The Effectiveness of the Companys Staff Appraisal System - Research Paper Example

?Research Proposal Number Research Question: How do employees of XXX perceive the effectiveness of the company’s staff appraisal system? Hypothesis: It is expected that the majority of staff will have negative perceptions of the current company performance appraisal system. My portfolio as an employee within the HR Department of XXX, a large manufacturing company employing 500 staff in the West Midlands, is to implement changes to improve the effectiveness of the current staff performance appraisal system. The appraisal system in use at present is based purely on ratings and such a system requires updating to accommodate a diverse company employee community. Prior to instigating any changes however, it is important to determine the perceptions, understanding and experiences of employees within the current appraisal system. In light of the research question, what constitutes an effective performance appraisal needs to be determined first, in order to appreciate, identify with and empathise with staff perceptions. Personal development is a necessary element for both personnel and organizational benefits, and performance appraisals are the best means of identifying the training needs of staff, as well as being a systematic mechanism for evaluating the standards of staff performance, determining salaries and advancements and detecting any factors that impinge on staff effectiveness. An effective appraisal system is one that considers cultural values (Feng, Foster & Heling), that is perceived by staff as being fair and acceptable, that is a reciprocal cooperation between staff and management and one that is appropriate to daily duties (Duraisingam & Skinner, 2005). Such a system fosters staff satisfaction and motivation. A number of factors other than performance appraisal methods must be considered when developing a new and effective system; other factors that might explain staff perceptions of personal appraisals are fairness and cultural awareness. Kavanagh, Benson & Brown (2007) discuss theoretical support for performance appraisal processes and explain that such support is evidenced in ‘control theory and social exchange theory’ (p.134). Process control theory proposes that staff perceptions of fairness are related to the degree of control each employee is able to employ within the process (Konovsky, 2000, p.493 cited in Kavanagh, Benson & Brown, 2007). Social exchange theory on the other hand, refers to ‘relationships that entail unspecified future obligations’ (Kavanagh, Benson & Brown, 2007, p. 134), wherein the way management treat employees is of significance. Fairness therefore, may be perceived in relation to the amount of control an employee has within the process and the way in which their appraiser handles the process. Any organization or company in England today would have employees from a diverse range of ethnic and racial backgrounds, and XXX is no exception. Such diversity impacts to a great extent on the appropriacy of the way in which the performance appraisal is carried out and therefore requires deep consideration as to how best accommodate diversity among the staff of XXX. As stated earlier XXX’s system of appraisal is based on the rating method which involves numerically rating a list of factors such as output and quality of work; such a method is easy to develop and administer but is also very subjective (Acas, 2003). There are a number of other appraisal methods available and each needs to be considered in relation to the findings ascertained within this study and before making any necessary changes. One such performance appraisal is based on narrative reports, wherein the manager or supervisor is required to write a report or essay on what they consider as the strengths and weaknesses of a staff member; headings may be provided but subjectivity is imminent and results depend very much on the capabilities of the writer (Acas, 2003). Comparisons with objectives is another method of performance appraisal, wherein a staff member and his or her supervisor or manager collaboratively decide on a set of objectives and appraisal is then centered on the level to which the objectives have been attained. This method of appraisal, based on staff accomplishment, provides opportunity for input from the employee and is thus more objective than the rating method (Acas, 2005). Critical incidents appraisal requires the manager or supervisor to take stock (record) of both an employee’s positive and negative behaviour over a specific time period. At the time of occurrence the manager or supervisor provides either approval or guidance and advice. The record of such occurrences is kept and used as the focus of the employee’s appraisal statement (Acas, 2005). The Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) is a rating scale based on specific tasks or aspects of a job. Managers are required to ascertain a list of activities or aspects of an employee’s job (similar to a job description) and determine what represents poor, average or good performance for each. Each aspect is given a value rating and once developed the managers or supervisors rate the individual employee according to the scale and his specific job (Acas, 2003). It is the intention of this study to explore a variety of factors