MGMT3015 Managing Performance and Rewards

Group 5: Claudia Hill 47419067, Maryam Mariot 45233535, Sanja Matkovic 47085126,
Kevin Guo 46564330
Monday 2pm – 4pm
Group 4 Feedback Report (Performance and Development Planning)
Quality of the Presentation

Understanding of Topic: The presentation demonstrated a good understanding of

performance planning, particularly in addressing key barriers such as lack of role clarity and
misinterpretation of goals. The content was well-aligned with performance management
concepts, showing a thorough grasp of the subject matter. However, there's room for
improvement in incorporating more advanced concepts and real-world examples beyond the
lecture materials.

Content and Organization: The content was thorough and well-organized, with slides
effectively communicating key points. The visual appeal and consistent design enhanced the
presentation's clarity. To aim for a higher distinction, consider incorporating more detailed,
real-world case studies from independent research to add depth to the analysis.

Presentation Delivery: While the group handled the Q&A session confidently,
demonstrating knowledge and understanding, the presentation itself felt rushed. Speaking too
quickly impacted the audience's ability to absorb the information. Additionally, exceeding the
time limit by 3-4 minutes disrupted the pacing and engagement. Focus on improving time
management and maintaining a balanced pace for better clarity and engagement.

Relating Topic to Performance Management: The presentation effectively related the topic
to performance management, particularly in highlighting the importance of role clarity in
performance planning. The group's ability to apply theoretical concepts to real-world
scenarios during the Q&A session, such as adapting performance planning to different
organizational cultures, demonstrated a strong connection between the topic and broader
performance management principles.

Group Dynamics: The group demonstrated good collaboration in presenting a cohesive set
of slides and handling the Q&A session. However, the rushed delivery suggests a need for
better coordination in timing and pace. Ensure all group members are equally prepared and
contribute to maintaining an appropriate presentation speed.

Discussion: The group handled the Q&A session confidently, offering knowledgeable
responses that showcased their understanding of the subject. Their ability to apply concepts to
real-world scenarios, such as adapting performance planning to different organizational
cultures, was particularly impressive.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Group 4’s presentation on performance planning demonstrated strengths in addressing key

barriers, such as lack of role clarity and misinterpretation of goals. Their slides were thorough
and aligned with performance management concepts, particularly highlighting the importance
of role clarity in performance planning. The presentation was visually appealing, with
consistent design and effective use of slides to communicate key points. The group also
handled the Q&A session confidently, offering knowledgeable responses that showcased
their understanding of the subject. For example, when asked how performance planning can
be adapted to different organisational cultures, they effectively explained the importance of
flexibility in goal setting and communication to align performance objectives with diverse
cultural expectations. This response showcased their ability to apply theoretical concepts to
real-world scenarios, further reinforcing the strength of their content.

However, the presentation felt rushed, as the group spoke quickly, which impacted the
audience's ability to understand the information. This aligns with the findings of Naegle
(2021), who emphasises that effective presentations require a balanced pace to ensure clarity
and engagement. Additionally, the group heavily relied on generic examples from lecture
materials rather than incorporating more detailed, real-world case studies found from
research. This limited the depth of their analysis and the application of the concepts
discussed. Furthermore, they exceeded the time limit by 3-4 minutes, which disrupted the
pacing and made the presentation harder to follow. This reflected poor time management,
hindering audience engagement and underscoring the need for better pacing to ensure clarity
and comprehensive content coverage.

Assessment and Rationale: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach

Group 4’s presentation provided a thorough insight on the significance of performance and
development planning (PDP), addressing the methods to implementing PDP strategies, as
well as the benefits and barriers that may occur in organisations. Their discussion included a
comprehensive outline of PDP practices, encompassing aligned goal-setting, feedback,
coaching and flexible recourse allocation. This is reinforced in the study completed by Rudd
et al. (2008), who highlights PDP requires continuous iteration and adaptability to ensure that
development plans stay relevant and aligned with dynamic business goals. Furthermore,
according to Tubre and Collins (2000), lack of role clarity is directly linked to reduced
performance and stress. By highlighting this barrier, Group 4 demonstrated an understanding
of how miscommunication of expectations and responsibilities can be a significant issue to
performance management. Tubre and Collins (2000) data from a total of 43 independent
studies of a diverse range of industries and job types, strengthens Group 4’s analysis of PDP
and the relationship of role ambiguity and job performance. Moreover, PDP will be made
more effective through a conducive learning culture where employees are motivated to
participate in their own growth and strive for better development throughout their careers
(Lancaster and Milia, 2014). Although Group 4’s discussion addresses this argument of PDP,
they could’ve included theories like Social Exchange Theory, which was used as a
framework by Lancaster and Milia (2014), which can further enhance their argument about
how when employees receive high levels of support from management, it can translate to
positive behaviours like increased learning and performance.
Recommendations

Upon examining and critiquing Group 4’s presentation, the below recommendations will
provide effectiveness for further assessments requiring presentations.

Recommendation 1: Clarity, concise & time-management

Although Group 4’s presentation was overall compelling to the audience, a lack of
consistency with tone of voice, speed and clarity as mentioned in the weaknesses was
apparent. In order to combat this, the following should be considered:
1. Reducing the word count of each individual's speech component with a main focus of
maintaining structure. Evidently, the speaking component was lacking due to an
overwhelming amount of context which strayed away from the most important
questions it posed.
2. A practice of the speech with all team members present would ensure efficient
communication across what could be removed, added or recommended
improvements. This effectively could be the solution to the time-management issue as
it allows a ‘live’ approach of the duration each individual requires to complete the
components. Moreover, this would enable an individual to be heard by others and
hence, could be vocally guided by the group. For instance, one may have difficulties
hearing the speed and tone of one’s own voice (Pocock et al., 2010).

Recommendation 2: Engagement Improvements

Group 4’s visibility of graphs and content on the presentation ensured there was somewhat of
an engagement. However, to strengthen this, including organisation and theoretical examples
or statistics would have benefited the overall engagement. This enables the listeners to grasp
a real-life scenario and create a connection by personally evaluating and critiquing the
effectiveness of the business concepts or theories to an example. In conjunction, it also gains
further credibility and somewhat of a persuasion to what the presenter is proposing.
 References

Naegle, K. M. (2021). Ten simple rules for effective presentation slides. PLOS Computational
Biology, 17(12)

Lancaster, Sue, and Lee Di Milia. “Organisational Support for Employee Learning.” European
Journal of Training and Development, vol. 38, no. 7, 29 July 2014, pp. 642–657,

Rudd, John M., et al. “Strategic Planning and Performance: Extending the Debate.” Journal of
Business Research, vol. 61, no. 2, Feb. 2008, pp. 99–108,

Pocock, T. M., Sanders, T., & Bundy, C. (2010). “The Impact of Teamwork in Peer Assessment: a
Qualitative Analysis of a Group Exercise at a UK Medical School”. Bioscience Education, 15(1)

Tubre, T. and Collins, J. (2000). “Jackson and Schuler (1985) Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of the
relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict and job performance”. Journal of Management,
26(1).