Does the HRM Concept Effectively Monitor Its Managers to Guarantee Fair Appraisals - Research Proposal Example

Unbiased Appraisals Research Proposal How Can a HR Department Make Certain that its Performance Appraisals are Unbiased: Does the HRM Concept Effectively Monitor its Managers to Guarantee Fair Appraisals? Total Word Count = 3,092 Unbiased Appraisals 2 Table of Contents I. Title -----------------------------------------------------------------------------3 II. Study Rationale ----------------------------------------------------------------------3 III. Objectives ---------------------------------------------------------------------6 IV. Contribution of Existing Literature ---------------------------------------------7 V. Methodology -----------------------------------------------------------------13 VI. Timeframe ---------------------------------------------------------------------------15 Unbiased Appraisals 3 I. Title: How Can a HR Department Make Certain that its Performance Appraisals are Unbiased: Does the HRM Concept Effectively Monitor its Managers to Guarantee Fair Appraisals? II. Study Rationale: The purpose of this study is to address the performance management tool designed to measure employee performance known as the performance appraisal and highlight the corporate tools available to reduce bias in the review process. The focus of the study is to identify the mechanisms involved in rating employee performance and determining if there is a connection between personal bias issues and the outcome of the assessment on the employee. If a company identifies an inconsistency in performance evaluation and suspects bias in the assessment, the question as to whether the organisation can effectively monitor its managers to guarantee fair appraisals is proposed. To introduce a background into the performance appraisal process, it is important to understand the uses of the employee assessment system. A performance appraisal is designed to evaluate how well an employee performs their job function in comparison to a group of set standards, and then to communicate that rated information to the employee. There are several functions of the appraisal that are designed to identify employee strengths/weaknesses, identify room for growth in the company, planning for employee future development, and as a means to establish a career planning path with the organisation. Outcomes of these appraisals are often important to an employee and include increased compensation, possible promotion based on Unbiased Appraisals 4 productivity factors, or even termination for unsatisfactory performance. Because of the importance the outcome on the financial and corporate future of the employee, receipt of a fair and unbiased appraisal is crucial. If the employee feels that he/she has not received adequate compensation due to a managers personal unjustified discrimination or exertion of personal values in the assessment, the employee may argue bias in the review process and demand a new appraisal. However, it seems now matter how hard HR managers and benefits managers try, their efforts are often perceived as unfair (Employee Benefits Magazine 2005, p.18). With a commonality between continuous employee perceptions of unfair assessment, this poses a difficult challenge for the organisation to determine bias issues among its management staff. A common tool adopted by organisations to aid in assessing specific job functions is the checklist. This checklist consists of statements such as accepts criticism or always reports to work on time and other specific characteristics that denote compliance to corporate expectations. These are the basic foundation of employee review and pertain directly to job and skills performance. It is the secondary tools to measure employee performance that deal with behavioural characteristics and in comparison/contrast measures that have the tendency to reduce fairness in overall employee assessment. Because the usefulness of performance appraisal as a managerial decision tool depends partly on whether or not the performance appraisal system is able to provide accurate data on employee Unbiased Appraisals 5 performance, rating accuracy is a critical aspect of the appraisal process (Poon 2004, p.322). Organisations are often compelled to use a mix/match approach to rating standards in order to improve rating accuracy. For instance, if an employee is verbally abusive to customers, criticizes co-workers, but yet excels in creating spreadsheet reports, likely the employee will receive an unsatisfactory appraisal assessment. The combination of a variety of different methods in which to assess are vital to the employees future and are quite easy to identify. Bias would be clearly indicated if the same employee, who causes conflict with co-workers, is given an outstanding grade for positive co-worker relationships. The intention of this background into performance reviews is to emphasise the specific point in which the appraisal begins to break down in its level of equity. When the manager rating maintains bias, despite whatever source the bias might stem, can likely guarantee an appraisal that does not accurately depict the employees true service to the organisation. This is the point where senior leadership in human relations must step in to re-examine whether the manager is equipped to handle employee review systems. This study is designed to highlight a connection between organisational tactics in HR management to determine what is the best practice, in