Posted: January 20th, 2023
s described in our introduction for this week, it is important to underscore the rationale behind an effective performance management strategy. A simple flight analogy emphasizes the importance of a clear plan needed in order to meet the intended goal of a plane arriving at a certain time in a certain place despite other obstacles that may fall in its path. Employees need to be given this same degree of detailed guidance and direction in order to hit “target” performance time and again. A clearly defined and well-executed performance management strategy can do wonders for an organization and its employees! It can help to keep the employees on track, despite many organizational obstacles and pitfalls.
To respond to this discussion topic, review the required article by Srinivas (2009) about performance management.
Explain the flight analogy detailed within the article.
Do you agree or disagree with this analogy as it relates to effective performance management?
Explain. Find at least one other peer reviewed article to support your position. Post should be at least 400 words.
Rubric for Research Paper
Outstanding – 20pts
Good – 15pts
Fair – 10pts
Unacceptable – 5pts
Excellent section headings, indicative of a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics and subtopics clearly indicated.
Good section headings, indicative to a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics clearly indicated, could use more subtopics.
Fair section headings, indicative that the paper has “flow”. Topics and subtopics not clearly indicated. Unclear organization of thoughts.
Relevant topics missing or incorrect, paper has no indicative “flow”.
Highly informative, complete and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Abstract makes you want to read the paper.
Informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Somewhat informative and understandable.
Not very informative or understandable.
Thesis is clear, easy to find, and appropriate to the assignment.
Thesis is supported by the rest of the paper.
Paper contains a “roadmap” for the reader.
There is a logical “flow” to the topics/arguments. Conclusion follows clearly from the arguments presented.
Thesis is clear and appropriate. Thesis fairly well supported.
Paper is fairly well organized.
Conclusion follows from the rest of the paper.
Thesis is fairly clear.
Inconsistent support for thesis. Paper weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Thesis unclear and/or inappropriate.
Thesis not supported.
Paper is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t follow from the rest of the paper.
The evidence comes from a wide variety of valid sources. The bibliography is complete and reflects appropriate sources.
The evidence comes from the minimum valid sources. The bibliography is complete.
Valid sources are inconsistently used. The bibliography contains minor formatting errors.
Multiple sources cited incorrectly.
Arguments are pertinent to the topic.
Arguments are logical, supported with evidence. The key arguments have been made – no major points have been left out.
pertinent to the topic. Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported.
Most key arguments have been made.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical, or supported. Few key arguments have been made.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at
all, logical and supported.
Almost no key arguments have been made.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.