Get help now

Literature Review of Performance Appraisals and Motivation Theories

  • Pages 18
  • Words 4396
  • Views 274
  • dovnload



  • Pages 18
  • Words 4396
  • Views 274
  • Academic anxiety?

    Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task

    Get your paper price

    124 experts online

    This chapter served as the basis for the development of this survey. An overview of the extended historical research on related subjects is provided. The literature reappraisal is divided into two classs where the first dwells on literatures refering on the topic of Performance Appraisals and the 2nd class focal points on motive theories and their relevancy in the Performance Appraisal System.

    2.2 Performance Appraisal System
    2.2.1 Meaning of Performance:
    Different writers have differing thoughts about what public presentation really is.

    Lebas ( 1995 ) defines public presentation as set abouting a peculiar action to successfully complete set ends, taking into consideration the given clip frame and restraints of the performing artist and the state of affairs.

    On the other manus, public presentation can be demarcated by comparing existent consequences attained to consequences that were expected ( Dess and Robinson, 1984 ) .

    Harmonizing to Brumbrach ( 1988, cited in Armstrong, 2000 ) :

    “ Performance means both behaviors and consequences. Behaviours emanate from the performing artist and transform public presentation from abstraction to action. Not merely the instruments for consequences, behaviors are besides outcomes in their ain right – the merchandise of mental and physical attempt applied to tasks – and can be judged apart from consequences. ”[ 1 ]

    The above definition considers public presentation to be affecting both the actions taken during the procedure in trying to accomplish ends and end products obtained as a consequence of the attempt put.

    2.2.2 Performance Management System ( PMS )
    Following the definition of public presentation given by Brumbrach, Armstrong ( 2000 ) highlights the importance and demand for higher-ups to pull off employees ‘ public presentation.

    To find if public presentation has been succeeded, techniques have to be developed to measure the achievements. Performance Management ( PM ) is one of the ways to pull off workers ‘ public presentation today in many administrations.

    Noe et Al ( 2006 ) specify public presentation direction as a pattern used by directors to do certain that employees ‘ actions and end products delivered are consistent with the administration ‘s ends.

    The construct of PM was foremost coined by Beer and Ruh in 1976. However, it is hardly in the mid 1980 ‘s that it had been known as a typical attack. PM since so has contributed a batch in the promotion of Human Resource Management. The construct is widely being used in administrations with a position to obtain better consequences and improved public presentations from the work force. Goals and criterions are being planned good ahead in order to acquire satisfied results.

    2.2.3 Performance Appraisal System ( PAS )
    Performance Appraisal System is a constituent of PM. Besides known as public presentation reappraisal, it officially paperss the accomplishments of an person with respects to put marks. Pull offing employees ‘ public presentation can be said to be every bit of import as any other work that all directors execute during the twelvemonth.

    Grote ( 2002 ) describes public presentation assessment as a formal direction tool that helps measure the public presentation quality of an employee. Schneier and Beatty as cited in Patterson ( 1987 ) specify it as a procedure which apart from measuring besides identifies and develops human public presentation.

    Harmonizing to Karol ( 1996 ) public presentation assessment includes a communicating juncture planned between a director and an employee for the chief intent of measuring that employee ‘s old public presentation and set uping ways for farther betterment.

    2.2.4 History of PAS
    The history of public presentation assessment is reasonably concise. Appraisal truly began with the Second World War where it was used to measure results.

    Performance assessment was seen in the industry in early 1800. Randell ( 1994 ) identified its usage in Robert Owen ‘s usage of “ soundless proctors ” in the cotton Millss of Scotland. The Silent proctors were in footings of blocks of wood with different colorss painted on each seeable side and it was hung above each employee ‘s work station. At the terminal of the twenty-four hours, the block was turned so that a peculiar coloring material, stand foring a class of the employee ‘s public presentation, could be seen by everyone.

    ( Weise and Buckley, 1998 ) Subjective grounds indicates that this pattern had a facilitating influence on subsequent behaviour.