practical application, for ensuring managerial compliance to all performance appraisal standards. This study will gather significant research materials pertaining to employee appraisal systems and, based on the research conducted, will offer suggestions on how to better equip Unbiased Appraisals 6 organisations to recognise levels of rater bias among its assessing managers, and ensure compliance to all fairness and equity expectations distributed by HR leadership. The study will determine whether there are tangible warning signs that can alert HR leadership to possible bias and ways to proactively handle the bias using the HR performance management concepts to actively discipline managers who exhibit inequity during the appraisal process. III. Objectives There are rather specific objectives to this study that include intensive research into the nature of bias and the environmental factors that cause this condition. Bias, itself, is a multi-dimensional and complex issue (ASNE, 1999) meaning that bias is often perceived as a mental condition driven by individual expectations of the employee. This study will focus on: 1. Assess all factors of potential bias in the appraisal review process and the means available for HR leadership to minimise or remove those factors to ensure fairness to the employee outcome of the completed review. 2. Identify the efforts of HR leadership (in practice) to communicate expectations to the assessing manager for unbiased decision-making, implement proper training for the manager to ensure they are equipped for the task of performance appraisals, and assess the outcome of the completed appraisal using HR concepts of performance management. Unbiased Appraisals 7 3. HR leaderships failures to recognise bias in the appraisal process leading to potential legal ramifications brought on by employee grievances or highlight disciplinary measures taken to halt the use of bias against employees. All of this studys objectives highlights deal directly with answering the question as to whether HRM practices are significant motivators in eliminating managerial bias against employees. Based on the end result of the research, the study will serve to, likely, concretely answer the question as to whether the majority segment of business has been successful in identifying potential biases and are incorporating capable, unbiased managers to perform the performance management processes. VII. Contribution of Existing Literature Existing sources suggest that a principal practice in the establishment of clear performance objectives lies in eliminating inequalities (Tackey 2001, p.13). One of the main biases still plaguing organisations in the UK is the issue of racial prejudice. Suggestions regarding whether the association between race and subjective performance measures is to examine whether the race of the rater influences the performance ratings given to whites and ethnic minorities (Dewberry 2001, p. 663). This has long been a problem for human resource managers to identify and distinctly prove whether race played a factor in the outcome of the appraisal. One predominant theme, however, that has been clearly indicated by most organisations in their ethical policies is the establishment of an Ethical Code of Business Conduct that defines the Unbiased Appraisals 8 unacceptable practices of discrimination and, sometimes, even indicates to the general public the disciplinary measures served for violating the code. However, there is a distinct difference between a written code of conduct and the physical illustration of adherence to ethical discrimination policies. This is a difficult situation for HR managers as in order to reprimand managers for bias in the appraisal process, the actual race bias must have solid supporting evidence in order to carry out disciplinary measures. On the same note, HR managers are left with the daunting task of reversing the appraisal decision in favour of the discriminated employee based on such evidence. Another form of bias in the appraisal rating process lies in male/female discrimination; where the manager conducting the review is one gender and the employee is of a differing gender. In patriarchal societies, societies dominating by men in authoritarian positions, females are a group often discriminated against in various facets of life, including the workplace (Chung 2001, p. 147). Despite Westernised countries attempts to promote legislation against such a practice, it can be argued that it is still a common practice in the UK. It is the responsibility of the HRM team, or its senior leadership, to recognise historical negative responses from male managers in relation to female subordinates to determine if there is a distinct pattern issuing from the manager in regards to gender discrimination. This study will assess organisations attempts at recognising gender discrimination and determine whether their efforts have met with success. At the same time, the study will Unbiased Appraisals 9 determine if any noticeable attempts, in contributing literature, to address gender inequality have been made at all. It has been suggested that many corporate managers rely on financial measures alone to evaluate subordinates performance, disregarding key elements in the corporations strategic mission and inadvertently emphasise measures that lag, instead of lead, actual firm performance (Roberts et al 2004, p.75). This is another aspect of rater bias that is not normally categorised as a traditional form of bias, but is unfair