Solution
Table 1
| Department | Quarter | Outstanding | Meets KPIs | Not Quite There | Underperforming |
| Administration | Q1 | 18.18% | 18.18% | 27.27% | 27.27% |
| Absent | 9.09% | 9.09% | 9.09% | 9.09% | |
| Q2 | 9.09% | 36.36% | 36.36% | 9.09% | |
| Sales | Q1 | 0.00% | 100.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Q2 | 0.00% | 100.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| Logistics | Q1 | 5.00% | 20.00% | 40.00% | 30.00% |
| Q2 | 25.00% | 45.00% | 20.00% | 0.00% | |
| Absent | 10.00% | 10.00% | 10.00% | 10.00% | |
| Research & Development | Q1 | 30.00% | 50.00% | 10.00% | 30.00% |
| Q2 | 50.00% | 30.00% | 10.00% | 0.00% | |
| Absent | 10.00% | 10.00% | 10.00% | 10.00% |
Outstanding departments on the 4% Bonus
| Quarter | Department | Employee | Salary | Bonus |
| Q1 | Administration | Saffron Finch | £24,000 | £960 |
| Robin Bird | £31,500 | £1,260 | ||
| Logistics | Sally Rigbye | £23,750 | £950 | |
| Julie Chisnall | £19,500 | £780 | ||
| Rick Lovall | £19,500 | £780 | ||
| Gill Jamieson | £19,500 | £780 | ||
| Research & Development | Ethan Brar | £32,500 | £1,300 | |
| Tasha Graham | £29,500 | £1,180 | ||
| Jennifer Frost | £29,500 | £1,180 | ||
| Total for Q1 | £9,170 | |||
| Q2 | Administration | Saffron Finch | £24,000 | £960 |
| Ruth Sixsmith | £23,750 | £950 | ||
| Wendy Boot | £23,750 | £950 | ||
| Jean Livesey | £26,000 | £1,040 | ||
| Julie Chisnall | £19,500 | £780 | ||
| Gill Jamieson | £19,500 | £780 | ||
| Research & Development | Ethan Brar | £32,500 | £1,300 | |
| Harrison Briggs | £32,500 | £1,300 | ||
| Tasha Graham | £29,500 | £1,180 | ||
| Jennifer Frost | £29,500 | £1,180 | ||
| Steve Owen | £29,500 | £1,180 | ||
| Total for Q2 | £11,600 | |||
| Overall Total | £20,770 |
TABLE 1 Findings Interpretation
Staff from the administration department demonstrated better work performance in Q2 after achieving 36.36% KPIs compared to 18.18% in Q1 while the percentage of underperformers reduced to 9.09% from 27.27%. This shows better performance management. Over the examined timeframes there was consistent unity in sales performance as Key Performance Indicators were fully achieved by each unit. The Logistics department improved its outstanding performers by 25% since Q1 and successfully eliminated all underperformance cases by Q2. The “Outstanding” performance metrics within Research & Development improved slightly by moving from 30% in Q2 to 50% in Q1 while eliminating its underperforming category through a 30% Q1 achievement rate which was formerly 0% during Q2.
During Q2 the total bonus payments reached £11,600 while Q1 reported £9,170 showing an improved performance level in R&D and Logistics during Q2. The existing absence of data fails to demonstrate uniform distribution because it exists for some departments without information for others. The unspecified data could render the study findings invalid. The precision of the overall progress assessment fails because the actual staff numbers for all departments remain unidentified. Performance management shows positive developments supported by the existing data even when key reports are absent from measurements.
Table 2 Data showing Line Managers and Employees’ Feedback
Responses (50)
| Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | |
| A | 6.00% | 58.00% | 22.00% | 14.00% |
| B | 8.00% | 44.00% | 46.00% | 2.00% |
| C | 14.00% | 68.00% | 18.00% | 0.00% |
| D | 6.00% | 52.00% | 22.00% | 20.00% |
| E | 0.00% | 0.00% | 88.00% | 12.00% |
| F | 0.00% | 18.00% | 74.00% | 8.00% |
| G | 24.00% | 8.00% | 30.00% | 38.00% |
Responses (235)
| Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | |
| A | 0.85% | 47.23% | 51.49% | 0.43% |
| B | 2.13% | 16.60% | 79.57% | 1.70% |
| C | 2.55% | 60.00% | 34.89% | 2.55% |
| D | 6.38% | 42.13% | 37.87% | 20.00% |
| E | 35.74% | 33.62% | 6.38% | 12.00% |
| F | 0.00% | 60.85% | 39.15% | 8.00% |
| G | 29.36% | 27.66% | 23.83% | 38.00% |
Table 2 findings interpretation.
The majority of disagreement came from survey participants regarding Questions E and F which made line managers the most concerned. The combination of low support and insufficient training points to poor performance metrics. Various groups within the organisation hold contrasting views which produces a weak sense of confidence. Identical opinion regarding Question C emerged from 68% of survey participants on precise aspects.
Through survey question B staff members provide the most negative assessment of performance management practises leading to 79.57% participant disagreement. The organisational acceptance rates of staff members average 60.85% as shown in Question F. The survey results from question B demonstrate matchable concerns about the performance procedure between both staff members and their line managers. Findings indicate employees and their supervisors might confront hostile work relationships with each other. A majority of employees express positive opinions about particular performance aspects because 35.74% of them strongly agree with question E.
Please click the following icon to access this project in full