    Spriegel ( 1962 ) and Weise and Buckley ( 1998 ) affirm that by the early 1950s, 61 per cent of administrations on a regular basis used public presentation assessments, compared with merely 15 per cent instantly after World War II. DeVries et Al. ( 1981 ) pointed out the primary tool to be the trait-rating system, which focused on past actions, utilizing a criterion, numerical marking system to measure people on the footing of a antecedently established set of dimensions. The chief tool, used under here was trait evaluation system.

    The construct of Management by Objective ( MBO ) was foremost proposed by Peter Drucker in 1954.

    Mcgreror so used it in the assessment procedure in the twelvemonth 1957. He suggested that, employees should be appraised on the footing of short-run ends, instead than traits, which are jointly set by the employee and the director. Weise and Buckley ( 1998 ) affirm that this method was really advantageous as it lead to a transmutation of a director ‘s function from being a justice to a assistant. It besides showed that employees ‘ productiveness finally leads to public presentation. However, when employees ‘ public presentation was measured on the footing of units, so MBO was uneffective. This lead to new development in the assessment procedure and the employees were evaluated on the footing of ‘behaviour based evaluation ‘ . Smith and Kendall ( 1963 ) designed the first tool to concentrate on behaviours and it was the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales ( BARS ) .

    2.1.5 Modern Appraisal
    Today ‘s public presentation assessment procedure has evolved into a more planned and formal procedure. It is used as a agency which helps place and compare employees ‘ public presentations. The assessments informations are often being used to reexamine several Human Resources determination. It can find any demand for calling developments and preparations. For issues such as rise in wages, wagess and publicities, employers are more and more making usage of the assessments ‘ consequences.

    Appraisals have now developed into a regular and intervallic system in organisations, usually carried out at least one time a twelvemonth. When speaking about the modern attack to appraisal, the term feedback can non be ignored. The one-to-one treatment between supervisors and subordinates gives rise to feedback and is referred to as the feedback procedure. This procedure can better communicating all through the organisation but besides it can reenforce employees ‘ relationships with their higher-ups. This is so as the workers have the feeling that they do matter to the organisation and that their demands are being taken into consideration.

    The public presentation assessment system has most likely go a future-oriented attack as it aims to better hereafter public presentations by sing present jobs.

    2.1.6 Purposes of PAS
    The most known intent of public presentation assessment is to better public presentation of persons. Cummingss and Shwab ( 1974 ) held that public presentation assessment has fundamentally two of import intents, from an organisational point of position and these are:

    1. The care of organisational control

    2. The measuring of the efficiency with which the organisations human resources are being utilized.

    Still, there are besides a assortment of other declared intents for assessment as per Bratton and Gold ( 2003 ) and Bowles and Coates ( 1993 ) and some are ; bettering motive and morale of the employees, clear uping the outlooks and cut downing the uncertainness about public presentation, finding wagess, placing preparation and development demands, bettering communicating, choosing people for publicity, subject, be aftering disciplinary actions and puting marks.

    Furthermore, Bowles and Coates ( 1993 ) conducted a postal study of 250 West Midland companies in June 1992, where organisations were asked inquiries refering to the usage of Performance direction in the organisation. These inquiries included the evident intent of PA in the direction of work, its strengths and failings. Through their study they found out that PA was good in the undermentioned ways:

    – Dad was favourable in developing the communicating between employer and employee

    – It was utile in specifying public presentation outlooks

    – It helped place preparation demands.

    Performance assessment can therefore be used as an effectual tool to better employees ‘ occupation public presentation by placing strengths and failings, meeting of targeted ends and supplying preparation if needed.

    2.1.7 Techniques of PAS
    There are several normally used techniques of public presentation assessment as reviewed by Oberg ( 1972 ) . They are as follows:

    Essay Appraisal, Paired Comparison, Graphic Review Scale, Weighted Checklist, Person to Person Rating, Forced Ranking, Critical Incidents.

    The above techniques were the traditional 1s but the methods most widely used today are:

    – Management by Aims

    Employees are requested to set up their ain public presentation aims. They are so judged through these aims by verifying whether they were satisfied or non. However, in many instances organisations themselves set their criterions and ends even after confer withing employees.

    – 360 Degree Feedback

    360 Degree Feedback is a procedure in which employees receive private and anon. feedback from the people who work around them.