related to the staff appraisal system; it is assumed that such factors can be brought to the foreground by examining staff perceptions as to the effectiveness of the system. Methodology There are a number of research strategies available for answering the question as to how staff perceive the effectiveness of the company’s performance appraisal system. Babbie (2004) says that such a question can be approached from either an exploratory or an explanatory perspective. Exploratory research is likely to be qualitative whereas explanatory research is likely to be quantitative or empirical. In other words, a qualitative research study as described by Creswell (2003) as well as Babbie (2004), is one that seeks to identify the parameters of a phenomenon rather than to explain why the phenomenon exists or the conditions that cause it to exist. Creswell (2003) suggests that interviews or case studies offer a sound foundation for effective qualitative research efforts. As this study aims to take a qualitative approach to determine staff perceptions (500 in total) it will use one-to one semi-structured and in-depth interviews and focus groups. Interviews have been selected because they allow the interviewer more flexibility in terms of changing direction within the interview, allowing the interviewee to steer the focus, whereby emerging themes may appear (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Such method selection will allow the interviewee the opportunity to talk freely without pressure and in a non-directive manner (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2007) on their feelings, beliefs and experiences within the company’s performance appraisal system. It is proposed that a sample group of 50 staff (10%) be selected from various departments for interview. All interviews will be audio taped for later transcription and analysis. The focus group method of attaining data has been selected because it allows staff to come together and share their points of view and perceptions of our performance appraisals. This group interviewing (groups of 10 are anticipated) provides a less stressful process for those who may feel intimidated in a one-to one interview. A group interview also provides opportunity for more diverse perceptions to which others can respond (Bryman & Bell, 2007); and is also a more efficient means of interviewing such a large number of staff. All focus group proceedings will also be audio taped and transcribed for further analysis. The research will begin with an exploratory pilot study that will be interview based in order to determine any problems that may arise on the part of the interviewer or the question format. The pilot study will be undertaken with one participant in a one-to one interview which, as in the actual study, will be recorded and later transcribed for analysis. Sampling It is anticipated that all 500 staff will take part in this research but that the sampling in terms of one-to-one interviews will be selected from volunteers equally distributed among the different departments. Selection in this way will ensure an even sampling across the company. The remaining staff will then be attributed to focus groups with each group comprising employees working within the same departments to allow for commonality between viewpoints. Ethical considerations This research will be guided by the four ethical considerations purported by Diener & Crandell (1978) as discussed by Bryman & Bell (2007, p.132). Other ethical considerations as proposed by Bryman & Bell (2007) will also be taken into account and completion of their checklist (p.148) will help in this process. Pilot Study A questionnaire guide was prepared and piloted with a friend so that the researcher could experience the process prior to undertaking the full study. The interview was conducted in an office, lasted 15 minutes and was audio taped; following the interview the recordings were transcribed as a trial in the process of transcribing. Personal notes were then added to the transcription for ease of analysis and to help in this reflection. The interview proved quite difficult to administer in terms of knowing when to ask what questions, and on reflection I realise that I did not handle things too well. To start I was very nervous but did manage to appear confident and at ease – at least I believe I did. My intention was to work through the questions one by one but I soon realised that this was not going to happen due to the responses provided by the participant. The first question had to be adjusted to suit the participant who does not work for XXX but it was obvious that it was not explicit enough, causing the participant to ask for clarification as to the 1-10 rating. I was very much aware of the required skills of an interviewer as discussed and outlined in Bryman & Bell (2007), and so I was consciously aware of the need to put the interviewee at ease and to create an environment that is conducive to open discussion. I feel I was able to achieve this quite well, but other problems emerged. In retrospect I see the main problem on my part as being too focused on the questions provided in the interview guide. My intervention in places prevented the participant from reflecting and thus providing more in-depth analysis to the questions. Instead I panicked when the participant paused