Introduction
Employee evaluation helps employers to assess their workers’ performance. These evaluations help organizations to develop a wealth of information about their workers, thereby improving their decision-making processes (Lang et al., 2020). In turn, they make better Human Resource Management (HRM) decisions about promotions, transfers, assignments, resource allocations, and other similar functions. Organizations may conduct performance management or appraisal systems, depending on their evaluation objectives. Performance appraisal systems refer to evaluations aimed at reviewing an employee’s performance in the immediate past (Bronkhorst, 2017, p. 157). Comparatively, performance management systems are designed to assess their performance vis-à-vis the realization of organizational goals and vision (Lang et al., 2020, p. 56). These unique evaluation systems both confer benefits to HRM productivity.
The success of implementing evaluation systems depends on the effective understanding of organizational and environmental fit requirements. The failure to acknowledge these requirements explain why organizations have failed to harness the power of employee resource utilization plans to improve their competitiveness (Bronkhorst, 2017, p. 156). For example, most of them have failed to address subjective aspects of employee performance such as lifestyle counseling, socio-environmental support, and workplace policy, amongst others (Lang et al., 2020, p. 319). According to Lamsa and Keranen (2020), understanding key areas of employee performance assists in understanding factors affecting employee productivity and, by extension, organizational performance (p. 422). Therefore, the need for a comprehensive approach to valuation cannot be overemphasized.
This document is a critique of Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center’s performance appraisal system. The health center uses the appraisal model, as opposed to the performance management system, because evaluations are done in short intervals and face-to-face. The aim of this review is to make proposals for enhancing the current model of job performance evaluation for better representation and efficiency. This analysis will assume two approaches to meeting this objective – understanding whether the current evaluation system aligns with the institution’s mission and vision and assessing the impact that the evaluation system has on the overall healthcare system. The findings of this study will be useful in proposing a set of actions that management can take to improve the measurement of job performance in the organization.
Comparison of System with Vision and Mission of Organization
The healthcare sector is among the selected industries that rely on the implementation of effective evaluation processes to improve job performance due to its service-oriented nature. According to Reddy et al. (2021), the sensitive nature of the industry and the sheer volume of research involved in approving the use of new treatment techniques have made evaluation an important step in finding the right professionals to work on critical projects. This specificity is desirable because healthcare facilities have the freedom to tweak their employee health programs for maximum efficiency (p. 332). Thus, sound evaluation programs are not only there for employees to review their performance but also for organizations to enhance their effectiveness (Bronkhorst, 2017, p. 156). This statement stems from research studies, which have demonstrated that engaged employees are productive, effective, efficient, and healthy (Lang et al., 2020, p. 319). Therefore, having a good work environment for employees to work in is important not only in maximizing individual employee productivity but also in supporting the overall success of an organization.
Different organizations implement their evaluation system based on their unique needs and requirements. For many organizations, the process is informed by the importance of improving employee productivity and protecting their safety at the same time (Reddy et al., 2021, p. 332). Following this goal, the vision and mission of an organization are expected to instill direction in the management of organizational affairs (Bronkhorst, 2017, p. 156). This statement means that all aspects of an organization’s activities should be designed to fulfill specific goals. The hospital also follows the guidelines proposed by the Joint Commission for HR compliance as stipulated in Figure 1. MSK’s evaluation process aligns with its vision and mission. To understand this alignment of purpose, reviewing the organization’s background first is important.
MSK is a healthcare institution located in Manhattan, New York. The organization specializes in the provision of cancer research and treatment services. Founded in 1884, the organization has existed for more than 135 years and specializes in the areas of cancer research and management (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center [MSKCC], 2022a, p. 1). Today, MSK is among the oldest and largest private healthcare facilities in the U.S., specializing in cancer research and treatment. The healthcare institution has more than 12,000 employees who care for 22,300 patients annually, thereby shouldering most of the healthcare burden of cancer patients in New York and arguably in the country (MSKCC, 2022b, p. 1). MSK’s leadership in the field of cancer research has helped it to maintain its position as a leader in this area of healthcare research.