    Kettley ( 1997 ) says that when an single receives feedback from different beginnings of the organisation, including equals, low-level staff, clients and themselves, the procedure is called 360 degree feedback or assessment. The employee is so assessed utilizing those received feedback.

    2.1.8 Feedback
    Feedback about the effectivity of an person ‘s behaviour has long been recognized as indispensable for larning and for motive in performance-oriented organisations. Ilgen et Al. ( 1979 ) stated that feedback is considered as an of import tool in public presentation assessment procedure. Feedback can be a utile tool for development, particularly if it is specific and behaviorally oriented, every bit good as both problem-oriented and solution-oriented harmonizing to Murphy and Cleveland ( 1995 ) . One of the basic intents of formal assessment procedure is the proviso of clear and public presentation based feedback to employees. Carroll and Scheiner ( 1982 ) affirmed that some administrations use feedback as a development tool, while in some organisations it is used for merit rating and compensation accommodation.

    McEvoy and Buller ( 1987 ) , Wohlers and Gallagher ( 1990 ) contributed that feedback is really indispensable for the employees because it forms a baseline for the employees which help them to acquire a reappraisal of their past public presentation and opportunity to better their accomplishments for the hereafter. Ashford ( 1986 ) says that when feedback is considered as a valuable resource, so merely the persons feel motivated to seek it, which helps in cut downing uncertainness and provides information relevant to self-evaluations. There is besides grounds that public presentation feedback ( if given suitably ) can take to significant betterments in future public presentation ( Guzzo et al. , 1985 ; Kopelman, 1986 ; Landy et al. , 1982 )

    Fedor et Al. ( 1989 ) ; Ilgen et Al. ( 1979 ) identified that it is normally accepted that negative feedback is perceived as less accurate and therefore less accepted by receivers than positive feedback. Furthermore, Fedor et Al. ( 1989 ) found that negative public presentation assessment feedback was less recognized and perceived as less accurate than positive public presentation assessment feedback.

    2.1.9 Views Organisations & A ; Employees have on P.A.S
    Evans ( 1986 ) asserts that many employees believe that their publicity or salary increases depend largely on their public presentation. Employees hence are in a quandary and see this state of affairs as ‘survival of the fittest ‘ . They know for a fact that, their public presentation will merely be taken into consideration at the terminal of the twenty-four hours. So, in order to turn in the company they need to be proactive towards their work. The feedback the employee receives from his superior, may merely depict the degree of public presentation achieved.

    Therefore, it becomes of import for the directors to carry on the assessment technique right. Employees can merely accept unfavorable judgment if it is utile and of import to them. Directors should hence cognize how to give information sing advancement made in public presentation and how to show unfavorable judgment every bit good.

    Meyer ( 1965 ) carried out a survey in General Electric Company where certain points associating to public presentation feedback was highlighted. In this survey, 92 employees were appraised by their directors on two occasions over two hebdomads. The survey was carried out utilizing questionnaires, interviews and observation. The first assessment highlighted public presentation and wage while the 2nd one underlined public presentation and betterment. It was observed that tonss of unfavorable judgments were pointed out by the directors, which lead to defensive behavior of the employees. The decision of the survey was that unfavorable judgment leads a negative impact on the motive and public presentation of the employees. Besides feedback Sessionss designed to better public presentation should non at the same clip see salary and publicity issues.

    Ilgen et. Al ( 1979 ) add that employees who believe that the assessment system is under any sort of prejudice, are most likely to be dissatisfied by their work and can besides go forth their occupations.

    On the other manus Murphy and Cleveland highlighted one possible ground for the widespread dissatisfaction with public presentation assessment in organisation as the systems used by these aid neither them nor their employees in run intoing the desired ends.

    Landy et Al. ( 1978 ) and Tang and Sarsfield-Baldwin ( 1996 ) found grounds that the assignment of raters influences perceptual experiences of equity and truth in public presentation assessments and hence about the whole procedure itself.

