Effects of Performance Appraisal - Example

Effects of Performance Appraisal Student’s Name Institution Affiliation Executive Summary In the latest years, there have been exertions towards connecting the appraisal of workers to the organization’s strategic objectives. The concept is that the organization puts in place its own objectives and measures of performance. These goals are then translated into goals for managers and employees.Upon setting up business priorities, organizations normally state individual performance expectations in relation to the job the employee undertakes. High quality performance on the job generally entails thinking about numerous job outcomes like the types of goods and services to be produced by the job, the impact of the work have on the agency, expectations on the employee in dealing with supervisors, clients, and the organizational values. However, some employees have found these measures as a complete waste of time and intimidating. Whether an organization is going to depend on performance measurement to improve it productivity will depend on how it navigates around different emerging obstacles. Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Table of Contents 2 1.0.Introduction 3 2.0. In Support: Performance Appraisals are Important for Achieving Successful Organizations Objectives 4 2.1. Setting Expectations on Individual Employees 4 2.2. Providing Constant Feedback 5 2.3. Formal Review of Performance 7 3.0. In Opposition: Performance Appraisals Do Not Yield Successful Organizational Outcomes 8 3.1. Rating Bias 8 3.2. Poor Communication in the Course of Formal Feedback Sessions 10 3.3. Time Consuming 11 4.0. Conclusion 12 5.0. References 14 Effects of Performance Appraisal 1.0. Introduction Werner and DeSimone (2011) describe Human Resource Management as the conception, development, and execution of policies, structures, and guidelines to direct employees to attain thestrategic goals of an organization while also meeting the personal needs of the employees. There are different aspects of HRM and performance appraisal being one of them is an important aspect in any organization. An appraisal refers to the analysis of the employee’s performance, which normally entails the assessment of the person’s present and previous work performance (Lockett, Thompson & Morgenstern, 2009).Generally, the main objectives for the appraisal process are organization control, which suggests making decisions concerning careers, pay, and promotions and identifying the development necessities of individuals (Shen et al., 2009). Organizations identify measurable targets, set them for employees, and use their appraisal against their performance. Therefore, Appraisal is an aspect of management control. By gauging the performance of employees against goals, management is seen to be pragmatically managing the employee’s performance and therefore improving an organization’s performance (Lockett, Thompson & Morgenstern, 2009). Modern organizations seeking to gain a competitive advantage are imposing more demands on their change managers. Organizations are assisting managers to develop the skills needed to run in a rapidly transforming work environment. Therefore, systematic management development exertions at organizational level are critical to accelerating and sustaining management change. Whereas conducting performance appraisals may seem logical, in practice it is quite unpopular with employees, who show aversion to the idea that they are being controlled (Shen et al., 2009).The act can also be disparaged for attempting to develop a complex relationship between managers and personnel appear to be very simple. Ultimately, an organization, which relies heavily on using formal performance appraisals as a tool for fostering managerial development, it is vital to employ a workable appraisal system. 2.0. In Support: Performance Appraisals are Important for Achieving Successful Organizations Objectives 2.1. Setting Expectations on Individual Employees Effective management ensures that individuals in organizations perform effectively by providing a two-way discussion between an organization and its employees concerning performance and priorities (Rich, Lepine & Crawford, 2010).The objective here is to pay attention on expected outcomes and competencies (behaviours and abilities) needed for successful performance.To perform effectively, employees ought to know what the organization expects of them. The commencing point is an updated job description, which describes the vitalresponsibilities, functions, and tasksof the job. It also highlights the general areas of skills and knowledge required of the worker to be successful in his or her duties. Performance expectations usually go beyond the job description (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). High quality performance on the job generally entails thinking about numerous job outcomes like the types of goods and services to be produced by the job, the impact of the work have on the agency, expectations on the employee in dealing with supervisors, clients, and the organizational values, which must be demonstrated by the employees. In addition, high quality jobs performance addresses the means, processes, or methods the employees are expected to use. In deliberating on performance expectations, an employee should comprehend the reasons for the job’s existence, where it fits in the business, and how the responsibilities of the job link to department and organization objectives (Rich, Lepine & Crawford, 2010). The scope of performance expectations on the individuals ensures that they produce goods and services of the expected objectives or standards. Performance measures also sets the targets on employees over the behaviours and actions expected of them.Behavioursand actions of the workers can be appraisedthrough performance appraisals outcomes. Organizations use performance appraisals as a foundation for communicating about their expectations on employee performance in the entire year. The expectations on individual’s performance can be gauged quarterly, yearly or biannually as the foundations for reviewing employee performance (Gruman & Saks, 2011). When an organization sets out clear expectations on their workers concerning the results that must be attainedand the methods needed to achieve them, it will establish a path for success. 