The organization’s leadership position is demonstrable through its specialization in treating multiple types of cancer. It is estimated that the hospital treats about 400 subtypes of cancer every year and provides treatment support, including genetic counseling, pain management, rehabilitation services, and assisted living facilities, to different groups of patients (MSKCC, 2022a, p. 1). Given the multifaceted nature of cancer research and treatment, the hospital’s mission is “To lead in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and cure of cancer through programs of excellence in research, education, outreach, and cost-effective patient care” (MSKCC, 2022b, p. 1). The managers of MSK believe in this mission and have argued that failing to create an environment where employee health and wellbeing are maximized only fosters the need for a larger workforce but with little or no benefit to patients.
MSK’s individualized evaluation system lives up to the spirit of the aforementioned mission statement. This relationship is supported by the fact different members of staff are involved in the evaluation process through self and two levels of management reviews, as highlighted in Figure 2. To meet its performance appraisal objectives, the common basis for evaluating productivity is at the individual or employee level. Thus, evaluation is conducted at this level of analysis with an emphasis on how each team member contributes toward the fulfillment of the organization’s goals. At the same time, the current evaluation system is designed to counter-check the performance of one appraisal system with another, as is the case with management evaluation, which occurs at two levels – first and second-level evaluations. The main purpose of pursuing this multilevel evaluation strategy is to ensure fairness.
Broadly, effective evaluation plans are often simple to understand for both employers and employees. At MSK, the evaluation system is focused, planned, and designed to complement the overall vision and mission of the organization, as seen from the multiple stages of evaluation described in Figure 2. It is also practical in the sense that it involves the integration of various technological tools to foster accountability and transparency in the management of employee affairs. Indeed, as seen in Figure 2, the company’s evaluation process uses an IT system approach where sign-off is done digitally and evaluations are moved from one stage to another electronically. The criteria used for evaluation is disclosed in the employment contract to allow prospective employees to evaluate terms before deciding to work with the organization. This way, employees adjust their expectations of the evaluation process and have adequate time to prepare for such exercises.
As observed in Figure 1 the Joint Commission Guidelines on Performance Appraisal stipulates employee requirements for evaluation. Similarly, it stipulates actions that are deemed compliant and non-compliant. In this regard, employees are aware of the main aspects of their performance that add to their final score in an evaluation. This detailed mode of assessment allows for synchrony, or alignment of purpose, between departmental goals and the organization’s overall mission. This is why the process of evaluation at MSK always starts with making employees understand what will be measured and why patient safety and punctuality are prioritized above all other considerations. In this system, managers have influence in dictating the policy position that the evaluation follows.
Formulating the right policies to support evaluations may help streamline performance at MSK with the overall vision and mission of the organization addressed. To this end, there is a convergence of individual and organizational interests in the evaluation as seen in the Joint Commission Guidelines highlighted in Figure 1. Ideally, evaluation programs should prove that the process of pursuing individual goals should not undermine, or slow down, the process of realizing organizational goals (Reddy et al., 2021, p. 332). Recognizing the need for striking a balance in this situation helps employees to understand the original intentions of evaluation and possible ways that could be followed to meet known goals. This conviction ensures that all employee health departmental activities are looped back to the overall mission and vision of the organization.
The compliance criteria highlighted in Figure 1 contribute to the fulfillment of MSK’s vision and mission by stipulating acceptable and unacceptable conduct. Relative to this statement, Dobler et al. (2022) argue that an organization’s performance metrics system should share a close relationship with its priority objectives (p. 113). MSK has adopted this principle in practice because its evaluation metrics are tied to the accomplishment of its overall vision and mission. For example, the priority of the employee health department is to minimize the effects of noncompliance with organizational guidelines on employee performance. To achieve this objective, MSK’s assessment metrics measure completion of the appraisal system and completion of job responsibilities (see Figure 1). These metrics of evaluation have been integrated into the department’s evaluation culture to provide a robust framework of analyzing job performance.
The data analysis method used in MSK’s evaluation system aligns with its vision and mission. Currently, employees undergo training only during their orientation phase and that is relevant to their area of specialty. These training programs are designed to align employee roles with the overall objective of the organization. Those who have completed evaluations may also undergo additional training if they are due to promotion or transfer to a new department. The presence of such training programs in the evaluation process strengthens its overall framework by smoothening employee transitions from one stage of work to another. Additionally, it facilitates the transition of employees from one department to another.