    However, harmonizing to Jacobs, Kafry & A ; Zedeck ( 1980 ) employees perceive PA to give them a proper apprehension of their responsibilities and duties towards the organisation. Likewise, organisation sees it as a tool to measure employees on a common land and one which helps in salary and publicities determinations, preparation and development plans.

    In many fortunes appraisal programs are interpreted by directors as a system that helps an organisation to alter regular precedences and usual ways of working and in so making to change its strategic way. Hence, in fortunes where alteration can non be attained by managerial announcement, appraisal takes on the character of an engine of alteration. When directors look at assessment from this angle they hope that it will convey about a alteration in strategic way and organisational behavior.

    Research workers have suggested that reaction to public presentation assessment is critical to the credence and usage of a public presentation assessment system ( Bernardin & A ; Beatty, 1984 ; Cardy & A ; Dobbins, 1994 ; Murphy & A ; Cleveland, 1995 ) . Reactions may even lend to the cogency of a system ( Ostroff, 1993 ) . Cardy and Dobbins ( 1994 ) suggest that “ with dissatisfaction and feelings of unfairness in procedure and unfairness in ratings, any public presentation assessment system will be doomed to failure ” ( p. 54 ) . Murphy and Cleveland ( 1995 ) stated that “ reaction standards are about ever relevant, and an unfavourable reaction may destine the carefully constructed assessment system ” .

    2.1.10 Benefits of PAS
    Possibly the most of import benefit of assessment is that, in the haste and force per unit area of today ‘s working life, it allows the supervisor and subsidiary to hold “ clip out ” for a one-on-one treatment of indispensable work jobs that might non otherwise be addressed.

    Similarly, the being itself of an assessment system indicates to employees that the organisation is truly concerned with their single public presentations and promotion. This lone can hold a positive impact on the employees ‘ sense of worth, committedness and belonging.

    Appraisal offers the rare opportunity to concentrate on employment activities and aims, to descry and rectify bing jobs and to heighten favourable future public presentation. Thus the public presentation of the whole organisation is improved.

    Performance assessment normally provides employees with recognition for their work attempts, if any and as a consequence it brings them satisfaction. Actually, there are facts back uping that human existences will even prefer negative acknowledgment in instead than no acknowledgment at all.

    During public presentation assessments, feedbacks are obtained. These provide critical information on whether preparation and development demands should be considered. The presence or deficiency of working accomplishments, for illustration, can go really obvious. The supervisor and subsidiary can therefore hold upon any demand for preparation. Equally far as the organisation is concerned, the overall assessment consequences can supply a regular and efficient preparation demands audit for the organisation as a whole.

    The information obtained from assessments can besides give indicant on an organisation ‘s enlisting and choice patterns. This can be done by testing the public presentation of late hired workers. The general quality of the work force can besides be monitored by measuring any betterment or diminution public presentations. Changes if needed in the enlisting schemes can so be considered.

    2.1.11 Criticisms related to P.A.S
    There are several jobs in the existent public presentation assessment chiefly due to rater prejudice. Some supervisors are excessively indulgent and therefore hold a inclination to rate all employees positively instead than truly mensurating their public presentation. Another job is the ‘central inclination ‘ where supervisors place the bulk of the employees in the centre of the public presentation graduated table, even though they deserve a better or worse class.

    The aura consequence is another mistake normally made during assessments. This arises when a supervisor ‘s general feeling about an employee influences the overall judgement.

    Performance assessment systems are at times criticized for failings in the system design itself. Sometimes they assess the incorrect behavior or effects, or concentrate on employees ‘ personality alternatively of on their work public presentations. Very frequently criterions for measuring employees are non related to the work itself. As a effect employees may non likely be interested in such a system where public presentation criterions are unsuccessful in foregrounding of import facets of the occupations.

    Some organisations founds that PAS is a changeless cause of tenseness, since appraising and developmental concerns come frequently into dissension. It is said that the assessment can function merely one of them at a clip. Besides they find it dehumanise and corrupt to go through on judgements which so become beginning of apprehensiveness and emphasis to employees.

    Many research workers such as Derven ( 1990 ) expressed uncertainties about the effectivity and dependableness of the assessment procedure. Some found the procedure to be imperfect in nature.

