How Effectively Performance Appraisal Meets the Needs of the Employer and the Employee
With reference to different types of performance appraisal, discuss how effectively performance appraisal meets the needs of the employer and the employee - How Effectively Performance Appraisal Meets the Needs of the Employer and the Employee introduction. “Performance appraisal” is a discrete, formal, organizationally sanctioned event, usually not occurring more frequently than once or twice a year, which has clearly stated performance dimensions and/or criteria that are used in the evaluation process. Furthermore, it is an evaluation process, in that quantitative scores are often assigned, based on the judged level of the employee?
s job performance on the dimensions or criteria used, and the scores are shared with the employee being evaluated. (Angelo S. DeNisi and Robert D. Pritchard, 2006) For employers, performance appraisal of employees reveals actual capabilities of evaluated worker, which managers can use in organisation’s functioning in the future. However, that process of appraisal causes a lot of complaints from both employers and employees, provoking dissatisfaction, impacting on their personal comfort.
More Essay Examples on Employment Rubric
One of the most important factor is that the evaluation should be conducted as objectively as possible. Currently, there is a considerable number of methods that help employers to assess employees’ performance. So it is essential to regard a few of them and to make some conclusions about dignities and weaknesses which both employers and employees can meet in practice. Firms engage in the performance-evaluation process for numerous reasons.
Managers may conduct appraisals to affect employee behavior through the feedback process or to justify some sort of human resource management action (termination, transfer, promotion, etc. ). However, many other benefits may also accure from the information yielded by the appraisal. These benefits include increases in knowledge regarding the effectiveness of selection and placement programs, training and development needs, budgeting; human resource planning, and reward decisions (Cocanougher & Ivancevich, 1978; Dubinsky, Skinner, & Whittler, 1989; Wanguri, 1995).
Most appraisal methods used throughout the world today are based, to some extent at least upon the following techniques: graphic rating scales; behaviourally anchored rating scales (BARS), behavioural observation scales (BOS); mixed standard rating scales; and management by objectives (MBO). (Dorfman et al. , 1986). I discuss some of them to evaluate an influence on both employer and employees.
Management by objectives (MBO) is a process of defining objectives within an organization so that management and employees agree to the objectives and understand what they need to do in the organization in order to achieve them (Drucker, 1954). In other words, it is a process when managers and employees jointly set main objectives of the company and periodically evaluate performance. Reward is giving proportionally to the results. According to this formula, it’s essential for every work to correspond general purposes.
In particular, manager’s efforts must be directed to gaining success for the whole enterprise. Using this method, employer and employees define strategic planning of individual purposes for every department, project or worker, which will increase productivity in company. Emphasis put on the quantitive aspects of effectiveness measuring in the organization. Eventually attention is given to measurable results of the employees’ performance. The rewards are paid depending on outcomes (awards, moving up the career ladder, etc.
) In other words, to develop interconnected and interdependent goals and not to concentrate on particular functions and processes, its essential significantly increase the level of performance appraisal and avoid subjective factors. In addition, this method is good because it allows to create an effective program of motivation, as employees are focused straight on achieving results. The big advantage of this method reveals in the fact, that employees are motivated to perform their work successfully in advance. From the beginning they aim to gain good result.
Employer and employees individually formulate the list of tasks and then tasks are discussed and conformed with the opinon of majority. It shows, that everyone in the enterprise allowed to take part in planning general effective strategy of organization. Additionally, criteria and time, which are required for doing tasks, are defined optimally. On the other hand, some weaknesses exist. Firstly, its about subjectivity – employer makes the final decision, he also estimates whole work. This can cause dissatisfaction among employees and lead to conflict in interpersonal relationships.
Nevertheless, this part can be avoided, if employees understand and agree with evaluating criteria of their performance. Owing to this, trust and general social-psychological climate in the company is strengthened. Moreover, its not always possible to set such goal for employees, that is focused on final result. If the employee has not fully achieved the target, the method of management by objectives wouldn’t have explained why it happened, it has just stated the fact. Managers and HR professionals are required to make significant efforts to explain purposes of the introduction of such system.
They must create favorable psychological climate in the organization before system’s official implementation. Thereby, the emphasis concentrates only on measurable orientations. The positive aspect of that fact is strengthening of individual responsibility and motivation. The negative is the deterioration of interaction among employers and employees, because top-managers are focused only on achieving their goals, herewith they often ignore some moral orientations and settings of their workers. Generally, this method of performance appraisal has positive consequences for both employers and employees.