Impact of System on Evaluation
As highlighted above, MSK’s evaluation system is aligned with its vision and mission. This synchrony may have a positive impact on the evaluation system by maximizing opportunities for growth and performance. Furthermore, it makes it possible to compare the achievement of a department’s goals with those of the MSK parent organization because they will be both using the same criteria of review (Bronkhorst, 2017, p. 156). Therefore, the accomplishment of a department’s goals can be mirrored to represent that of the entire organization.
From an individual employee performance perspective, attention should be drawn to an employee’s area of specialization because they form the context for determining whether proposed interventions are effective or not. Naturally, some employees would reduce their exposure to evaluation criteria that are irrelevant to their specialized areas of interest; others will maintain it; while some will minimize them (Reddy et al., 2021, p. 332). The goal of MSK’s evaluation system is to maintain a balanced framework that applies to all employee groups. Successive evaluation programs would also make sure that they represent core evaluative attributes of each area of specialization for targeted workers.
As a project manager, I am often invited to meetings where employee evaluations are discussed. From these experiences, employees believe that design is the most contentious issue discussed during the initial phase of the evaluation process. However, as deliberations progress, the focus often shifts away from its design to the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of the program Relative to this assertion, Howarth et al. (2018) say the goal is to make sure that such programs outlive their usefulness and have a more long-lasting impact on communities, or target populations, beyond the intended timeframes of implementation. Similarly, the intervention that should be achieved from the adoption of program goals can only be implemented if they are sustainable and can blend well with existing policies already used in MSK.
The relationship between MSK’s current evaluation system and its mission has an impact on the overall quality of evaluation achieved in the organization. This is because the strengths and weaknesses of the health center’s evaluation system have a profound impact on its value proposition, as a leading cancer facility in the US (Centers for Disease Control Prevention, 2022, p. 1). Based on this statement, we could assume that the level of investments that MSK will make toward changing its evaluation system would depend on the perceived benefit the organization will enjoy as a result (Fox & McCorkle, 2018, p. 373). Nonetheless, it is important to understand that the value allocated to an evaluation system may vary, depending on the type of organization, stakeholders, or groups involved (Haworth et al., 2018, p. 1). Consequently, it is important to develop a robust stakeholder engagement plan before embarking on the implementation plan because it will be possible to solve most of the emerging issues before resources are deployed.
To determine the impact of MSK’s evaluation system on the organization, it is important to use three fundamental criteria of review. The first one is a determination of the merits of the evaluation program through an analysis of its features, such as quality (Lang et al., 2020, p. 319). The second criterion of assessment involves a review of its cost-effectiveness because associated activities ought to be implemented within the organization’s budgetary allocations for the year (Lang et al., 2020, p. 319). The last pillar of the review relates to the significance of the process of the employees and organization. Stated differently, it should be determined whether the evaluation will have an impact on the community, or individuals, who are intended to benefit from it.
Aligning MSK’s evaluation process with its mission and vision has an impact on its credibility because it redefines key performance indicators to use for assessing performance. The above three dimensions of review (determining the merits of the evaluation program, reviewing its cost-effectiveness, and maximizing impact on the target population) will most likely provide a more reliable basis for accessing the value of the current system to the evaluation process (Dobler et al., 2022, p. 113). A policy change that would satisfy the three criteria identified above is likely to have a positive impact on the evaluation process compared to one that satisfies only two, or one, of the three elements mentioned.
Modifying the current performance evaluation system is likely to help redefine the value of the organization to its employees and patients. This statement suggests that there is potential for MSK to tinker with the performance of its evaluation system to enhance its relationship with these two stakeholders based on the ability of its employees to align their career pursuits with the mission and vision of the organization. The existence of this possibility could have far-reaching ramifications on the health center. The existence of counter arguments means that there are good and bad parts of the system that need further review (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 2022, p. 1). The following key sections highlight the good and bad parts of the current evaluation system.
Good Parts of the System
The main advantage of MSK’s evaluation system is its ability to recognize forces influencing employees’ operational environment and seeking innovative ways of managing them. This initiative has helped it to manage trends in the workplace that would have consequences on performance. For example, the multi-layered format of evaluation, which is implemented at MSK has similarly been adopted in many modern organizations. Its adoption in the hospital’s evaluation system is designed to foster engagements and fairness in the review. Relative to this statement, the management of MSK recognizes the complexity of the organization’s evaluation system, as seen in the steps envisioned in the evaluation process (see Figure 2). To this end, its philosophy is based on the need to recognize the impact of employee evaluation reports on the productivity of the organization.