    Furthermore, Gabris & A ; Mitchell ( 1989 ) found a upseting prejudice in the assessment procedure called the Matthew Effect. It is said to take topographic point in instances where employees maintain on having the same rating each twelvemonth. This denotes that there is the belief that if an employee has work good, he or she will go on on that gait. The Matthew Effect advocates that even if employees struggle to make good, their past assessment studies will know apart their hereafter advancement.

    Accuracy is of import in assessments. However for raters to measure employees accurately, they should give indifferent consequences. Unfortunately accurate evaluations are rather impossible as research workers affirm that personal liking, expression, former feelings, gender and race will surely pull strings assessments, that is, there will ever be some sort of biasness.

    2.1.12 Decision about PAS
    There are assorted schools of beliefs as to the cogency and dependability of public presentation assessments. While Derven ( 1990 ) doubts about its dependableness, Lawrie ( 1990 ) finds it to be the most of import facet of organisations.

    A recent study concluded that more than 50 per cent of the work force wants that their supervisors list the public presentation objectives much more specifically and clearly. The same study revealed that 42 per cent of the employees were instead defeated their administration ‘s public presentation assessment system.

    Many supervisors make the incorrect usage of assessment. They use it as a punitory tool instead than assisting their subsidiaries to better their public presentation and overcome work jobs.

    Harmonizing to Shelley Riebel, as in the Detroit News ( April 11, 1998 ) frequently directors are unsuccessful to explicate what they truly expect from their employees and neglect to good depict the standards used for measuring their public presentation.

    The information obtained during the appraisal procedure should be sagely used and considered. Still, for public presentation assessment to be successful, it is of import to transport it out on a regular and consistent footing. This will let supervisors to follow and reexamine employees ‘ work. Raters frequently make the error of stressing excessively much on errors committed by the employees. Rather, if of all time some job is spotted by the supervisor, the issue should be discussed with the employee concerned and both should seek work on a solution.

    2.2 Motivation & A ; Performance Appraisal System
    2.2.1 Introduction to Motivation
    Motivation can be defined as the driving force that moves us to prosecute a certain end, or trip a peculiar action. It can be considered as the desire within a individual doing him or her to move. People by and large act for a motivation and that is to accomplish a specific aim.

    Two chief types of motive have been noted, viz. intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motive comes from the interior ego while extrinsic motive arises when external factors require one to execute something.

    Harmonizing to Passer and Smith ( 2004 ) the construct ‘motivation ‘ refers to a class of action that influences the finding, way and dynamism of purposive behavior. Similarly, Kreitner and Kinicki ( 2007 ) assert that motive represents psychological patterns that stimulate voluntary actions. In the work context, as confirmed by Coetsee ( 2003 ) , motive entails the preparedness of persons and groups to set much attempt so as to accomplish organisational ends.

    From the above, it can be construed that there exists no individual and general definition for “ motive ” . Yet, Boje and Rosile ( 2004 ) respect motive as an autocratic political orientation, a manner to pull strings public presentation and where visions of self-actualisation demand satisfaction. This position might be excessively negative to see, but the rise in capitalist economy has been driven by high concentration motive programmes which sometimes turn employees into production machines.

    2.2.2 Motivation and P.A.S in Organisation Today
    Motivation can be the key to a successful organisation. It is frequently claimed that the best concerns have the best motivated workers. Well motivated employees are said to be more productive and perform quality work. It remains nevertheless one of the most challenged undertakings for directors to actuate their staffs as everyone is alone. A supervisor should endeavor to bind in the company ‘s ends together with the employees ‘ single ends through public presentation direction. Furthermore, the whole public presentation assessment procedure and its consequence can impact an employee ‘s motive. As highlighted by Cummingss and Shwabs ( 1974 ) , employee ‘s public presentation is the result of the employee ‘s motive to execute. In an organizational context, the public presentation is appraised by measuring the employee ‘s aptitudes and potencies to accomplish the set ends.

