Risk of Failure of Performance Appraisal Schemes - Coursework Example

What will minimize the risk of failure of performance appraisal schemes in the public sector? Introduction In many sectors and organizations—- but not all—- performance appraisal and its results are used, either directly or indirectly, to help determine reward outcomes. That is, the appraisal results are used to identify the better performing employees who should get the majority of the benefits such as available merit pay increases, bonuses, and promotions… In the same way, appraisal results are also used to identify the poorer performers who may require some form of counseling, or in extreme cases, demotion, dismissal or decreases in pay. —Archer North & Associates (2006: ‘Introduction’) As each one of us may agree, performance appraisal is a vital aspect in evaluating the performance of individuals in many organizations and sectors of the society. In contemporary times, Archer North & Associates (2006) shared that performance appraisal may be defined as a structured formal interaction between a subordinate and supervisor, which usually takes the form of a periodic interview, annually or semi-annually, where the work performance of the subordinate is examined and discussed in order to identify weaknesses, strengths, and opportunities for improvement and skills development (Archer North & Associates, 2006: ‘Introduction’). According to de Bruijn (2001), “it is felt that, like companies, the public sector provide products and services, thus necessitating that their performance must also be appraised”. Nevertheless, in a vast arena like the public sector, the process of performance appraisal must be conscientiously executed, or implemented, in order to yield favorable outcomes. However, it is inevitable that there could also be a larger room for mistakes or risks of failure along the way due to the fact of the sector’s wider scope of responsibility, not to mention the existence of strong political influences and conflicts of interests. In this regard, this paper aims to explore and explicate the possible ways in order to minimize the risk of failure of performance appraisal schemes in the public sector. As such, an extensive review of relevant literatures and reputable references must be employed in order to typify the discussion and analysis of significant points, thereby exemplifying the intent of this paper. Discussion and Analysis The Essence of Performance Appraisal in Public Sector A government organization that manages to define its products can show its performance, which may improve the effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy of government action. — de Bruijn (2001: 3) The above quotation by de Bruijn (2001) exemplifies the significance of performance appraisal in a government organization or public sector. For this reason, a palpable improvement in their actions can be evident. Perceived Disadvantages of Performance Appraisal In their study, Bradley and Ashkanasy (2001) interviewed supervisors and subordinates from a range of public sector and private sector organisations about their experiences with performance appraisal interviews and concluded that these formal interviews appear to have limited usefulness, thereby leading them to the following findings: Supervisors believed the performance appraisal interview was not an objective process and more of a judgmental process Supervisors and subordinates believed their relationship (and previous interactions) impacted on the interview Many supervisors and subordinates believed performance appraisal to be a once a year event that contributed little to performance There appeared to be a link between perceived positive relationship and perceived positive performance appraisal interview Few supervisors expected or sought feedback from subordinates Subordinates who received ongoing feedback found this more useful (Bradley and Ashkanasi, 2001: 83-97). Their findings suggest that the performance appraisal had not been properly implemented in the aforesaid sectors. In this manner, it can be perceived that performance appraisal has little or no significant impact on the supervisors and their subordinates. For this reason, it might be equated that it lacks substance and usefulness. Nevertheless, despite the perceived lack of usefulness, most reported satisfaction with the process, accordingly, (Bradley and Ashkanasi, 2001). Factors and common mistakes that could lead performance appraisal failure Archer North & Associates (2006: ‘Common Mistakes’) enumerated some common mistakes that could lead to higher risks of failure of performance appraisal. These are the fear of failure, judgment aversion, feedback-seeking, appraiser preparation, employee preparation, performance management. The detailed explanations by Archer North & Associates (2006: ‘Common Mistakes’) are quoted as follows: 1. Lack of support from the top levels of management. This is often cited as the major contributing reason (Archer North & Associates, 2006: ‘Common Mistakes’). 2. Opposition. This may be based on political motives, or more simply, on ignorance or disbelief in the effectiveness of the appraisal process. Those attempting to introduce performance appraisal, or even to reform an existing system, must be acutely aware of the importance of political issues and symbolism in the success of such projects. It is crucial that top management believe in the value of appraisal and express their visible commitment to it. Top managers are powerful role models for other managers and employees (Archer North & Associates, 2006: ‘Common Mistakes’). 3. Fear of failure. There is a stubborn suspicion among many appraisers that a poor appraisal result tends to reflect badly upon them also, since they are usually the employee’s supervisor. Many appraisers have a vested interest in making their subordinates “look good” on paper. When this problem exists (and it can be found in many organizations), it may point to a problem in the organization culture. The cause may be a culture that is intolerant of failure. In other words, appraisers may fear the possibility of repercussions - both for themselves and the appraisee. Longenecker (1989) argues that accuracy in performance appraisal is impossible to achieve, since people play social and political games, and they protect their own interests. “No savvy manager is going to use the appraisal process to shoot himself or herself in the foot… No matter what safeguards are in place, when you turn managers loose in the real world, they consciously fudge the numbers” Longenecker (1989). In this manner, appraisers will deliberately distort the evaluations that they give to employees, for all sorts of reasons. Indeed, surveys have shown that not only do many managers admit to a little fudging, they actually defend it as a tactic necessary for effective management. The fudging motives of appraisers have, at times, certain plausibility. For instance, a supervisor who has given an overly generous appraisal to a marginal performer might claim that their ‘legitimate’ motive was the hope of encouraging a better performance. On the other hand, fudging motives can be a lot less admirable and sometimes devious: the appraiser who fudges to avoid the possibility of an unpleasant confrontation, the appraiser who fudges to hide employee difficulties from senior managers, the appraiser who fudges in order to punish or reward employees (Archer North & Associates, 2006: ‘Common Mistakes’).. 