The process of accepting the multifaceted nature of employee evaluation systems has been determined by several factors, including the interaction of the social, cultural, and physical dynamics of the workplace setting, as seen in the Joint Commission statement depicted in Figure 1. These influences affect job performance appraisals because they represent the complex set of interactions between individual and environmental factors affecting the productivity of staff in the organization. These relationships are represented in the different stages of evaluation highlighted in Figure 2. Recognizing the complexity of these linkages in the evaluation system has provided a framework of inclusion where diverse interests are discussed and represented in an organization’s overall policy framework.
Given that MSK focuses on cancer research and treatment, the adoption of the multifaceted evaluation framework has complemented the adoption of diversity principles in its evaluation process. This approach of analysis has led colleagues to believe that a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting employee performance was responsible for fluctuating performances across different departments. Understanding the complexity of the evaluation system using the multifaceted understanding of performance determinants, which has not been traditionally implemented in many organizations’ evaluation systems, is the right way to assess performance (Bronkhorst, 2017, p. 156). The current system has been built on a philosophy that respects diversity and now conveys a promising approach to understanding and addressing most factors affecting performance (see Figure 2). Therefore, the multifaceted nature of the evaluation system plays a complementary role in the fulfillment of the MSK’s goals.
The respect for diversity principles in the evaluation system has enabled MSK to accommodate changes to the workforce based on demographic changes that have characterized the employee population over the years. Notably, healthcare professionals working at the facility have become increasingly diverse, with more ethnic minorities and disabled people working for the organization now more than ever before (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 2022, p. 3). Varying demographics and cultural characteristics of healthcare workers have been captured in the company’s evaluation framework because of its dynamism.
Doing so has helped enhance the credibility of the performance appraisal process because this feature means that the system’s design is multifaceted enough to capture changes to the operating environment. Ross and Barnes explained that the collapse of many evaluation systems happens because they fail to account for changes in their environments (p. 367). Furthermore, many employers still rely on legacy systems to plan their evaluation systems (Lang et al., 2020, p. 319). The failure to include mechanisms that would accommodate these changes would create a redundant system in the short term and an obsolete one in the end (Lang et al., 2020, p. 319). The evaluation system at MSK does not have these weaknesses because its design was developed to allow for changes.
MSK’s evaluation program also includes a risk appraisal feature, which is completed using surveys and involves the collection of biometric information from employees. The results of these testing processes have been associated with increased resource use and better employee motivational levels in the organization (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 2022, p. 1). For example, our department of employee uses the results of this performance appraisal system to identify on-site or offsite threats to employee safety. Others develop recommendations relating to lifestyle factors, based on such data, while some professionals choose to enroll in selected training programs due to the similar reasons (Bronkhorst, 2017, p. 156). Therefore, the results of the risk appraisal analysis are used to make determinations about employee lifestyles and strategies for accomplishing career goals. So far, they have successfully helped management to recommend the right type of training for employees, thereby leading to a reduction in the number of disgruntled employees because my colleagues believe that management cares for them.
Bad Parts of the System
As highlighted above, the current evaluation system adopted at MSK is robust, in the sense that it encompasses the views of several factors impacting the organizational environment. However, its efficiency has been undermined by the lack of sufficient controls that should increase managers’ control over the data collection and analysis process (Dobler et al., 2022, p. 113). This limitation is a potential risk factor for the organization because it makes it difficult for hospital administrators to make changes to existing evaluation plans without compromising the integrity of other systems. To illustrate this risk, managers rely on third-party players to obtain data, from different service providers, relating to the evaluation process. For example, a third-party service provider runs the organization’s security system and collects employee Log-in data on behalf of the firm. If managers want to access this data to review employee attendance records, they have to make a formal request to the service provider – a process, which may take days. Therefore, the overreliance on third-party service providers makes it difficult to make timely decisions relating to employee evaluations, particularly in urgent situations. Therefore, there is a need to review this area of data management to increase the organization’s control of information sources.