    2.2.3 Theories of Motivation related to P.A.S Edwin Locke ‘s Goal Setting Theory
    A chief component for expeditiously training employees is by utilizing end scene. Edwin Locke ( 1968 ) introduced the Goal Setting Theory whereby employees get motivated to work for the administration when they are given specific and marked ends to accomplish. This theory emphasizes that difficult ends produce a higher degree of public presentation than easy ends. Second, peculiar difficult ends produce higher degree of end product and in conclusion, behavioral purposes lead to pick behavior.

    Many, who study the relationship between public presentation and motive in organisations, will hold that goal-setting and account creates assurance in the workers. By clearly explicating the significance of the ends, employees will hold a clear position on what the organisation wants to accomplish. Coetsee ( 2003 ) affirms that the most performing workers are purposive. Set ends allow employees to carry through organizational vision, purposes and strategic aims. The premise made here is that when people recognise and understand what is expected from them and how they are to be met, they will be motivated to accomplish them within the time-limit.

    With respect to coaching, goal-setting theory has been used more than any other as a model to actuate employees to better their public presentation.

    As cited by Cary L. Cooper, Edwin A. Locke ( 2000 ) , the early work of Maier ( 1958 ) and Meyer et Al. ( 1965 ) emphasized end scene in the assessment procedure. In a survey, Latham et Al. ( 1978 ) found that consistent with the theory ‘s anticipations, employee engagement in puting the ends resulted in higher public presentation than delegating them, non because of greater end committedness, but instead due to high ends being set. Harmonizing to Dossett et Al. ( 1979 ) , a similar consequence was observed with Weyerhaeuser ‘s word processing employees.

    Goals and aims set by the employers and employees should be discussed on a regular basis. Erez ( 1977 ) asserted that for hard ends to ensue in high public presentation, sufficient feedback is really of import. Behaviour Maintenance Model ( BMM )
    Cummingss and Swabs presented the Behaviour Maintenance Model ( BMM ) to exemplify how people are motivated to execute expeditiously in an administration. This theoretical account emphasises on the significance of results in the motivational procedure.

    Fig.1: Behavior Maintenance Model

    This model shows that end aspirations consequences in end attainment and motive. When end attainment is achieved by the employee, it leads to occupation satisfaction which in bend leads the employee to go motivated. Victor Vroom ‘s Expectancy theory
    Expectancy theory is an thought that was introduced by Victor Vroom. The theory as explained by Kreitner & A ; Kinicki ( 2007 ) is based on the premise that people are motivated to move in ways that will be followed by valued and desired results. The theory says that an employee might be motivated when there is a belief that a better public presentation will ensue in a good public presentation assessment which will assist in the realisation of personal ends.

    The theory focuses on motive as the combination of valency, instrumentality and anticipation. Valence is the value of the alleged consequence. Instrumentality is the point of position of an single whether he or she will truly obtain what they want. It shows that successful act will finally take to the desired consequence. Anticipation refers to the different degree of outlooks every bit good as assurance sing one ‘s capableness. Employees believe that these make a motivational force and this force can be represented by the expression: Motivation = Valence x Expectancy

    The theory focuses on three things:

    aˆ? Attempts and public presentation relationship

    aˆ? Performance and wages relationship

    aˆ? Wagess and personal end relationship

    2.2.4 Decision: Performance Appraisal as Motivator?
    From the above reappraisals, it can be seen that no such research has been done to demo if public presentation assessment truly acts as a incentive to employees. Bratton and Gold ( 2003 ) and Bowles and Coates ( 1993 ) claimed motive to be one of the intents of assessments. It remains unconditioned to cognize whether public presentation assessment has a function to play in employees ‘ motive. The research will therefore attempt to reply the undermentioned research inquiries:

    Does the Performance Appraisal System affect employees ‘ motive?

    Does the system impact more a specific class of employees?

    How make employees comprehend the PAS at the MRA?

    How make employees comprehend feedback?

    Does the degree of importance given to the system straight impact the employees ‘ motive?

    Does the trust put on the valuator influences the employees ‘ motive?

    This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly. Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

    Need a custom essay sample written specially to meet your requirements?

    Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

    Order custom paper Without paying upfront

    Literature Review of Performance Appraisals and Motivation Theories. (2018, Apr 11). Retrieved from

    Hi, my name is Amy 👋

    In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

    Get help with your paper
    We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy