Human Resources Performance Appraisals - Research Paper Example

 Human Resources Performance Appraisals: Human Resources Performance Appraisals: A Comparative Review Human resources management has identified crucial functions that pertain to the acquisition, maintenance and development of personnel. Performance appraisals and evaluation systems are integral parts of the maintenance function that encourages organizations to support, sustain, and assume a proactive stance in the assessment of performance of its human resources against a defined standard. In contemporary times, the paramount importance of performance appraisals and management systems remain to be the subject of scrutiny to determine best practices and identify techniques that are deemed most effective in the achievement performance goals. In this regard, the current discourse aims to present results of research on two different performance management and appraisal systems from real companies. To achieve this goal, the results of the studies on diverse personnel appraisals and evaluation systems by Mulvaney, McKinney, & Grodsky (2012) of the Elmburst Park District, a municipal agency; and that of Nili & Shekarchizadeh (2012) for production plants would be closely examined. A description of the appraisal systems and the strengths as well as weaknesses of each would be compared and contrasted. Performance Appraisal Systems For purposes of complying with the requirements of this paper, the two appraisal systems to be compared and contrasted are the pay-for-performance method and the balance score card (BSC) method. According to the Performance Management Help Center (2012), pay-for-performance or merit pay refers “to the process of determining employee compensation (base salary or bonuses), in part, on the basis of how well each employee performs at work” (Bacal & Associates, 2012, par. 1). This approach works by starting with the job description of employees and setting defined goals or objectives within a stipulated time frame. Other factors could be integrated in assessing employee performance such as conformity to organizational policies (meauring attendance records); through customer service feedback (more positive feedback the greater the points); ability to submit reports on time with minimal error; possessing initiative, dedication to their work, diligence and commitment, among others. Thus, the merit could be in the form of promotions, bonuses, or “direct compensation for quantified production (where) that's supposed to reward those that work faster” (Bacal & Associates, 2012, par. 3). On the other hand, balance score card method was specifically defined as a performance evaluation method that “evaluates the level of organizational performance from 4 points of view such as financial, customer, the internal processes of business and growth and learning” [Nil12]. The performance appraisal system using the BSC approach actually implements four components through delving into the following: the financial aspect (the way the organization successfully generates profits); customer satisfaction and ability to entice consumers to patronize the organizations’ products or services; facets of the organizations’ internal resources that are used in full potentials with limited costs; and taking a proactive stance in looking beyond current operations. Comparative Analysis The similarities in these methods come in terms of their overall goal or aim which is to assess the level of productivity and performance within the organization based on some factors or standards. Likewise, these appraisal methods share similarities in generating a quantifiable gauge which becomes the basis for promotions or the needed information to discern weaknesses and areas which need appropriate improvements; either through training and development or through replacement of low performing human resources. On the other hand, there are marked differences between these approaches in terms of perspectives. For the pay-for-performance, the focus in the employees’ ability to achieve defined goals based on responsibilities; for BSC, the focus is more holistic or a macro-oriented perspective by including four specific facets to enable the organization to gauge the overall level of performance, not only of the employee – but of the whole organization. As emphasized by Mulvaney, McKinney, & Grodsky (2012), “an agency's performance appraisal system impacts individual and organizational operations by prompting decisions regarding compensation and merit salary increases, training and development opportunities, performance improvement, promotion, termination, organizational climate, and financial management” (p. 506). Concurrently, the BSC was noted to “help organization to overcome their two important key issues: (1) organizational performance evaluation; (and) (2) implementation of strategy” [Nil12]. As can be deduced, organizational performance evaluation is the area of evaluation under BSC whereas employee performance evaluation is the focal point of the pay-for-performance method. The strengths of the pay-for-performance lie in its easy and simple framework and deemed to be the “one of tbe most effective methods of motivating and increasing employee performance” [Mul121]. Its drawbacks include its being subject to biases and unfair judgements of those making the appraisals (the raters) and the perceptions of fairness apparently influences the level of motivation and performance [Mul121]. As noted, there are some pay-for-performance methods that require employee participation in the process to enhance effectiveness. As emphasized, “the opportunities for employee voice in the appraisal process resulted in the employee displaying little resistance to his performance ratings. Furthermore, the supervisor's feedback identified very specific, job deficient areas for the employee to improve upon” (p. 527). Thus, the objectivity and professionalism exercised by raters play a very important role in this performance appraisal approach. For the BSC, the strengths include its ability to integrate other measures of performance to determine how different facets of the organization contribute to the achievement of the mission, vision and goals. Its weaknesses include complexity and the challenging way to implement BSC in an organizational setting. Its applicability would have to be determined based on the sector or industry the organization belongs and the manner by which data could be collected and evaluated on an objective manner. Conclusion The discourse has hereby compared the pay-for-performance approach used by the Elmburst Park District, as compared to the BSC approach applied in production plants. These two approaches were initially defined and the manner by which these methods operate were expounded. Similarities and disparities of both methods were also presented, prior to identification of strengths and weaknesses. Based on one’s personal experience while working in organizations, the pay-for-performance which was applied was most convenient to use and most effective as long as the raters or supervisors are considered competent and fair. There must be clarity in determining scores or points and it would have been a great help if the workers were made to understand how the performance appraisal was designed. As indicated, employees who participated in the development and design of the performance evaluation method would be least resistant to it and would conform to the ratings by which their performances are gauged. From the start, the involvement of employees in goal-setting automatically motivates them to attain these objectives and offers them a chance to set up controls on materials and technology to be used. The portion that allows employees to comment or send their feedback is also crucial so that any questioned rating could be resolved. From the presentation of both performance appraisal methods, it could be deduced that their success in implementation and applicability would really depend on the needs of the organization; as well as the complexity within which organizational functions and operations need to be assessed. Likewise, those implementing these appraisal systems must be competent and qualified, not only in terms of discerning the effectiveness of the design; but also of ensuring that the outcome to be generated from each method would be useful to the organization. References Nil12: , (Nili & Shekarchizadah, 2012, p. 74), Nil12: , (Nili & Shekarchizadah, 2012, p. 75), Mul121: , (Mulvaney, McKinney, & Grodsky, 2012, p. 507), Mul121: , (Mulvaney, McKinney, & Grodsky, 2012), https://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=124&sid=044611c3-cb09-4478-9f29-0d2387a02540%40sessionmgr114 https://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=1&sid=78a58f5e-43d9-46e9-b521-5685085ddec7%40sessionmgr112 Read More