2.2. Providing Constant Feedback Constant feedback is the compelling force behind integrated processes of appraisal performance management. Performance feedback is particular information thatrelates to outcomes and competencies. The process is timely and uses material, as opposed to subjective judgment. Its objective is to foster learning and insight, which will affect future performance. Constant feedback and documentation is the foundation for operational year-round management of performance (Thurston & McNall, 2010). Formal and informal sessions for providing feedback can occur after every few weeks and should cover development made toward developmental goals and objectives, acknowledgement of a well-done job, and addition or correctional direction if the goals have not been met as expected. Progressive feedback through performance appraisal also generates feedback on the changed or eliminated developmental objectives (Jawahar, 2010). The outcomes of a performance appraisal report can assist in shaping performance and increasing the likelihood that the worker’s outcomes will meet the expectations of the organization. Through constant feedback, an organization can support and acknowledge the employee whenever work is goodor is improving. Through an effective performance appraisal, a manager may notice the quality of work of an organization and therefore give feedback on how the employee can manage his/her time, and relateto other customers and colleagues. In getting feedback from a performance appraisal exercise, an organization can provide acknowledgement of good performance and therefore, consider making changes in the objectives of the business such as changes in staff or the business climate. In addition, the organization can take appropriate action following early indications of unsatisfactory or declining performance (Thurston & McNall, 2010). Formal coaching sessions in an organization can assist provide an opportunity to the employees and an organization to meet and discuss progress towards attaining meeting the major responsibilities and objectivesoutlined in the performance appraisal proposal. A business can schedule formal coaching sessions at different times of the year in order to examine the outcomes of the workers’ output to date in connection to the performance plan, informing the employee if the level of performance has changed. The positive feedback generated from the appraisals can establish whether performance exceeds or meets objectives. They also provide particular suggestions on the improvement of performance (Harms & Roebuck, 2010). Through performance appraisals, the organization can encourage employee productivity concerning performance and potential improvement (Harms & Roebuck, 2010).Through this, the organization can incorporate any unplanned activities and the measures for measuring the attainment of those activities. 2.3. Formal Review of Performance A formal review of performanceis to deliberate on the employee's general performance based on established work measures, objectives, and competencies (Hartmann & Slapničar, 2009). Performance appraisal is an opportunity for the organization to hear the perspective of the employees concerning what happened well, the deviations in work, strengths and weaknesses, approaches to improving competencies and performance, etc. The formal review of performance as an aspect of performance appraisal provides managers with a broader perspective for assessment (Brown, Hyatt & Benson, 2010). Through having a comprehensive self-assessment of employees, managers can gather better insights into the performance of the employee including their perceptions concerning their performance. Usually, it is never always possible to get the full picture and comprehend all the elements, which affect the performance of employees even for managers who work meticulously with their employees (Brown, Hyatt & Benson, 2010). Having the personnel filling a self-assessment enables the manager to view output through their eyes and derive the worker’s “sideof the issue.” It can also enable the manager comprehend thestrengthand weak points of their employees from the employee’s context, alongside different training desires and needs (Hartmann & Slapničar, 2009). Through the process of performance review, the manager gets a perfect opportunity forcommunicating expectations clearly, outlining training and development openings, and establish objectives and linked responsibilities. Creating internal talent can be an important source of savings considering training and external employment can be more expensive for an organization (Gruman & Saks, 2011). After reviewing employees performance, managers cab' set of skills within a system of performance appraisal to foretell the readiness for preferment and finding potential successors and create training programs to enable the employees found with gaps in necessitated skill sets (Sokolova & Lapalme, 2009). The managers can assess and use the gathered information in making informed business decisions concerning succession planning, promotions, and rewards for internal candidates. Essentially, two types of performance reviews exist i.e. informal and formal reviews. A manager offhandedly reviews an employee’s work when he or she discusses about the employee’s performance in an unstructured manner (Gruman & Saks, 2011).Whereas the process may be scheduled, it is fundamentally a review associated with particular events including how individuals handle different incidents (Sokolova & Lapalme, 2009). Formal reviews are usually scheduledonce a year and are normally meant to review the individual’s performance for a whole year. 3.0. In Opposition: Performance Appraisals Do Not Yield Successful Organizational Outcomes 3.1. Rating Bias Heidemeier and Moser (2009) research documents the dislike of performance appraisal by numerous employees because they think that most managers do not often rate them using objective criteria. The authors call this issue ‘rater bias’ (Heidemeier & 2009). Whenever managers include non-performance elements like gender, hair colour, race, etc. into an appraisal, the polluted appraisal ratings yield fruit of alleged and open unfairness in the process of rating and its outcomes (Prowse & Prowse, 2009). Employees respond to these appraisals with lessened satisfaction in their