A 

performance appraisal, employee appraisal, performance

review, or (career) development discussion[1] is a method by which
the job performance of an employee is evaluated (generally in terms
of quality, quantity, cost, and time) typically by the
correspondingmanager or supervisor.[2] A performance appraisal is a
part of guiding and managing career development. It is the process of
obtaining, analyzing, and recording information about the relative
worth of an employee to the organization. Performance appraisal is an
analysis of an employee's recent successes and failures, personal
strengths and weaknesses, and suitability for promotion or further
training. It is also the judgement of an employee's performance in a
job based on considerations other than productivity alone.
Contents
 [hide]

1 Aims

2 Methods

3 See also

4 Reference

5 Sources

6 External

links

[edit]Aims

Generally, the aims of a performance appraisal are to:

 Give employees feedback on performance

 Identify employee training needs
 Document criteria used to allocate organizational rewards
 Form a basis for personnel
decisions: salary increases, promotions, disciplinary actions,
bonuses, etc.
 Provide the opportunity for organizational diagnosis and
development
 Facilitate communication between employee and administration
 Validate selection techniques and human resource policies to
meet federal Equal Employment Opportunity requirements.
 To improve performance through counseling, coaching and
development.
[edit]Methods

A common approach to assessing performance is to use a numerical

or scalar rating system whereby managers are asked to score an
individual against a number of objectives/attributes. In some
companies, employees receive assessments from their manager,
peers, subordinates, and customers, while also performing a self
assessment This is known as a 360-degree appraisal and forms good
communication patterns.
The most popular methods used in the performance appraisal process
include the following:

 Management by objectives
 360-degree appraisal
 Behavioral observation scale
 Behaviorally anchored rating scales
Trait-based systems, which rely on factors such
as integrity and conscientiousness, are also commonly used by
businesses. The scientific literature on the subject provides evidence
that assessing employees on factors such as these should be
avoided. The reasons for this are twofold:
1) Because trait-based systems are by definition based on personality
traits, they make it difficult for a manager to provide feedback that can
cause positive change in employee performance. This is caused by
the fact that personality dimensions are for the most part static, and
while an employee can change a specific behavior they cannot
change their personality. For example, a person who lacks integrity
may stop lying to a manager because they have been caught, but
they still have low integrity and are likely to lie again when the threat
of being caught is gone.
2) Trait-based systems, because they are vague, are more easily
influenced by office politics, causing them to be less reliable as a
source of information on an employee's true performance. The
vagueness of these instruments allows managers to fill them out
based on who they want to/feel should get a raise, rather than basing
scores on specific behaviors employees should/should not be
engaging in. These systems are also more likely to leave a company
open to discrimination claims because a manager can
make biased decisions without having to back them up with specific
behavioral information.
[edit]

ntroduction
Performance Appraisal 
The history of performance appraisal is quite brief. Its roots in the early
20th century can be traced to Taylor's pioneering Time and Motion studies.
But this is not very helpful, for the same may be said about almost
everything in the field of modern human resources management.

 
As a distinct and formal management procedure used in the evaluation of
work performance, appraisal really dates from the time of the Second
World War - not more than 60 years ago.

Yet in a broader sense, the practice of appraisal is a very ancient art. In the
scale of things historical, it might well lay claim to being the world's second
oldest profession!

There is, says Dulewicz (1989), "... a basic human tendency to make

judgements about those one is working with, as well as about oneself."
Appraisal, it seems, is both inevitable and universal. In the absence of a
carefully structured system of appraisal, people will tend to judge the work
performance of others, including subordinates, naturally, informally and
arbitrarily.

The human inclination to judge can create serious motivational, ethical and
legal problems in the workplace. Without a structured appraisal system,
there is little chance of ensuring that the judgements made will be lawful,
fair, defensible and accurate.

 
Performance appraisal systems began as simple methods of income
justification. That is, appraisal was used to decide whether or not the salary
or wage of an individual employee was justified.

The process was firmly linked to material outcomes. If an employee's

performance was found to be less than ideal, a cut in pay would follow. On
the other hand, if their performance was better than the supervisor
expected, a pay rise was in order.

Little consideration, if any, was given to the developmental possibilities of

appraisal. If was felt that a cut in pay, or a rise, should provide the only
required impetus for an employee to either improve or continue to perform
well. 

Sometimes this basic system succeeded in getting the results that were
intended; but more often than not, it failed.

For example, early motivational researchers were aware that different

people with roughly equal work abilities could be paid the same amount of
money and yet have quite different levels of motivation and performance.