worried that I was not going to extract the information I was looking for. By doing this the focus of the topic was taken away from the participant and thus domineered by me; which is not the intention of a qualitative interview. In this pursuit of asking all the questions I sometimes read them verbatim rather than ask them in a way more applicable to speech; for instance when I asked the interviewee ‘so what do you consider the positive aspects of the system to be?’ and all I received was a blank look in response. At the time I quickly re-phrased the questions. Another issue was my failure to actively listen to what the participant was saying. I consider my desperate attempts to appear composed, to make the participant at ease, and to convince the participant I was listening and interested in what she was saying, caused the opposite to occur. Instead of actively listening I was too absorbed in demonstrating it that in reality I was not. This was most evident when I transcribed the interview and found that I had asked questions that almost reiterated what the participant had already said, as when I asked whether she thought the system allows for her to provide sufficient input. She had already told me that she felt she had been given the opportunity to provide input but other had not. Later I asked her what she thought were the negative aspects of the system. Again the question was redundant and should thus have been rephrased to suggest other negative aspects – other than those already discussed. Later again I did the same; I asked her what changes she would like to see made to the system, which is when I received another look of confusion. The interviewee had already stated what she thought should be done, so again I was reiterating what she had already said. While transcribing the interview I became acutely aware of how easy it is to ask leading questions such as when I asked the participant if she felt the system was fair rather than allowing the participant to provide the input herself. It is very easy when looking for or wanting to find specific feedback in support of an opinion or argument to lead the interviewee to provide it when in reality it may not be the true perceptions of the participant. The task of actually transcribing the interview proved more difficult and tedious as expected. For such a short interview the time taken to provide a transcription amounted to hours – stopping and starting the tape – allowing for writing and re-winding over and over again in order to ensure every utterance had been transcribed. The task of interviewing 500 staff ,whether I focus groups or one-to one interviews is going to be a far greater task than initially presumed, and it is apparent that such a study is best assumed by a research team. The pilot interview proved to be a very worthwhile undertaking and one that has shed much light on the difficulties of administering an interview one-to-one. Reflection has provided insight into how I can improve before embarking on a real study; the multitude of considerations that need be pondered and mulled over are apparent before taking that giant leap into the realm of quantitative research. References Acas, 2005, Employee Appraisal, viewed 19 April, 2011 http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/o/q/B07_1.pdf Babbie, E., 2000, Methods of social research, Worth, Belmont, CA. Bryman, A. & Bell, E., 2007, Business research methods, Oxford University Press, New York. Creswell, J. W., 2003, Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Duraisingam, V. & Skinner, N., 2005, ‘Performance Appraisal’, in N. Skinner, A.M. Roche, J. O’Connor, Y. Pollard, & C. Todd (eds.), Workforce Development TIPS (Theory Into Practice Strategies): A Resource Kit for the Alcohol and Other Drugs Field. National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA), Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, viewed 19 April, 2011, http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/o/q/B07_1.pdf Feng, Y., Foster, S. & Heling, G. n.d., Study on the impact of societal cultural orientations on employee performance evaluation practices in business organization: the case of China, viewed 19 April, 2011, http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb2.msm.nl%2Fnews%2Farticles%2F050707papers%2F0211_Feng_Foster_Heling.PDF&rct=j&q=Study%20on%20the%20impact%20of%20societal%20cultural%20orientations%20on%20employee%20performance%20evaluation%20practices%20in%20business%20organization%3A%20the%20case%20of%20China.&ei=jSCuTfvvJIeIvgPF28WPDw&usg=AFQjCNGWdiQGX2Kwhf7y83eaACErNpaglw&cad=rjt Kavanagh, P., Benson, J. & Brown, M., 2007, ‘Understanding performance appraisal fairness’, Aisa Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol.45, no.2, pp.132-150, viewed 19 April, 2011, Questia. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A., 2007, Research methods for business students, 4th edn, Prentice Hall, Edinburgh. Appendix A Interview Guide Time limit: 15 minutes Questions: 1. You have been working with XXX for ……………….now. How would you rate our performance appraisal system on a scale from 1-10? 2. Can you explain why how you have arrived at this rating? 3. What if any, do you consider as positive aspects of the system? 4. What if any, do you consider as negative aspects of the system? 