Employees Involvement in the Appraisal System Is Essential - Research Paper Example

Lecturer: Part A summary of my recommendations for the company’s senior management team The performance appraisal should follow the correct format. This is to imply that the format should try at least to cover all aspects of job performance measures. The individuals running the performance appraisal exercise should handle it effectively and professionally. They should also have a long term care of their employees in mind. The performance appraisals should be a daily duty of the manager. Most performance appraisals are usually carried out once or twice a year and I do not think this exercise presents the actual situation at the ground. Normally, these performance appraisals tend to be “tick the box” exercise. This in essence creates anxiety on the side of the management and that of the employees. After the performance appraisal has been competed they should not be shelved until the next exercise but they should be looked at immediately to allow for appropriate review actions. This can help employees improve their performance. In most cases, problematic feedbacks are usually postponed or hidden or sometimes cheated about when filling the performance Appraisal form. Majority of managers do not want to report that those under them are not performing well for the fear of being responsible of their lack of promotion or a pay rise. The performance appraisal should be objective in nature. This is to say that, they should be full of professional perspectives and should not have any personal views. Usually personal views in the performance appraisals are biased and this is very detrimental. The process of performance appraisal should not come as a surprise to the employees. This is because, if all emphasis is placed on the process then, there is a possibility of generating tension at the build up phase. This can also reduce motivation on the side of the employees, which as a result can lead to decreased productivity. Majority of the employees in the organization should be satisfied with the performance appraisal processes. An appropriate performance appraisal should be a truly consented abstract of what has been going on continuously in the organization between appraisals. Surely, if the appraisal process is reviewed twice or thrice annually, all the chances to sustain and direct the workers to get better are missed. This is because managing of people is a continuous process and not a one-time activity. The managers should not put more focus on the process alone as this is very dangerous but they should rather look at the continuing performance management. The managers should place their emphasis on the reason why the performance appraisals are carried out. The main purpose why appraisals are conducted is to help employees become more effective. They also help the managers manage those under them well. The performance appraisal process should be an exercise that tries to unearth the truth about an individual’s performance on the work function assigned in the organization and therefore it should be realistic and clear. Briefly, a sound performance appraisal should be unbiased and purposely a continuous two way and specific process. It should not be an exercise that brings in fear and embarrassment to the employees but an exercise that motivates them. Part 2 Recommendations about how the success of a new performance appraisal process should be evaluated The success of a new performance appraisal process can be evaluated through various ways namely: Peer evaluations The organization can form a task force of four to seven employees. The mandate of the task force should be to set a peer evaluation program. The task force should be to set targets and objectives of the evaluation program and can carry out a pilot program. When conducting the pilot program, participants can be persuaded to offer feedback on whether the performance measurement system is good. This is because pilot program is significant for a new performance appraisal process. It is particularly important in letting those concerned understand the bugs in the process. Self-evaluation This kind of performance measurement system is founded on the notion that workers know their roles well and that their participation in evaluation process is vital. In this technique, workers judge themselves on various methods, normally with an official survey form. The employees also offer suggestions on how the performance measurement system can be improved. This method also assists the workers to spell out their objectives and uncover areas that they feel they are weak and how they can be improved. The manager may be not part of the evaluation exercise; however, the interaction between him/her with employees can improve their association. Further, self-evaluation allows the worker to understand his/her functions well. Upward assessments The other technique the management can use to evaluate the success of a new performance appraisal process is by upward assessments. This method when well formulated leads to sound improvements in the organization’s productivity. Often managers fail to understand what they tell the workers do not really reflect what they do. This evaluation technique aids them to walk the talk and expose their points of weakness. This in turn improves their credibility. Upward assessments process is far better than survey but it can fail remarkably if both the raters and the managers hid or cheat on some issues. The managers should be ready to accept the outcome of the evaluation. Consultants