performance Data
Recommendation: Increase Learning and Development Opportunities to enable more employees to become outstanding and qualify for bonuses
Benefits
Based on the performance judgments, the organisation should increase the opportunities to enable more employees to become outstanding and thus qualify for bonuses. The organisation will stand to benefit through increased productivity due to enhanced skills, higher employee engagement and better retention due to the opportunities for professional development and career advancement.
Risks
Organisation will face significant risks such as interdepartmental conflicts which compete for limited L&D resources and opportunities and also non-productive competitive environments as employees overconcentrate to outperforming each other to get the bonus payments.
Costs
Organisation will face direct costs such as expensive costs of training, recruiting external trainers and buying educational materials. The organisation will face indirect costs of loss of working time as employees attend the training sessions.
TABLE 2 Performance review survey responses
Recommendation: Using Line managers from stronger departments as mentors and coaches
Benefits
Organisation requires to use line managers from stronger departments as mentors and coaches for those in weaker departments. The organisation will benefit from increased productivity where line managers share successful strategies leading to overall improvement in performance, the organisation will also benefit from higher employee engagement levels and enhanced employee and customer satisfaction due to the collaboration and knowledge sharing between departments.
Risks
The organisation will face the risk of conflicts between line managers where their management styles and departmental goals could lead to misunderstandings and conflicts, and also legal and clarity issues where the management styles may lead to complexities and confusion in the organisation.
Costs
Organisation will face direct costs of training mentors and also developing supporting materials in this exercise. Indirect costs will also be incurred such as loss of working time as line managers and employees participate in mentorship activities.
FAQS
How much does staff training cost in the UK?
What are the values, benefits and cost of coaching and mentoring?
Presentation of key findings for stakeholders from people practice activities and initiatives
Interpresentation of analytical data using appropriate analysis tools and methods
Methods that can be used to measure impacts of people practice