5. Do you think the system allows for you to provide sufficient input? 6. Do you think the system is fair? 7. Do you think the system is aware of the cultural diversity of staff? 8. What changes if any, would you like to see made to our current system? Appendix B Interview Transcript ME – Name P – Participant ME: OK. I think we’re all set. Tape’s on and we’re feeling comfortable. You have already told me that you’ve been working with your company for just over 5 years, so let me start by asking you –How would you rate your company’s performance appraisal system on a scale from 1- 10? (I felt the participant was a little apprehensive so even though I was very nervous I smiled a lot and tried to speak in a soft and friendly voice.) P: 1-10? 10 is the highest? ME: Yes. 1 is the lowest and 10 is the highest P: Well … I guess it’s about a 6 … yeah! … a 6 – just above half way. ME: Can you explain how you have arrived at this rating? P: Well … let me think. Every year we have … we have to go for a meeting … an interview with our manager. Each staff member has to do it. Everyone has a manager … or a supervisor … that sits down with us to talk about things. Things about what … how we think we did through the year … like whether we did … achieved what we said we would. (I felt the participant was struggling for words. She spoke very slowly with many pauses. I tried to create a relaxed atmosphere by smiling, nodding at appropriate times and letting her know I was really interested in what she was saying – not to extreme though.) ME: So, how are the things you need to achieve decided upon? (Setting the scene for direction of further questions.) P: Um. The manager gives us a form. A sort of table. And we have to fill it in. (I felt the participant was starting to relax as she was able to maintain more eye contact.) ME: Can you tell me more? What sort of things do you need to put? (I wanted to elicit more insight in to how the participant actually felt about filling in the form.) P: Things that we did and want to do. Things like different personal achievements we think we have achieved during the year. And… and things we want to do in the next year. Things for the company too. ME: So, after you fill in the form what happens? P: We have the meeting and the manager asks us why we’ve put what we’ve put and discusses whether he thinks we’ve achieved these things too. (Less pauses and speaking at a slightly faster rate.) (Realise now that the appraisal system used in this company is based on the comparatives with objectives system.) ME: You must have lots of achievements! (Gave a compliment to let her know I was actively listening. I nodded while saying it. She smiled and nodded back – really lightening up now!) P: Sometimes yes and sometimes not so good. ME: You’ve given it a 6 out of 10, so what do you consider the positive aspects of the system to be? (No response from participant – just a look of confusion.) ME: What do you think are the good things about the system? (Re-phrased the question.) P: Oh! Well I think that it’s good we get to talk about things. You know. We can decide what we want to do and then decide how we did it. ME: What about the manager? P: What about the manager? (Realised my question was not clear.) ME: Does he listen to what you’re saying? P: Yeah. My manager is good but other people aren’t so lucky. They reckon it’s a waste of time and even though they fill in the form they’re changed by the end of the interview to suit the manager not what they want themselves. ME: Do you feel that’s fair? (Maybe a leading question?) P: No not at all. They reckon they do the appraisals for our benefit but because of some managers it’s not. It’s for their benefit. ME: Do you think the system allows for you to provide sufficient input? P: Yeah. I just told you that. For me it does but not for everybody. (Realise I didn’t need to ask this question. Repeating myself) ME: Do you think there are any negative aspects of the system? P: Other than it’s not fair for everyone … I think it would be better if we could have a set of tasks – like a list of things we should do in our job and then we could choose from the list. Coz sometimes it’s hard to think of things. ME: You mean like a job description – the tasks and responsibilities you are expected to do? P: Yeah. Then we could decide what we think we do well and what we think we can do better in next time. Then the same list can be filled in by the manager but not changing your list. That way we can compare between the two. It might be fairer and give everyone more say. ME: Are there employees in your company that come from different countries and backgrounds? P: Yeah sure. We’ve got people from Ireland, China, India, Pakistan … everywhere? ME: Do you think the system is aware of culturally diverse staff? P: You mean do the managers take account of people from different places? ME: Yes. P: Some do I guess. Some don’t though. Like I know of one girl – a Muslim girl – she said she didn’t like having the interview with her boss. She said she wished her boss was a woman because … because she felt uncomfortable talking about herself with a man. Is that what you mean? ME: Yes. What changes if any, would you like to see made to your current system? (Puzzled look from participant here.) P: Well. Other than the lists I can’t think of anything else. ME: OK. Thanks for your help. Read More