may have the needed expertise; hence there is a possibility of the participants telling them the truth without fear of revenge. This method can only be executed with managers using at least three direct reports. The judger and someone else ought to bring together the finished survey forms as manager’s report. This process should be carried out in every four years. This in turn can aid the managers to review the progress and rejuvenates the results of previous survey in their thoughts. Finally, when the assessment process is complete, all those involved must be helped so that they can come to terms with the findings. This in essence will allow them to make their own inferences and conclusions. All-round Feedback This is a comprehensive performance appraisal evaluation technique. It comprises of peer evaluation, self-evaluation, upward assessments as well as inputs from outsiders. One good thing about this technique is that it allows the workers to know what others say about them. Part 3 The rationale behind the recommendations in Parts 1 and 2 Introduction Sound performance evaluation allows workers and their managers communicate. In other words, best performance should have a room for both side to share views and knowledge. Sadly, nearly most traditional evaluation methods put those in management positions into the paces of bumpy judges, presumably telling workers how their performance is good or not. Probably this is due to the fact that most of such evaluations are more or less manager’s ad hoc rulings and sometimes they may not be legitimate (Nelson, p 94). Due to problems associated with the traditional methods, new types of performance evaluations are emerging in organizations. This new types of evaluations are geared toward growth and improvement of employees. The traditional methods are done for reasons such as pay increases, promotions or rewards (Ulrich, p 197). The key significant attributes of the new types of performance evaluations are all round communication rather than one-way conversation like the case of traditional review techniques. Problems with the traditional evaluations systems According to renowned psychologists, the convectional performance evaluations systems destroy teamwork as noted by Allen et al (p 20). This is because they put more emphasis on managers evaluating employees. In the process, these managers usually act personally rather than being professional in their role as judges. Best performance evaluation systems should give feedback to allow those being evaluated to understand their areas of weaknesses so that they can improve (Bacal, p 120). In traditional evaluation systems, the rater normally tells the worker how he or she measure up boldly, meaning the rater and work know the worker’s job in a similar manner. New types of performance evaluations may assist all those involved to have common expertise on what is excellent performance (Bacal, p 202). This way, there can be improvement on all those involved, while resolving disputes. Usually, in the traditional methods the managers give their workers high marks than they deserve and this may lead some organizations applying the ranking systems, which also have problems. Usually, traditional performance evaluation systems are best at sniffing out good performers and poor performers; however, they do not make a distinction on those in the middle ground. This can be very problematic when used for pay adjustments and rewards unless only employees at the extremes are rewarded differently (Collins, p 92). With the traditional evaluation systems, workers are judged by one person who can be biased or provide a partial view of what is on ground. The new methods offer a balanced perspective. Traditional methods also have other problems such as judge’s carelessness and at the worst use of the evaluations for political or personal gains. There is also the problem whereby the workers strength or weakness in one field is spread to other fields (Heath and Heath, p 62). Similarly, lenience and strictness mistakes may cause the workers to be judged low or high than their real position (Heath and Heath, p 72). The new evaluation systems avoid these problems inherent with traditional systems. Discussions In most cases, peer evaluation systems usually have high chances of being accepted by the employees. They also allow all stakeholders to be involved in the performance evaluation process. This is because they are steady, role-relevant and are very accurate. Moreover, by assisting peers to comprehend each other’s role and communicating problems in friendlier manners, peer evaluations probably help individuals to live peacefully with each other (Cook, p 199). This in turn improves the organization’s performance. To the employees this makes the workplace a good environment to work at and less embarrassing. Further, this can help the workers to put more of their energy on their duties meaning that there will be no need of overtime. This in essence decreases the cost of production hence high profit. Peer evaluation systems can only work well if the participants understand that the management will not use them to determine pay rise, rewards or promotions. Nevertheless, a peer evaluation system with the authority to offer promotion, pay increase or penalty can be health in some organizations if the workers believe that performance evaluation is a good idea (Mishra and Mishra, p 209). In the self-evaluation approach, employees are key drivers of the process. The employees know their tasks well and this is the idea behind self-evaluation system. Here, the employees