to the employee in any respect. What this suggests is that the financial "bottom line", including departmentalised expectations for contributions to increasing profitability, can often be the only determination used when measuring employee success. To highlight, senior leadership is ultimately responsible for carrying out the strategic objectives of an organisation (such as profitability) and cannot achieve this goal without the support and motivation of the subordinate employees. A form of bias that occurs in this situation is where senior leadership is driven by his own personal goals of succeeding in the company and feels that the employee does not contribute to his goal. So, in this case, the employee may succeed in vast areas of productivity, but failed to generate an increase in departmental revenue. The employee would then receive an unsatisfactory rating from the senior leader that is not reflective of the employees true contribution to the organisation. HR managers must routinely inspect the performance appraisals of employees to raise awareness of vital issues that were not documented or highlighted as being assessed in the appraisal or the employee faces an unfair level of reward for his efforts. Unbiased Appraisals 10 Employees are also often exposed to a phenomenon known as the contrast error in appraisal ratings in which the manager rating performance tends to rate employees in direct relation to others work instead of established performance standards. In this case, for example, if the employee performs the job description activities to a satisfactory level while another employee excels at a similar job, the manager might be inclined to offer an unsatisfactory rating to the satisfactory employee. Assume that in the same situation the second employee excels in job performance based solely on his being allocated significantly higher business resources than the satisfactory employee. An appraising manager must be aware of these environmental factors in order to make a comparison judgment or the appraisal is flawed. HR managers in charge of reviewing completed appraisals must ensure that the job descriptions for each employee function are clearly illustrated in the assessment parameters or contrast error generates inequality in overall ratings. A growing change in performance appraisal methodology is emerging in HRM known as 360 degree feedback. This is relatively commonplace now in UK organisations and consists of an individual being rated not just by direct managers, but by subordinates and peers as well; along with performing a self-assessment (Fletcher 1999, p.39). This does not necessarily mean that bias issues are eliminated, because the potential for a co-workers assessment to be biased is quite prevalent, but it does ensure that a wider variety of appraisal sources are taken into consideration by HR management. The study will focus on whether the 360 degree feedback Unbiased Appraisals 11 mechanisms are securely in place and whether such feedback is sufficient in guaranteeing an unbiased employee review. Also, determining whether HR managers truly value the 360 degree feedback method when determining whether the review was conducted with equity. One can assume that managers, primarily, have been trained in how to conduct proper performance reviews whereas employees have not. The opportunity for bias based on co-worker jealousies or other psychological reasons might actually serve to guarantee a lesser rating than the employee is actually entitled to receive. HR managers are the responsible parties within an organisation to maintain employee records and should satisfactorily determine which employees are risk factors to another employees review in the 360 degree feedback system. In a situation where no meaningful feedback has been given to an employee throughout the course of a year, a Canadian author compares the performance review process as a trip to the dentist citing, "You pray you dont have any cavities and get out of there as soon as possible" (Brown 2005, p.2). Such a statement implies that employees who are assessed on performance annually have come to expect biased appraisals and simply aspire to achieve a satisfactory rating and then exit the performance meeting quickly. This suggests that human resource managers must not only conduct continuous monitoring of the practice, but also make the review time a meaningful and productive activity for the employee. If the employee begins to expect an unfair appraisal to be distributed regularly, the HR department must take dramatic measures to alter its performance management processes. This may include Unbiased Appraisals 12 a radically new or innovative approach to generating appraisal feedback that virtually eliminates any sources of bias. It would seem that new methods in HR monitoring are industry-specific, however the reality of inaccuracies in appraisals appear to have become commonplace in UK organisations, despite attempts to curb them. Another bias relating to the study purpose lies in the similar to/different from me style of personal bias that often does not receive appropriate weight in HR when attempting to eliminate bias. This is the process of determining an employees overall effectiveness based solely on the methods to which an employee performs his job function in comparison to the raters themselves. In a situation where a manager takes pride in the method to which a job is performed, they will often use their own characteristics and superimpose those methods onto the