HRM 5463 Module 2 Performance Management Plan Example

Fourteen Rooms, a 30-Point Checklist and a Huddle in Two Languages: A Performance Management Plan for Resort Housekeeping and Banquets

Student Name

American College of Education

HRM5463: Employee Relations and Performance Management

Module 2 Assignment

Instructor Name

November 22, 2027

Introduction

The Module 1 assessment at Lakeview Pines, the composite Wisconsin Dells resort where I manage human resources, found that housekeeping and banquet staff have the lowest engagement and highest turnover, and that neither department has a performance management system beyond complaints. Housekeepers do not know what good performance looks like, room assignments feel unfair and feedback arrives only when something goes wrong. This paper designs a performance management plan for those two departments. It explains what research says about why such systems often fail, sets standards and goals, creates a fair assignment rule, builds a feedback cycle, links the plan to pay and training and sets measures.

Why Performance Management Often Fails

Research suggests that many performance management systems disappoint because they focus on forms rather than conversations. Pulakos and O'Leary (2011) argued that performance management is broken largely because organizations concentrate on administrative steps, such as annual ratings and paperwork, while the activities that actually improve performance, setting expectations, giving informal feedback and coaching, happen day to day between managers and employees. Looking back over a hundred years of studies, DeNisi and Murphy (2017) observed that much of the field focused on making ratings accurate rather than on improving performance itself. The plan below therefore keeps formal paperwork light and puts most of its weight on frequent, specific conversations.

Standards for Housekeeping

Housekeepers will have three clear standards. Workload is set at 14 room credits per eight-hour shift, with a checkout room counting as one credit, a stayover as half and a suite as one and a half, so that different mixes of rooms can be compared fairly. Quality is measured with a 30-point inspection checklist covering bathrooms, beds, floors, amenities and safety items; supervisors inspect at least two rooms per housekeeper each week, and the target is 95 percent of points passed. Reliability covers attendance and on-time arrival. The checklist and standards will be printed in English and Spanish, with photos showing what each item should look like. The 14-credit standard was set by timing experienced housekeepers over two weeks and taking a level most of them reached without rushing, so it reflects the actual work rather than a corporate benchmark from a different property.

A Fair Assignment Rule

Module 1 found that only 34 percent of housekeepers saw room assignments as fair, because supervisors give harder rooms to slower or newer staff. The plan replaces discretion with a rule. Each morning, the scheduling system assigns rooms by credits so that every housekeeper on a full shift receives 14, and heavy rooms, such as suites and rooms flagged for deep cleaning, rotate in order through the whole team. New housekeepers receive 10 credits in their first two weeks and 12 in the next two while they learn. Supervisors can adjust assignments only for documented reasons, such as a medical restriction, and adjustments are logged. Fair assignment is part of performance management, because standards mean little if the work behind them is distributed unevenly.

Standards for Banquets

Banquet servers will have standards for event setup accuracy, measured against the event order with a checklist before guests arrive; service quality, measured by the event planner's post-event rating and guest comment cards; and reliability. Because Module 1 found that banquet staff are frustrated by constant schedule changes, the plan also sets a standard for the organization: schedules are posted two weeks ahead, and any change after posting must come with at least 48 hours' notice unless the client changes an event, in which case affected servers may decline extra shifts without penalty. The sales team will be asked to confirm event details five days before each event.

Goals Tied to Guest Results

Each department will have shared goals linked to guests. For housekeeping, the goal is to restore the room cleanliness score from 4.0 to 4.4 out of 5 within a year, with quarterly milestones. For banquets, the goal is an average event planner rating of 4.5. Goals are shared by the team, which encourages helping one another rather than competing. Research on goal setting supports this approach: people working toward a concrete, demanding target tend to outperform those told only to do their best, provided people accept them and receive feedback on their progress (Locke & Latham, 2002). Progress will be posted weekly on a board in each department's break room.

The Feedback Cycle

Feedback will happen at four levels. Each shift begins with a five-minute huddle, held in English and Spanish, covering the day's priorities and recognizing one example of good work from the day before. Each week, supervisors share inspection results with each housekeeper privately, pointing to specific items. Each month, every employee has a ten-minute check-in with the supervisor to discuss progress, problems and support needed. Twice a year, a short written review summarizes performance against the standards and sets goals for the next period. Most of the plan's value lies in the first three levels, consistent with the research on day-to-day conversation.

Links to Pay and Development

The semiannual reviews will determine pay step increases of 50 cents an hour for employees who meet the standards, replacing the current practice of across-the-board raises that do not reward performance. Employees who exceed standards consistently will be offered training as housekeeping inspectors or banquet captains, roles that pay more and create a visible career path. Employees who fall short will receive a written improvement plan with specific support, such as pairing with an experienced colleague, before any discipline is considered, which Module 4 will address. The added cost is modest: if 80 percent of the 120 employees in the two departments earn a step, each round of steps adds about $96,000 a year to payroll at 2,000 paid hours, less than the estimated cost of replacing the housekeepers who left last year.

Rolling Out the Plan

The plan will start in housekeeping in January, the resort's slowest month, so supervisors and staff can learn the new standards before the spring rush. The first month will be a trial: inspection scores and room credits will be recorded and discussed but not used for pay, giving everyone a chance to raise problems with the standards. Housekeepers will be invited to a meeting at the end of the trial to suggest changes, and at least one change proposed by staff will be adopted to show that their input matters. Banquets will follow in March, after the sales team has agreed to the five-day confirmation rule.

Supervisor Training and Measures

The plan depends on supervisors, and Module 1 showed that most of them have had no coaching on how to deliver feedback. All housekeeping and banquet supervisors will complete a four-hour workshop on giving specific feedback, running huddles and holding check-ins, with a refresher every six months. The plan will be judged on five measures: engagement scores for the two departments, which were 3.1 and 3.3; turnover; the share of housekeepers who see assignments as fair; inspection pass rates; and guest scores. A second round of the same survey is planned for next September, twelve months after the first.

Conclusion

Research suggests that performance management works through clear expectations and frequent conversations rather than forms. The plan gives housekeeping and banquet staff specific standards, a fair assignment rule, shared goals linked to guests, a four-level feedback cycle and links to pay and careers, supported by supervisor training. The next module will examine how the semiannual reviews can be made accurate and fair.

References

DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

Pulakos, E. D., & O'Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management broken? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(2), 146-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01315.x