It is also important to review the cost of maintaining the current evaluation system because cost escalations could make it unsustainable in the end. This process is important because the current evaluation system causes instability within employee ranks due to disagreements among different groups of specialists (Bronkhorst, 2017, p. 156). Despite suggestions by researchers that many employers are embracing employee health and productivity programs to benefit their workers, it may be different to justify the costs of maintaining MSK’s existing evaluation system, as currently constituted, because it relies on old technology to sustain operations (Rosenberg and Li, 2018 p. 516). Consequently, current efforts aimed at maintaining the system need to be redirected to areas that would promote cost minimization. This shift is likely to be feasible in non-core operational areas because of the ease of reallocating excess operating capacity to crucial activities (Bronkhorst, 2017, p. 156). Recalibrating the organization’s evaluation system to mirror these changes would make it more responsive to employee needs. Therefore, it is difficult to justify the current program costs to the management because they are outdated.
The lack of surety that changes lined up for adoption will yield the outcomes intended is another limitation affecting the current MSK evaluation model. For example, there is no surety that the current change initiatives undertaken in the organization would improve the health and well-being of the healthcare staff, or their productivity in the first place. Furthermore, employee performance is subjective and leadership in the workplace varies with the personalities associated with such positions (Lamsa and Keranen, 2020, p. 422). Therefore, if a visionary person assumes the leadership position, employee motivation is likely to increase, but if one who is not motivated assumes the same position, there is a high likelihood that performance would be suboptimal.
Such concerns exist because at the heart of every employer’s expectation of investing in evaluation programs is the expectation that employee productivity would improve. However, no surety that the cost of providing care would decrease exists or that MSK employees would improve their productivity by accepting changes that would come from the evaluation (Rosenberg and Li, 2018, p. 516). To this end, there is an inherent risk associated with the organization’s evaluation plan because of a weak follow-up strategy. These risks could be best exemplified by understanding factors that moderate the performance of the existing evaluation model.
Factors Moderating Performance
The process of investigating issues affecting the performance of MSK’s evaluation system requires a robust understanding of indirect elements affecting performance. Relative to the nuanced understanding of factors affecting the organization’s activities, it is important to categorize moderating factors into two groups to identify those that require urgent attention and those that may be resolved later. The importance of doing so is to optimize the limited resources available in the organization among activities that have the highest potential for growth and to make sure that the budgetary allocations of other departments are not affected by the runway costs of another (Rosenberg and Li, 2018, p. 516). Thus, the main factors moderating the performance of MSK’s evaluation system can be categorized into major and minor ones.
Major Factors affecting performance are those that have the potential to change outcome measures in the assessment plan. In our department of employee health, major factors are events, or conditions, that limit program effectiveness. These issues may have a short-term, intermediate, or long-term effect on program effectiveness (Bronkhorst, 2017, p. 156). The short-term ones are likely to be noticed before the others because they have an immediate effect on system functioning.
The long-term effect of moderating factors on employee performance may manifest in many ways. Common outcomes include decreased employee absenteeism rates, low levels of patient complaints, and increased resource efficiency (Rosenberg and Li, 2018, p. 516). Relative to this statement, it may take a longer time to realize the overall vision and mission of the organization. In other words, it may take a long time for managers to benefit from the full scale of benefits to be realized if evaluation is improved due to these moderating variables (Dobler et al., 2022, p. 113). Furthermore, moderating variables may increase the number of stakeholders needed to optimize some of the benefits of evaluation that lie in an underexplored environment where partnerships are rarely sought.
Minor Factors affecting performance are those that are designed to help in the realization of its long-term objective. In the context of employee evaluation, they may include the reorganization of employee-centered performance appraisal policies and the development of a culture of transparency and goodwill among managers and employees (Fox & McCorkle, 2018, p. 373). These plans are likely to improve the relationship between employers and employees, while, at the same time, enhancing productivity in an organization. The level of employee engagement in an organization also plays a minor role in moderating the performance of an organization’s evaluation system. Relative to this assertion, researchers claim that high levels of employee engagement are likely to increase productivity and effectiveness (Ross & Barnes, 2018, p. 367). Given that MSK routinely reviews its communication strategy, there are instances where some performance appraisal programs have been widely successful while others have failed.
