Was the secret intent of "performance management" to destroy the personnel section?

Question

But the personnel section does much more than simply "recruit" staff.

Typically they might possess a large chart showing the organisation.

Changes in personnel map to other changes.

It might be absurd to throw this away and replace it by some new-fangled management theory.

Answer 1

Michael M? AKA Office Psychopath? Is that you?

Answer 2

Michael M?  AKA Office Psychopath? Is that you?

Answer 3

Sure.  Why not.  What he said.

Answer 4

Performance Management is a separate topic than the overall function of the Human Resources Department.

The department is concerned with finding people who are qualified to do the job, and are a good fit with respect to people skills, then overseeing internal personnel training to uplift the overall qualifications of the company to be competitive, safe, harmonious, profitable.

Performance Management is one of many functions of management that can be handled by the HR dept, but is often managed by the individual departments for which their performance standards are desirous of being raised.  HR can provide training to the people who are doing the performance management, so that it is conducted in a scientific manner.

In most companies, this process is not called "Performance management" but simply "performance" or some other terminology with similar meaning like "efficiency" or "productivity."

The reason it is not called management is that you don't include the word management for every single function of management.  

For example, we say "annual performance review", we don't say "annual performance review management."

We say "review who ought to get a bonus", we don't say "management of review of who ought to get a bonus."

Another reason is that data in the computer systems identifies how well individual workers are doing, it does not identify how come they are doing well or not. Someone has to watch what they are doing, and evaluate how come they are doing well or not, and that person has to be familiar with the nature of their work.  Persons from within the same department are generally more qualified to do that evaluation than someone from the generic HR dept.

Let's suppose a worker is expected to do some task at a rate of say 200 an hour.  If they can't make rate, a supervisor ought to be able to see if the problem is with the machine they are operating.  For example, a computer screen may be locking up on them.

If there is no environmental reason why they cannot make rate, and if other workers around them are doing significantly more work, then HR needs to come in and help that worker learn how to be more efficient.

Where the data shows that some workers are doing particularly well, then HR works with the dept head, to figure out how to both reward those workers, and encourage others to do as well.

For example, there might be a pizza lunch paid for by the company, where they get an extra 1/2 hour added to the company paid lunch time ... this pizza day is for the department that performed the best over some time frame.  

The HR dept knows what motivates people at different levels of the company ... something other than a pizza lunch might be needed for the computer guys.

You have asked this question within civic participation in government and our country.  It is a question about how business enterprises are managed.  You would get better responses if you included it in the Yahoo Answers category that is populated by people knowlegeable in that area, specifically Business / Careers / then a sub-category within there,