These observations were confirmed in empirical studies. Pay rates were

important, yes; but they were not the only element that had an impact on
employee performance. It was found that other issues, such as morale and
self-esteem, could also have a major influence.

As a result, the traditional emphasis on reward outcomes was progressively

rejected. In the 1950s in the United States, the potential usefulness of
appraisal as tool for motivation and development was gradually recognized.
The general model of performance appraisal, as it is known today, began
from that time.

 Modern Appraisal 
Performance appraisal may be defined as a structured formal interaction
between a subordinate and supervisor, that usually takes the form of a
periodic interview (annual or semi-annual), in which the work performance
of the subordinate is examined and discussed, with a view to identifying
weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities for improvement and
skills development.

In many organizations - but not all - appraisal results are used, either
directly or indirectly, to help determine reward outcomes. That is, the
appraisal results are used to identify the better performing employees who
should get the majority of available merit pay increases, bonuses, and
promotions.

By the same token, appraisal results are used to identify the poorer
performers who may require some form of counseling, or in extreme cases,
demotion, dismissal or decreases in pay. (Organizations need to be aware
of laws in their country that might restrict their capacity to dismiss
employees or decrease pay.)
Whether this is an appropriate use of performance appraisal - the
assignment and justification of rewards and penalties - is a very uncertain
and contentious matter.

 Controversy, Controversy
Few issues in management stir up more controversy than performance
appraisal.

There are many reputable sources - researchers, management

commentators, psychometricians - who have expressed doubts about the
validity and reliability of the performance appraisal process. Some have
even suggested that the process is so inherently flawed that it may be
impossible to perfect it (see Derven, 1990, for example).

At the other extreme, there are many strong advocates of performance

appraisal. Some view it as potentially "... the most crucial aspect of
organizational life" (Lawrie, 1990).

Between these two extremes lie various schools of belief. While all endorse
the use of performance appraisal, there are many different opinions on how
and when to apply it. 

There are those, for instance, who believe that performance appraisal has
many important employee development uses, but scorn any attempt to link
the process to reward outcomes - such as pay rises and promotions.

This group believes that the linkage to reward outcomes reduces or

eliminates the developmental value of appraisals. Rather than an
opportunity for constructive review and encouragement, the reward-linked
process is perceived as judgmental, punitive and harrowing.

For example, how many people would gladly admit their work problems if,
at the same time, they knew that their next pay rise or a much-wanted
promotion was riding on an appraisal result? Very likely, in that situation,
many people would deny or downplay their weaknesses.

Nor is the desire to distort or deny the truth confined to the person being
appraised. Many appraisers feel uncomfortable with the combined role of
judge and executioner.

Such reluctance is not difficult to understand. Appraisers often know their

appraisees well, and are typically in a direct subordinate-supervisor
relationship. They work together on a daily basis and may, at times, mix
socially. Suggesting that a subordinate needs to brush up on certain work
skills is one thing; giving an appraisal result that has the direct effect of
negating a promotion is another.

The result can be resentment and serious morale damage, leading to

workplace disruption, soured relationships and productivity declines.

On the other hand, there is a strong rival argument which claims that
performance appraisal must unequivocally be linked to reward outcomes.

The advocates of this approach say that organizations must have a

process by which rewards - which are not an unlimited resource - may be
openly and fairly distributed to those most deserving on the basis of merit,
effort and results.

There is a critical need for remunerative justice in organizations.

Performance appraisal - whatever its practical flaws - is the only process
available to help achieve fair, decent and consistent reward outcomes.

It has also been claimed that appraisees themselves are inclined to believe
that appraisal results should be linked directly to reward outcomes - and
are suspicious and disappointed when told this is not the case. Rather than
feeling relieved, appraisees may suspect that they are not being told the
whole truth, or that the appraisal process is a sham and waste of time. 

 The Link to Rewards

Research (Bannister & Balkin, 1990) has reported that appraisees seem to
have greater acceptance of the appraisal process, and feel more satisfied
with it, when the process is directly linked to rewards. Such findings are a
serious challenge to those who feel that appraisal results and reward
outcomes must be strictly isolated from each other.

There is also a group who argues that the evaluation of employees for
reward purposes, and frank communication with them about their
performance, are part of the basic responsibilities of management. The
practice of not discussing reward issues while appraising performance is,
say critics, based on inconsistent and muddled ideas of motivation.

In many organizations, this inconsistency is aggravated by the practice of

having separate wage and salary reviews, in which merit rises and bonuses
are decided arbitrarily, and often secretly, by supervisors and managers.