The moderating effect on performance has been how the organization has used its available communication techniques to affect compliance. Employee incentives and outreach activities have also been recalibrated in the same way to enhance the impact of the evaluation system. Researchers argue that the adoption of these measures is instrumental in changing employee perceptions of management activities to secure their support (Dobler et al., 2022, p. 113). Participation rates can improve in this regard and enhance program effectiveness in the long run.
Broadly, the minor factors affecting MSK’s evaluation system include individual and interpersonal elements affecting employee wellbeing. Individual factors include attitudes, experiences, and relationships with employers and other colleagues (Lang et al., 2020, p. 319). Thus, interpersonal factors move beyond an employee’s sphere of control to include the relationship that health care staff have with each other and their superiors (Kim & Baker, 2019, p. 20). For example, the relationship between MSK’s head of the employee health department and his staff is critical to the assessment of our department’s success because both parties are expected to work together on several areas of service delivery. In this regard, the quality of this relationship is likely to affect the outcomes of a transparent evaluation process (Kim & Baker, 2019, p. 20). In the same vein of analysis, the relationship that employees have with their family members and their role models, or career mentors in the healthcare industry, are likely to impact performance as well.
Demographic differences among employees have the potential to moderate the effects of MSK’s evaluation system in the same manner described above because they can redefine the kind of motivation strategies management should use to motivate different groups of employees. For example, interventions intended to appeal to younger workers would not necessarily be desirable to older employees (Kim & Baker, 2019, p. 20). This is because younger employees better respond to evaluation programs that include options for assessing physical activity, likeability, and other subjective measures in appraisals (Fox & McCorkle, 2018, p. 373). Comparatively, older workers may better respond to initiatives aimed at reducing their exposure to adverse health risks or enhancing the efficacy of disease maintenance programs (Dobler et al., 2022, p. 113). These interventions are useful in preventing common health conditions, such as heart disease and diabetes, which tend to affect their performance.
How to Improve the System
Recognizing inherent failures undermining a system is the first step of improving a system. To this end, there needs to be a robust assessment of environmental factors underpinning the relationship between employers and employees at MSK to succinct plan of change (Fox & McCorkle, 2018, p. 373). Indeed, after completing the assessment and planning phases, it is customary to brainstorm the best way to monitor and evaluate the system, as currently designed.
Similar to the manner assessment data is crucial to the implantation of evidence-based planning and implementation processes; there is also a need to build a solid foundation of evidence to create a business case for the support of employee evaluation programs. Ideally, evaluations should be designed from the onset of the process of developing implementation plans and not during, or after, they have been launched (Howarth et al., 2018, p. 1). Relative to this assertion, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022) says that effective evaluation systems should prioritize the investigation of results for implementation and not those of the outcomes (p. 1). The aim is to make improvements in specific areas of performance management for enhanced productivity. Thus, the evaluation process needs to demonstrate its usefulness, feasibility, and compliance with existing ethical rules and guidelines of operation.
The recommendation highlighted above has the potential to generate practical and useful evaluation systems and processes for MSK. This is because they can create routine systems and operations for the fulfillment of organizational objectives (Bronkhorst, 2017, p. 156). Reddy et al. (2021) explained that including stakeholders during the early stages of the planning process would assist in securing the support program implementers, evaluators, and planners need in this plan because their views will be included in the planning process. In the institutional setting, this collaborative setup may include partnerships among leaders, employees, managers, evaluators, and program designers (Reddy et al., 2021, p. 332). Designing a robust team of professionals to oversee the process makes it easier to create a holistic evaluation design that includes and values the benefits of effective resource planning and investments.
The success of the proposals highlighted above, which are aimed at improving the performance of MSK’s evaluation system, depends on the establishment of a robust monitoring and evaluation system. The overall purpose of this research has been to examine the organization’s performance appraisal system to understand its strengths and weaknesses. Consequently, besides overseeing the communication system, it is also important for MSK’s managers to review and evaluate the program’s performance, vis-à-vis its objectives (Howarth et al., 2018, p. 1). Doing so would require managers to identify employees that are eligible for assessment and the engagement methods to be used in the process (Howarth et al., 2018, p. 1). The length of time that it would take, along with the effectiveness of the program, also plays a significant role in establishing the key performance indicators to look for in such a system.