With its help, the potential of each organization’s worker is used on maximum level. The work with the staff becomes on solid systematical framework and eventually promotes the success of the company. Another type of performance appraisal is Graphic Rating Scale Form. The graphic rating scale form is a performance appraisal checklist on which a manager simply rates performance on a continuum such as excellent, good, average, fair, and poor (Foot & Hook, 2002). This assessment is one of the most popular, because of its simplicity in using.
Typical graphic scale includes qualitative and quantative features (criteria). Each of criterion corresponds to the level of duties execution (from “poor” to “excellent”). Worker’s rating of particular criteria is expressed in certain numerical values, that are specified in the rating scale. Afterwards, all this values are summed and the level of professional performance is determined. There are some examples of criteria: 1. Quality – accuracy, thoroughness and acceptability of the work performed; 2. Productivity – the amount and effectiveness of the work that is done in a certain period of time; 3.
Knowledge of work – the skills and knowledge and information, which are used in the work; 4. Reliability – how much you can rely on particular employee when the task is completed; 5. Independence – part of the work performed with little or no supervision, etc. Graphic rating scale method for the performance appraisal can be appropriate in different types of work, which causes it’s huge popularity. But at the same time, the method has several disadvantages. Similarly to the previous method, this one suffers from subjectivism too.
First of all, human’s performance can be estimated by the common impression, which can be both positive or negative. That evaluation can be spreaded to all individual properties and qualities, which often play a crucial role in the person’s behaviour. In the second place, without sufficient justification, appraiser may assign similar characteristics to each member of a particular social group. Thirdly, such fact as appraiser’s personal factor is existed. For example, good relations with the employee , which directly leads to a positive or negative shift in evaluation.
Eventually, the effect of temporarily acquaintance – when for familiar person the most important information is the latest one, and for the unknown – the first information. Naturally, problems also comes from the subjectively perception of each person’s concepts such as “excellent”, “good” and “bad. ” All this facts the employer must consider while using this method for assessing the performance of staff in order to make the most appropriate choice of staff for further efective development. Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) are scales used to rate performance.
BARS are normally presented vertically with scale points ranging from five to nine. It is an appraisal method that aims to combine the benefits of narratives, critical incidents, and quantified ratings by anchoring a quantified scale with specific narrative examples of good, moderate, and poor performance (Dessler, 2004). This method is similar to the previous one, but is used less often because is considered to be more difficult and time consuming. The main difference of this method is that the employer must give a more complete description of the evaluation of workers than just mention it in one word: “excellent”, “good”, etc.
Thereby, this method is more accurate, because requires a detailed description of each level of employee’s performance evaluation. For example: a leader in the worker’s appraisal in the field: “the ability to resist a conflict with another employee” must assess the following points: 1. Solve the issue constructively; 2. Solve the issue destructively; 4. Become frustrated and do not undertake some measures to resolve the conflict; 5. Completely lose control of himself. After the evaluation of each of these items on a scale of 1 to 4, a typical behavior of the employee is selected.
However, this system has some drawbacks: 1. The choice of such categories of human behavior in a given situation, which would show the effective evaluation of the employee. Therefore, this technique should be developed for each job separately, which involves a real cost in both temporal and material aspects. 2. Special skills and knowledge are required in order to formulate a concrete examples of the desirable and undesirable behavior of employees. 3. It is difficult to determine the correct number of points that should be put in front of each description of the characteristic behavior.
The main difficulty with this method is that the evaluator should determine as definitely as possible the scheme of certification of each employee on the requirements of his or her work. This process is very time consuming. Among the modern methods of performance evaluation, there is the method of 360-degree circular appraisal. The 360 degree performance review is a formalized process whereby an individual receives feedback from multiple individuals or “raters” who regularly interact with the person being reviewed, commonly referred to as “the learner”.
The main objective is to provide the learner with feedback on their performance behaviors and outcomes, as well as their potential, while identifying and establishing development goals. As a result of this feedback, the learner is expected to be able to set goals for self-development which will support the advancement of their careers and in turn benefit the organization. The raters typically represent the learner’s boss, peers, subordinates, customers and, sometimes, even their significant others. Their own self assessments complete the circle (Diane,2006).