jobs. Various types of appraisal bias serve as a main source of employees’ complaints. Rating bias results with the pollution of appraisal ratings by non-productive related factors. Prime instances include individual characteristic bias (age, race, and gender), subjective relationship contamination, and the failure to obtain a representative illustration of performance (Spence & Keeping, 2011). Managers who bring their subjective notions and personal biases to the appraisal process also can also contaminate the outcomes of other impartial peer review-grounded appraisal schemes. This can make the employees to lose faith in the appraisal system and not to consider them as credible parameters of performance. These systems cannot work effectively once workers consider them as unjust or unfair. Numerous performance appraisal reviews include critical wording, which can be biased towards some genders. The wording used in performance appraisals can lead to critical feedback from male and female employees depending on how the employees interpret. For instance, the critical response men receive is more inclined towards proposals for the development of additional skills. Recent studies suggests other sources of biasincluding the negative influence of worker and the management of rater impression performance (Spence & Keeping, 2011).Managers usually feel resentment toward some employees, influencing their capacity to rate fairly. Prowse and Prowse (2009) research confirmsthe influence of employer’s mood on the ratings of performance appraisal. A supervisor or a manager in a bad is often more attuned to the problems and mistakes of employees and is a more thorough performance rater. On the other side, an employee in a good mood is more likely to see beyond the poor performance of an employee (Prowse & Prowse, 2009).Given that the frame of mind of the manager is usually beyond the worker’s control, it increases uncertainty to employee appraisal. 3.2. Poor Communication in the Course of Formal Feedback Sessions Managers faced with competing priorities, can be insufficiently trained or unprepared for the intrinsic challenges to providing real formal and informal performance feedback. For instance, employees usually suffer under the report card syndrome. This normally happens when managers recycle some instances of poor performance instances for the performance appraisal process and surprise personnel with poor ratings (Pulakos & O’leary, 2011). This kind of rater behaviour diminishes the workers contentment with the performance assessment process, resulting in the opposite effect of polluting the appraisal system’s expected benefit of productivity and motivational improvement. Equally, the report card situation is the lack of performance documentation. Whenever this happens, low ratings of performance, unsupported by specific and clearperformance evidence, upsets the employee (Brown, Hyatt & Benson, 2010). This can develop a perception of injustice, a prime motivation for lawsuits and grievances. Performance feedback given instantly has never provided the best outcome. It is ineffective and unfair to inform an employee how well they performed or how they messed up, after completing the task. Withholding the information rather than providing immediate feedback can demotivate the employees. If the performance appraisal is the only time managers discuss the exemplary performance of the employees, and particularly if workers feel that this session has profound effect on their compensation, the formal feedback session takes on huge proportions. With all the pressure in the interview, the interchange will be unsuccessful. Most workers do not see serious matters addressed during their annual personal appraisal interviews. As such, continuous communication is critical to lessen fear and anxiety linked with this interview for employers and supervisors. Jones and Culbertson (2011) research asked employees on what they expected from the performance appraisal interview, to which both employees and supervisors responded “No surprises.” This is normally experiencedmore frequently as opposed to hoping for the highest rating amongst employees. Employees do like it when issues as sprung up during their performance appraisal interviews, when they no longer have the opportunity to produce positive outcomes (Westli et al., 2010). Workers expect to be respected as contributors in the entire feedback sessions of the performance appraisal process. Continual measurement and response is critical for eliminating surprises, which also lessen episodes of conflict. Surprises produce conflict. Communication eliminates them. 3.3. Time Consuming Discussing about performance once yearly is a waste of time. It ought to be a regular ongoing discussion for change of habits. Apart from being time-consuming, performance appraisal involves a lot of paperwork and is often built on immense budgets. Most managers and employees dislike performance appraisals for this reason (Aguinis, Joo & Gottfredson, 2011). In a typical performance appraisal process, a manager spends almost an hour per employee and depending on the number of individuals being assessed, it can take hours to finished the performance appraisal for the department as well as the sitting hours of staff meeting to review the exercise (Aguinis & Gottfredson, 2012). In addition, as a yearly rite passage, performance appraisal in organizations often triggers apprehension and dread in the veteran, battle-hardened managers. Personnel on the other end of appraisals do not generally look forward to them. For instance, a famous peer-review performance appraisal models, the 360-degree response appraisal model, necessitates training of assessors and meticulous designing of tailored survey questions (Aguinis, Joo & Gottfredson, 2011). The assessment process can take up two or more weeks depending on the company’s size. Most businesses are usually ‘behind schedule’ in their performance appraisal reviews because all participants appear to be happy in putting them on the back seat. Given that, they tend to focus on the negative elements of the performance of an employee and set objectives for the employee’s improvement (Biron, Farndale &Paauwe, 2011). They probably do not offer sufficient room for the employee to comment on their bosses’ performance, or the wider business management matters that affect the workers more indirectly. Performance appraisals conducted annually are a complete waste of time. Biron, Farndale and Paauwe (2011) recommend that good manager, should have almost nothing to discuss in the PA meeting because anything worthy addressing during the sessions should have already been addressed. This comprises regular updates to the organization team’s objectives. 