employee as the only acceptable practice. To highlight, the manager may take an active approach to customer service by making routine follow-up phone calls to the client as an additional service not necessarily required of the job position. The employee engaged in a similar customer service position may not see the value of such telephone communication and reject the practice altogether. Though there is no formal documentation that demands follow-up correspondence, the manager may feel that the employee is performing an unsatisfactory level of customer service and offer a low performance rating based on minimal follow-up. In such a scenario, it is the responsibility of the human resources manager to point out that the managers documentation regarding follow-up protocols are not indicated in the job description and nullify the appropriate section; or ask for a reassessment of the employee. Unbiased Appraisals 13 V. Methodology This study will be conducted using a variety of sources that highlight efforts undertaken by HR managers to reduce bias in the appraisal system. Each method of data collection will serve to illustrate the relationship between HR concept and practical use of bias-reduction activities in business. i. Proposed Data Collection Approach Using secondary sources such as journal articles, magazines, reputable web sources, and peer-reviewed literature will serve to offer a cross-section of information about the steps that HRM systems have taken to undergo bias-reduction within their organisation. These sources will indicate a pattern within specific groups of business that recognise the importance of equity in performance reviews. These sources will offer further data collection methods to support the premise of this proposal by indicating any legal issues cited due to improper, biased appraisals and the steps taken by HRM to ensure any such legal action does not occur again. A survey is proposed as well to be distributed to a small demographic area of employees indicating several questions in regards to employee opinion about whether they perceive equity regarding their experience with the performance appraisal process. This will offer real-life, direct data to answer the research questions about HR monitoring and its affect on employee connotations about the appraisal process. The survey will be conducted in a printed distributive form and Unbiased Appraisals 14 also conducted first-hand through a series of questions conducted by the researcher in order to chart employee impressions of appraisal equity. ii. Sample Frame The questionnaire will consist of four specific questions relating to perceptions of HRM capabilities in monitoring bias and the employees opinion of the level of equity in generating rewards. The form and direct questions will be targeted at the researchers peer group and distributed to local companies in the UK demographically located near the researcher. iii. Potential Limitations/Contingencies There are very few limitations to this study; taking into consideration the vast amount of literature available in secondary sources on this topic and the researchers ability to propose survey questions verbally in relation to employee interpretation of HRM and its efforts at reducing bias in appraisals. Distributed literature, if no adequate return on the survey is received by the researcher, will carry little to no impact on the scope of the research and in completing the objective to answering the topic questions. Unbiased Appraisals 15 VI. Timeframe Completion of each task will differ based on the method used to research the project. It is offered that total conclusion of the project will be accomplished in 10-12 weeks from date of the proposals approval. The project will consist of six to eight weeks of substantial research and generation of questionnaire data along with an additional 3-5 weeks to construct, graph, and analyse the gathered information in support of the study. With the completion of the dissertation, the question of whether HRM concepts effectively monitor managers and steps to reduce/eliminate HR performance appraisals will be answered effectively. Unbiased Appraisals 16 References ASNE. Aug 4 1999, The American Society of Newspaper Editors, Perceived Bias, Brown, David. Apr 11 2005, Performance Management Systems, Canadian HR Reporter (Reprint). Toronto. Vol. 18, Iss. 7, p. 2. Chung, Janne. Dec 2001, The Effects of Rater Sex and Ratee Sex on Managerial Performance Evaluation, Australian Journal of Management. Sydney. Vol. 26, Iss. 2, p. 147. Dewberry, Chris. Dec. 2001, Performance disparities between whites and ethnic Minorities: Real differences or assessment bias?, Journal of Occupational And Organizational Psychology. Leicester. Vol. 74, Iss. 5, pg. 663. Employee Benefits Magazine. Oct 10 2005, Viewpoint: Is Your HR Policy only Fair to Middling? London. p. 18. Fletcher, Clive. 1999, The Implication of Research on Gender Differences in Self-Assessment and 360 Degree Appraisal, Human Resource Management Journal. London. Vol. 9, Iss. 1, p.39. Poon, June M L. 2004, Effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover intention, Personnel Review. Farnborough. Vol. 33, Iss. 3, p. 322. Roberts, Michael L., Albright, Thomas L. & Hibbets, Aleecia R. 2004, Debiasing Balanced Scorecard Evaluations, Behavioral Research in Accounting. Vol. 16, p. 75. Tackey, Nii Djan. Sep/Oct 2001, Eliminating Bias in Performance Management, The British Journal of Administrative Management. Orpington. Iss. 27, p. 13. Read More