The 360 degree performance review process intends to provide a more global and accurate view of the employee’s performance. The accuracy of the 360 degree process depends on whether the respondents interact regularly with the learner, and whether the learner reveals him/herself to others. Since a learner can be different with each person, it would follow that there is a benefit to having many respondents involved. The underlying assumption of the 360 degree technique is that the accuracy and scope of the assessment of the individual increases when consulting a full circle of daily business contacts, as opposed to one supervisor.
The view of most practitioners is that the use of more raters leads to more accurate results for the individual (Church & Braken, 1997). In the case of 360-degree feedback evaluation the employee receives his appraisal from all possible contractors and compares it with its own. If the activity is highly valued, the employee can continue in the same direction. If the activity is poorly evaluated, he can think about possible improvements in his performance. Thus, the attractiveness of this method is clearly visible. It gives a detailed presentation of the employee’s performance.
Different groups of people see the worker in a variety of situations, and therefore may describe more extensive model of his behavior. However, in order to maximize the integrity of the comments ought to be a high degree of confidence. To do this, a rule of anonymity is implemented almost everywhere, which provides openness of people. Not everyone is able to speak overtly about their boss, simply because of the fear of further repressions. Also they can be incredibly flattering, or vice versa, in a very negative way. This method can be a very unpleasant experience for executives.
Not every manager is ready to discuss openly his weaknesses, because each organization’s top manager is trying to show his strengths and to hide weaknesses. Only such kind of a policy can move leader up the hierarchical ladder, and 360-degree assessment makes him encounter with own disabilities. Also, this method is very bureaucratic in its structure. This is a difficult task that requires a lot of time and effort, as well as a large amount of “paper work. ” After all, to conduct a survey involving 6-10 people takes a lot of time.
Speaking about this method as a suitable for both managers and employees, we can safely say that it is not entirely applicable to the relationship “superior-subordinate” because the manager should never be able to evaluate his subordinates anonymously. Giving him this opportunity means as much as to promote cowardice; manager, by definition, by hypothesis, in his position of the chief of his staff, organizationally, morally and ethically is obliged to speak with employee face to face, to explain him why he gave him a particular assessment, and to help subordinates to understand what is required for the improvement of their performance.
Therefore, this technique does not solve the main problem – the inability of managers to explain and give reasons for their assessment. After reviewing different types of employees’ appraisal, I made such conclusion. The main challenge to HR practitioners is to put right people on the right positions, which helps to reveal their full potential in work. There is performance appraisal for this purpose, that meet needs both employers and employees. For employers it is an opportunity to discover strengh and weak sides of the staff and put right tasks to all workers.
Employees can realise themselves in appropriate sphere an to build successful career. References Alexander, Diane M. (2006). “How Do 360 Degree Performance Reviews Affect Employee Attitudes, Effectiveness and Performance? ” Schmidt Labor Research Center Seminar Paper Series. University of Rhode Island. Angelo S. DeNisi and Robert D. Pritchard. (2006) Management and Organization Review, pp. 253–277, pp. 1740-8776. Church, A. H. and Bracken, D. W. (June, 1997) “Advancing the state of the art of 360-degree feedback” Group & Organization Management. Cocanougher, B. A. and Ivancevich, J.
M. (1978), “Bars performance rating for sales force personnel”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42, 87-95. Dassler G. (2004) Management of Human Resources Dorfman, Peter W. , Walter G. Stephan, and John Loveland. (1986), “Performance Appraisal Behavior: Supervisor Perceptions and Subordinate Reactions. ” Personnel Psychology Vol. 39, pp. 579–98. Drucker, Peter F. (1954) The Practice of Management Dubinsky, A. J. , Skinner, S. J. , and Whittler, T. E. (1989), “Evaluating sales personnel: An attribution theory perspective”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, pp.
9-21. Foot M. , Hook C. , (2002) “Performance Management and Appraisal”, Introducing Human Resources Management, No. 8. Thomas, S. L. and Bretz, R. D. Jr. (1994, Spring), “Research and practice in performance appraisal: Evaluating performance in America’s largest companies”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, pp. 28-37. Wanguri, D. M. (1995) “A review, an integration, and a critique of cross-disciplinary research on performance appraisals, evaluations, and feedback: 1980-1990”, The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 32, pp. 267-293.