4.0. Conclusion Performance appraisal systems, which model servant leadership, encourage outcomes that are consistent with improving the organization in entirety. Performance appraisal processes serve the main objectives for organization control. This assists in making decisions concerning the employee’s careers, pay, and promotions and in identifying the development necessities for the individuals. Organization ought to put in place measures of performance that will propel their organizations to the next levels. Organizations should identify measurable targets, set them for employees, and use their appraisal against their performance. Through gauging the performance of employees against their goals, managers can practically manage their performance as well as improve the firm’s performance. The factors advances in support of this fact is that effective performance management ensures that individuals in organizations perform effectively by providing discussions between an organization and its employees concerning performance and priorities. Organizations use performance appraisals for communicating about their expectations on employee performance in the entire year and providing constant feedback. Constant feedback is the compelling force behind combined processes of appraisal performance management. Formal reviews of performance deliberate on the employee's general performance based on established work measures, objectives, and competencies. In opposition to these exertions, performance appraisal suffers from rating bias where managers rate them subjectively. Employees usually respond to these appraisals with lessened satisfaction in their jobs. Managers faced with competing priorities, can be insufficiently trained or unprepared for the intrinsic challenges to providing real formal and informal performance feedback. In addition, the processes are usually time-consuming. Discussing about performance are mostly a waste of time. Apart from being time-consuming, performance appraisals are often built on immense budgets. Through this research, it can be concluded that effective performance appraisal initiatives can assist in improving service delivery in numerous organizations. By addressing the possible limitations experienced with the process, enabling the success of the organization. 5.0. References Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2011). Why we hate performance management—And why we should love it. Business Horizons, 54(6), 503-507. Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2012). Performance management universals: Think globally and act locally. Business Horizons, 55(4), 385-392. Biron, M., Farndale, E., & Paauwe, J. (2011). Performance management effectiveness: lessons from world-leading firms.The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(06), 1294-1311. Brown, M., Hyatt, D., & Benson, J. (2010). Consequences of the performance appraisal experience. Personnel Review, 39(3), 375-396. Brown, M., Hyatt, D., & Benson, J. (2010). Consequences of the performance appraisal experience. Personnel Review, 39(3), 375-396. Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 123-136. Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 123-136. Harms, P. L., & Roebuck, D. B. (2010). Teaching the art and craft of giving and receiving feedback. Business Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 413. Hartmann, F., & Slapničar, S. (2009). How formal performance evaluation affects trust between superior and subordinate managers. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6), 722-737. Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self–other agreement in job performance ratings: A meta-analytic test of a process model.Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 353. Jawahar, I. M. (2010). The mediating role of appraisal feedback reactions on the relationship between rater feedback-related behaviors and ratee performance. Group & Organization Management, 35(4), 494-526. Jones, R. G., & Culbertson, S. S. (2011). Why performance management will remain broken: Authoritarian communication.Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(02), 179-181. Lockett, A., Thompson, S., & Morgenstern, U. (2009). The development of the resource‐based view of the firm: A critical appraisal.International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 9-28. Prowse, P., & Prowse, J. (2009). The dilemma of performance appraisal. Measuring business excellence, 13(4), 69-77. Pulakos, E. D., &O’leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management broken?.Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(2), 146-164. Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance.Academy of management journal, 53(3), 617-635. Shen, J., Chanda, A., D'Netto, B., &Monga, M. (2009). Managing diversity through human resource management: An international perspective and conceptual framework.The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(2), 235-251 Sokolova, M., & Lapalme, G. (2009). A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks. Information Processing & Management, 45(4), 427-437. Spence, J. R., & Keeping, L. (2011). Conscious rating distortion in performance appraisal: A review, commentary, and proposed framework for research.Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 85-95. Thurston Jr, P. W., & McNall, L. (2010). Justice perceptions of performance appraisal practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3), 201-228. Werner, J. M., & DeSimone, R. L. (2011). Human resource development. US: Cengage Learning. Westli, H. K., Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Rasten, I., &Brattebo, G. (2010). Teamwork skills, shared mental models, and performance in simulated trauma teams: an independent group design. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 18(1), 47-54. Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations.Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323-342. Read More