rate themselves on different scales. They are also required to raise their views on areas that need improvements. The strength of this performance is that it affords the employees a chance to state their goals. It also helps them to expose areas that they think they are weak. Usually, managers do not take part in this performance process even though the process itself allows interaction between the managers thereby bringing in good relationship between the two sides (Weisbord, p 187). This approach also helps the employees to understand their tasks well. In the self-evaluation process, the managers act as counselors rather than a rater like in other approaches. At this position, the managers can provide the support needed by employees to improve their performance. The process itself enhances the employee’s dignity and this makes them feel respected. The employees are taken as equal players in the evaluation process and this enhances their commitment to the organization’s goals and objectives (Nathan, p 26). This in essence makes the whole process satisfying and dynamic. Another key strength of self-evaluation process is that they have few errors and minimize the work of managers. At this point, it is worth to note that some employees may fail to report their weakness and therefore the process ought to be used alongside other performance measurement systems. Upward evaluations are best for big organizations. In this process managers acts as fans and must be ready to agree with findings of the evaluations process. This performance evaluation process is based on the idea that the managers in some cases may fail to understand that what they tell their subordinates measure up to what they really do (Sutton, p 27). With Upward evaluations, managers are compelled to act consistently with what they say and this brings into play integrity to their character. For upward evaluation process to be credible, an expert should called in to help those involved understand the evaluation results. Particularly, the participants should be helped to resolve misunderstandings. This in essence will help them focus their energies on the recommendations of the review process (Menand, p 201). In this process, the manger’s roles vary significantly. Usually, the persons being evaluated are given a chance to share the review findings with rater, with manager getting summary of the review findings from the consultant to help him in understanding the action plans. All- round feedback evaluation helps in exposing all characteristics of person’s life. Collaboration with individuals outside their section and concern towards clients among others allows this review process to get more information than the other performance evaluation processes. All- round feedback evaluation system assist employees who are not in good terms with their managers to resolve their conflicts (Greenleaf, p 74). All-round feedback normally has enhanced employee participation and this in turn increases its credibility. The system has the strongest effect on employees conduct and performance. This is because of the increased communication between the stakeholders that in turn brings in a good all-around view of the organization’s mission. All-round feedback can be used for individual’s growth and development. This is because it collects information from various sources including other employees, supervisors, outsiders and the participants themselves. This brings in the organization a good relationship, improved communications and increased knowledge sharing (Gladwell, p 202). It also brings efficiency in organization’s productivity and allows the managers understand where the employees need training. This in essence helps the organization achieve its long-term goals and objectives. Most managers see performance evaluation as very difficult task and as such, they normally do not like it. This can be true given that the fact that, practice of performance evaluation, as conventionally conducted, is faulted. This is because the traditional performance evaluations methods are not based on values, vision driven and they are not oriented to the organization’s mission (Covey, p 24). These methods cannot work well in today’s organizations that put more values on their employees. They can only operate in organizations with despotic kind of management that treats workers as their properties an aspect that has become obsolete. In the traditional evaluation system, the manager yearly puts down his/her views of the performance of an employee on a paper provided by the human resources section. In some companies, the employee is asked to complete a self-evaluation to share with the manager. Often, this mode of performance evaluations mirrors what the supervisor can recall. Normally, the manager reports only the latest events. This implies that this mode of appraisal is almost one-time exercise despite the facts a good performance appraisal system should be a continuous process. The appraisal forms in use in most companies also demand the manager to make ruling based on perceptions and words like good performance, shows eagerness etc (Buckingham and Coffman, p 199). Most managers are not happy when they acting as judges to their subordinates and actually performance evaluations are frequently a couple weeks overdue. The human resources officer, who handles the performance evaluation system, see his/her most significant tasks as formulating the appraisal form and maintaining the work formal file and telling the managers of when they should hand the feedback. Although the yearly pay raises are based