Performance appraisal is a method that is growing in use for evaluating employees. Its purpose is to gauge their effectiveness and motivate them to contribute to organizational performance. Despite its practice, there are criticisms of the system that typically come from the Orthodox and radical management frameworks.
This essay provides an overview of both orthodox and radical critiques of appraisal systems, and explores whether 360? feedback can address the limitations of traditional appraisals. The essay is structured as follows: Orthodox critiques, radical critiques, 360? feedback appraisal, conclusion, and reference.
Orthodox Critique: These criticisms do not question the fundamental purpose of appraisals as defined by management. Instead, they focus on improving the imperfect implementation of various appraisal systems (Bach 2006:300).
The argument focuses on the practicalities of performance appraisal and raises the question of its fairness and accuracy (G. A. Cole 2002:301). One of the main issues is the conflicting purposes of the appraisal. According to Drucker, it is the manager’s responsibility to appraise their subordinate and their performance in order to effectively assist and teach them (G. A. Cole 2002:301). Additionally, McBeath & Rands emphasize that equitable salary relationships rely on job classification, salary surveys, employee appraisal, and salary planning (GA Cole 2002:301). Therefore, appraisal is also used to influence compensation and rewards. This conflicting nature of the appraisal creates a dilemma for both the appraiser and the appraisee if it is designed to serve multiple purposes simultaneously.
The manager faces challenges in balancing the role of counselor, where training needs are identified, and the role of judge, where performance is used for rewards. This can be difficult because the manager may be uncomfortable knowing they are responsible and accountable for the subordinate, and poor ratings may reflect negatively on them. Additionally, individuals may struggle to accept criticism and communication of criticisms during appraisal interviews may be ineffective. People do not typically change simply from being told where they are performing poorly. As a result, the manager may avoid conflict or demotivate the subordinate.
On the part of the subordinate, they may not be prepared to outline all the challenges faced during work, even though doing so would be beneficial in identifying training requirements. It should be noted that this information would also serve as a basis for rewards and promotions. The second issue involves the creation of the appraisal document. The assessment outcomes may not be impartial due to the system setting performance goals that are beyond employees’ capabilities or using an approach that does not offer a solid foundation for decision-making (Brown & Benson 2003:71).
A challenge arises when using a standardized form to rate employees of all categories. This is because different managers and supervisors may have varying standards of judgment. While extensive training may be given on completing appraisal forms, it cannot change the fact that reviews are ultimately based on personal opinions (Abel K Ubeku 1984:192). As a result, biases, leniency errors, halo effects, similarity errors, central tendencies, and lower motivation of the appraiser may cloud their judgment and affect the accuracy of the results.
Radical Critique: The criticisms focus on the managerial philosophy of performance appraisal, questioning its justification by examining management objectives. Performance appraisal is seen as advancing theory X, a management style that assumes people are unreliable and unable to take responsibility, thus requiring close supervision and control. According to McGregor (1960), appraisal programs are designed not only to exert systematic control over subordinates’ behavior but also to govern the behavior of superiors (G A Cole 2002:301).
The surveillance and control imposed by a certain method of appraisal can be unjustified. It has the ability to personalize the employment relationship and allows managers to use it as a means to justify informal management practices. Some managers even use appraisal as a tool to intimidate subordinates, explicitly stating that they will meet at the appraisal. Such behavior promotes corruption as subordinates may align themselves with their bosses in the hopes of receiving rewards connected to the appraisal process.
Just as Bach explains, managers have the discretion to promote individuals they favor. However, if questioned, they can justify these promotions by referring to the formal appraisal process. This leads to situations where undeserving people are promoted while others remain in their positions indefinitely. Consequently, individuals who receive poor ratings may not work efficiently, as their performance is greatly influenced by how they are managed (Abel K. Ubeku 1984:192). Furthermore, these systems can create divisions within an organization, with supporters and detractors taking sides (Michelle Brown and John Benson 2003:71).
360° Feedback Appraisal is a process where an individual’s performance is assessed and feedback is provided by multiple people, including their manager, subordinates, colleagues, and customers (Michael Armstrong 2009:644). There is a debate regarding whether this approach can overcome the traditional limitations of appraisal. Considering the developments in work organizations and examining whether appraisal is fair and accurate according to orthodox critique, I believe that it does offer a means to surpass the traditional limitations of appraisal for the following reasons.
Direct reports have closer contact with their manager and are more directly affected by the manager’s style compared to the manager’s superior (Bach 2005:307). This indicates that feedback from the managed individuals better reflects the leadership qualities of the manager, rather than relying solely on input from their superior. In today’s workplace, interactions among employees are increasingly diverse, with individuals involved in various projects and reporting to multiple managers in a matrix structure. Consequently, it is more equitable for these individuals to be appraised by all relevant parties rather than solely by their line manager.
According to Michael Armstrong (2009:646), feedback is seen as more valid and objective, resulting in the acceptance of required actions and outcomes. This means that because individuals have been involved in the appraisal process, the results are likely to be accurate and approved by them. Appraisals are also conducted in service organizations, where there is a high level of interaction with customers. This refers to systems where the customer must be physically present for the service to be provided (Ricky W Griffin et al 2002:326), such as hospitals, education, transportation, and hotels.
It is fair and accurate to allow customers to provide their input. Additionally, 360-degree feedback promotes compromise and objective communication between individuals, recognizing that appraisal is a reciprocal process. According to Machington M & Wilkinson A (2006:195), it facilitates open communication by encouraging the exchange of feedback and aids in the assessment and development of underperforming individuals. However, it should be noted that 360-degree feedback appraisal is not without flaws.
Despite having weaknesses similar to a traditional appraisal system, the current literature reasonably supports 360° feedback as an effective aid for individual and organizational development (Christopher Mabey 2001:42).
In conclusion, this essay has explained that performance appraisal is a method for assessing the performance of individuals at work. It has also pointed out that, although it is widely used, there are critiques of the system from both orthodox and radical perspectives.
Both the orthodox and radical perspectives raise concerns about the fairness, accuracy, and management objectives of the design and implementation of the system. Additionally, the essay proposes that utilizing 360-degree feedback could help overcome the system’s conventional limitations.
Bibiography: Michael Armstrong: Armstrong’s Hand book of Human resource Management Practice: Eleventh edition: 2009. Abel K Ubeku: Personnel management in Nigeria: Macmillan 1984. Stephen Bach: Managing Human Resource: Blackwell Publishing 2005.
David Decenzo and Stephen Bach authored the book “Personnel/Human resource Management: Third edition” published by Prentice Hall. Ricky W. Griffin and others authored the book “Business: Fourth Canadian edition” published by Prentice Hall in Toronto in 2002. G A Cole authored the book “Personnel and Human Resource Management: Fifth edition” which was published by C & C Offset Printing Co. ltd China. Machington M and Wilkinson A authored the book “Human Resource Management at work: 3rd edition” published by CIPD in London in 2006. Michelle Brown and John Benson authored the book “Performance appraisal” published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd in 2003. Christopher Mabey’s article “Human Resource Management journal Vol 11. No 1 2001” is from the University of London.
