Public managers are so solicited by the search for efficiency (productivity, responsiveness, flexibility, quality) that the issue of health management, quality of life, well-being at work will not be at the top of their priorities current. Also, our objective is to increase the awareness of public managers about this problem and to suggest avenues for progress to tackle it.
Indeed, we are convinced that in the current unprecedented digitization phase, the articulation of work issues, its organization and its execution methods with overall performance needs are essential to rethink our public organizations. Now we have a few Performance management tools to track your performance.
When Performance Management Became More Popular?
This reflection was formalized in a Bachelard (2017) book “which aims to propose concrete keys for an optimized functioning of the public service promoting innovation and commitment. Supporting agents, helping them to evolve in their practices, better manage their emotions, and develop transversal cooperative logics are all keys to prevent urgency and everyday problems from being imposed at the expense of a more united logic.
“. In this book, eight case studies – from social security to the hospital, from the national navy to the territorial civil service, including elite police officers – are explored by practitioners and researchers who each approach them under a different angle. The enlightenment and perspective sections deal in particular with issues of governance and social dialogue, prevention of suffering and stress or the impact of organizational injustice.
Benefits of Managing Performance
The management practices of well-being at work concern both general management and functional services, including HRM, as well as management lines. Thus, it is up to managers to ensure that the operational management of the management of well-being at work, the implementation by the various actors of the company (CHSCT, managers, agents), will comply with the strategy defined by The direction.
4The manager’s different practices therefore refer us to the question of the relevance of policies and tools for well-being at work, and of their consistency with HRM policy. For example, an objective and rational injunction of quality of service from a general directorate must be in line with the subjective perception that the agents have of the latter appropriated by the whole of the work group of the entity considered, the whole inscribed in the necessarily contingent context. In addition, the degree of formalization of the tools can be very variable, as can the results of this choice.
An absence of a formalized tool can be accompanied in small structures by efficient operation. For example, the lack of monitoring of indicators such as short-term absenteeism may very well be accompanied, if we actually calculate it by a very low rate, if the awareness and appropriation by the work collective is real.
On the other hand, the complex structures, of large sizes, taking into account the multiplicity of the agents concerned, the diversity of the trades, the absence of direct regulations, must be able to display instruments or management systems, different fields of HRM and management of well-being at work, therefore “an investment in form”.