on performance appraisals, managers are uncomfortable doing the performance evaluations. This lead to less motivated worker who feels that his senior is less concerned about him to cause his/her yearly pay increase. The traditional appraisal process seem to be painful to all those involved. For one, the manager is not happy at his role as a judge. He/she understands that he/she may have to validate his/her views with good reasons when employee asks. The manager lacks ability of offering right responses and frequently incites a defensive reply from the worker, who may reasonably argue that he is being attacked for no reason. As a result, managers evade offering a true feedback that defeats the aim of the performance evaluation (Bacal, p 125). On the side of the employee, who is being evaluated frequently tends defensive. When his/her performance is judged as not excellent, or below the level which he/she individually thinks his/her performance rates, the manager is seen as biased. Disparities between the employee’s input and appraisal ratings can generate a conflict environment that can stay as long as possible (Coens and Jenkins, p 122). Many managers evade disagreement that will undermine peace at the workplace. In today’s work environment people work as team and that why managers a feeling uncomfortable when asked to take the role of a judge. Additionally, when pay increase is based on performance appraisal, the manager thinks that he/she is limiting the employee’s chances of getting a pay increase or bonus by giving him or her less marks. This can lure him or her not to give the true picture of the employee’s performance and this defeats the purpose of appraisal. In performance measurement system, feedback is very vital for the success of the system (Bok, p26). Nevertheless, this should be a discussion. There should be a dialogue between the employee and his/her manager as both have some views to bring to the table. Feedback should be collected from all stakeholders including external sources in order to have clear and correct input of individual contribution to the organization. It should be organization’s duty to help all her employees to increase their skills. An organization grows and develops on this basis. Conclusion Many organizations can profit from effective and efficiency communications. An excellent performance evaluations system can assist to enhance communications and help employees improve performance and identify their roles. An excellent system should enhance the performance of the employees and help them work as a team with similar goals. It should also help them be free in telling each their strengths and weakness at the workplace. The above suggested appraisal systems can work for both large and small organizations. These performance measure systems can expose things that are usually not heard, minimize stress, enhance communications, and probably increase employees’ performance remarkably. Briefly, employee’s involvement the appraisal system is essential. Truly, if they are part in designing the system, it is likely that they will own it and be dedicated to it. These in essence will benefit both the organization and the employees. Works cited Allen, Janis and McCarthy, Michael. You Made My Day: Creating Co-Worker Recognition & Relationships. New York: Lebhar-Friedman Books, 2000. Bacal, Robert. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Dealing with Difficult Employees. Indianapolis: Alpha Books/Macmillan USA, Inc., 2000. Bittel, Lester and Newstrom, John. What Every Supervisor Should Know. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990. Bok, Derek. Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look At How Much Students Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More. New Jersey: Princeton University, 2006. Buckingham and Coffman, Curt. First, Break All The Rules, What the World’s Greatest Managers do Differently. New York: Simon&Schuster,1999. Coens, Tom and Jenkins, Mary. Abolishing Performance Appraisals: Why They Backfire And What To Do Instead. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2002. Collins, Jim. How The Mighty Fall and Why Some Companies Never Give In. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Cook, Marshall. Effective Coaching. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999. Covey, Stephen. The 8th Habit from Effectiveness to Greatness. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004 Gallagher, Carol. Going to the Top. New York: Penguin Books, 2000. Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2002. Greenleaf, Robert. Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power & Greatness. New York: Greenleaf Center, 2002. Heath, Chip and Heath, Dan. Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die: Made to Stick. New York: Random House, 2007. Menand, Louis. The Marketplace Of Ideas: Reform and Resistance in the American University. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 2010 Mishra, Aneil and Mishra, Karen. Trust is Everything: Become the Leader Others Will Follow. 2008. Nathan, Rebekah. My Freshman Year: What A Professor Learned By Becoming A Student. New York: Penguin Books, 2006. Nelson, Bob. 1001 Ways to Reward Employees. New York: Workman Publishing, 1994. Sutton, Robert. The No Asshole Rule. New York: Warner Business Books, 2007. Ulrich, Dave. Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and Delivering Results. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997. Weisbord, Marvin. Productive Workplaces. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1987. Read More