At the same time, there should be a routine monitoring and review process of the communication strategies used by the employer and employees to improve the appraisal environment. Relative to this assertion, Rosenberg & Li (2018) claimed that a distinction could be made to separate organization and vendor-sponsored communication strategies to protect audiences from confusing messages (p. 516). Similarly, Bronkhorst (2017) stated that the relevance of this distinction during and after evaluation should also be discussed in this segment of analysis (p. 156). In this regard, managers can capture data from the two communication sources and assess them over time to enhance the effectiveness of appraisal outreach programs among different groups of employees. At the same time, when evaluating performance in the middle and in the long term, the cost implications of pursuing each strategic option should be defined to calculate and estimate their effects on the risk profile of the organization.
Conclusion
The findings of this research paper have shown that a robust performance assessment plan should connect different risk factors that influence the employee’s operational environment. This statement explains the foundation for the development of MSK’s activities because it connects variables that are likely to affect employee health and well-being at individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels.
Overall, this report can be used to improve MSK’s evaluation performance at three fundamental levels. The first one relates to the identification of factors that inhibit the health and wellbeing of employees. The findings of this evaluation can be used to develop effective policies in this area of review. Secondly, the findings of this report provide a deeper insight into the overall performance of the health of MSK, as a leading organization in cancer research and treatment. Other cancer care institutions that have the same objective can borrow its experience reviewing the performance of their employees. Therefore, its leadership role makes it a case study for other similar organizations that would like to change their evaluation process because they could benefit from the lessons that have emerged in MSK’s case.
Other organizations can also benefit intrinsically from this case study by increasing employee productivity because sound employee appraisal programs are central to the maintenance of high levels of motivation among workers. Indeed, high motivational levels are just as crucial to the overall performance of an organization. Additionally, adopting some of the recommendations outlined in this research paper would assist in controlling healthcare costs and decreasing absenteeism at MSK when managing its employees. Furthermore, the healthcare facility could benefit from the insights developed in this research paper by improving its policy formulation processes. Overall, the findings of this investigation would assist the organization to create and develop sound policies that would help in the fulfillment and achievement of the goals identified.
References
Bronkhorst, B. (2017). How ‘healthy’ are healthcare organizations? Exploring employee healthcare utilization rates among Dutch healthcare organizations. Health Services Management Research, 30(3), 156–167.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). Workplace health promotion: Evaluation. Web.
Dobler, A.S., Emmermacher, A., Richter-Killenberg, S., Nowak, J., & Wegge, J. (2020). New
insights into self-initiated work design: The role of job crafting, self-undermining and five types of job satisfaction for employee’s health and work ability. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 36(2), 113–147.
Fox, K., & McCorkle, R. (2018). An employee-centered care model responds to the triple aim: Improving employee health. Workplace Health & Safety, 66(8), 373–383.
Howarth, A., Quesada, J., Silva, J., Judycki, S./ & Mills, P. R. (2018). The impact of digital health interventions on health-related outcomes in the workplace: A systematic review. Digital Health, 5(3), 1–12.
Kim, K., & Baker, M. (2019). How the employee looks and looks at you: Building customer-employee rapport. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 43(1), 20–40.
Lamsa, M., & Keranen, A. (2020). Responsible leadership in the manager-employee relationship.South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 9(3), 422–432. Web.
Lang, J. E., Mummert, A., Roemer, E. C., Kent, K. B., Koffman, D. M., & Goetzel, R. Z. (2020). The CDC worksite health scorecard: An assessment tool to promote employee health and well-being. American Journal of Health Promotion, 34(3), 319–321.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. (2022a). About us. Web.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. (2022b). Mission and vision. Web.
Reddy, K. P., Schult, T. M., Whitehead, A. M., & Bokhour, B. G. (2021). Veterans ‘Health Administration’s whole health system of care: supporting the health, well-being, and resiliency of employees. Global Advances in Health and Medicine, 7(2), 332–341.
Rosemberg, M. A. S., & Li, Y. (2018). Effort-reward imbalance and work productivity among hotel housekeeping employees: A pilot study. Workplace Health & Safety, 66(11), 516–521.
Ross, B. M., & Barnes, D. M. (2018). Self-determination theory with application to employee health settings. Workplace Health & Safety, 66(8), 367–372.