4. Judgment aversion. Many people have a natural reluctance to “play judge” and create a permanent record which may affect an employee’s future career. This is the case especially where there may be a need to make negative appraisal remarks. Training in the techniques of constructive evaluation (such as self-auditing) may help. Appraisers need to recognize that problems left unchecked could ultimately cause more harm to an employee’s career than early detection and correction. Organizations might consider the confidential archiving of appraisal records more than, say, three years old (Archer North & Associates, 2006: ‘Common Mistakes’). 5. Feedback-seeking. Larson (1989) has described a social game played by poor performers. Many supervisors will recognize the game at once and may have been its victims. The game is called feedback-seeking. It occurs where a poor performing employee regularly seeks informal praise from his or her supervisor at inappropriate moments. Often the feedback-seeker will get the praise they want, since they choose the time and place to ask for it. In effect, they “ambush” the supervisor by seeking feedback at moments when the supervisor is unable or unprepared to give them a full and proper answer, or in settings that are inappropriate for a frank assessment. The supervisor may feel “put on the spot”, but will often provide a few encouraging words of support. The game seems innocent enough until appraisal time comes around. Then the supervisor will find that the employee recalls, with perfect clarity, every casual word of praise ever spoken! This places the supervisor in a difficult bind. Either the supervisor lied when giving the praise, or least, misled the employee into thinking that their performance was acceptable (in fact, this is the argument that feedback-seekers will often make). The aim of the game is that the feedback- seeker wants to deflect responsibility for his or own poor performance. They also seek to bolster their appraisal rating by bringing in all the “evidence” of casual praise. Very often the feedback seeker will succeed in making the supervisor feel at least partly responsible. As a result, their appraisal result may be upgraded. Was the supervisor partly responsible? Not really. The truth of the matter is that they have been “blackmailed” by a subtle social game. But like most social games, the play depends on the unconscious participation of both sides. Making supervisors aware of the game is usually sufficient to stop it. They must learn to say, when asked for casual praise, “I cant talk about it now... but see me in my office later.” This puts the supervisor back in control of the appraisal process (Archer North & Associates, 2006: ‘Common Mistakes’). 6. Appraiser preparation. The trouble of any performance appraisal system is the appraiser who wants to “play it by ear”. Such attitudes should be actively discouraged by stressing the importance and technical challenge of good performance appraisal. Encouraging them to draw their attention to relevant theoretical concepts and knowledge may help them to see the critical issues that must be considered (Archer North & Associates, 2006: ‘Common Mistakes’). 7. Employee participation. Employees should participate with their supervisors in the creation of their own performance goals and development plans. Mutual agreement is a key to success. A plan wherein the employee feels some degree of ownership is more likely to be accepted than one that is imposed. This does not mean that employees do not desire guidance from their supervisor; indeed they very much do (Archer North & Associates, 2006: ‘Common Mistakes’). 8. Performance management. One of the most common mistakes in the practice of performance appraisal is to perceive appraisal as an isolated event rather than an ongoing process. Employees generally require more feedback, and more frequently, than can be provided in an annual appraisal. While it may not be necessary to conduct full appraisal sessions more than once or twice a year, performance management should be viewed as an ongoing process. Frequent mini-appraisals and feedback sessions will help ensure that employees receive the ongoing guidance, support and encouragement they need. Of course many supervisors complain they dont have the time to provide this sort of ongoing feedback. This is hardly likely. What supervisors really mean when they say this is that the supervision and development of subordinates is not as high a priority as certain other tasks. In this case, the organization may need to review the priorities and values that it has instilled in its supervisory ranks. After all, supervisors who havent got time to monitor and facilitate the performance of their subordinates are like chefs who havent got time to cook, or dentists who are too busy to look at teeth. It just doesnt make sense. If appraisal is viewed as an isolated event, it is only natural that supervisors will come to view their responsibilities in the same way. Just as worrying, employees may come to see their own effort and commitment levels as something that needs a bit of a polish up in the month or two preceding appraisals (Archer North & Associates, 2006: ‘Common Mistakes’). Conclusion and Recommendations After a detailed discussion and analysis, the following are the recommendations in order to minimize the risk of failure of performance appraisal schemes in the public sector: Identify the goals of performance appraisal in a particular government organization. Proper implementation using theoretical background and implementation guidelines. In this manner, it can ensure that the steps that must be undertaken in the performance appraisal process are deemed purposeful and vital towards the development of the supervisors and subordinates in the public sector. Adequate support from top management. The support from top officials are important, which, in turn, may serve as guides in the implementation of performance appraisal schemes. Build a high performance workforce. According to the Corporate Leadership Council (2002) employees’ performance can be improved in two ways: (1) directly, by providing employees with job relevant information, experience or resources, and (2) indirectly, by improving a number of employee and job relevant attitudes such as discretionary effort, job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and match with job (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002). The aforementioned ways were proven to improve the performance of the employees. In this manner, they will have the enough confidence to submit themselves to performance appraisal activities and produce favorable outcomes. Aim to achieve consensus and manage oppositions. If there were perceived opposing political views and conflicting interests, then those must be dealt with promptly. As much as possible, there must be meetings among officials and personnel to discuss issues that can potentially affect performance appraisal. In this way, consensus must be achieved in order to lay down the expectations and goals of the performance appraisal, which are duly agreed by concerned parties. Overcome the fear of failure. Develop confidence and mastery of the process through adequate planning and preparation. Develop the skill of evaluation and making sound judgments for betterment of the employees’ future actions. In this manner, it also necessary to develop the capacity to provide honest and constructive feedback, which will truly help the subordinates, or appraisee, to reflect on their shortcomings and weaknesses, thus giving them an opportunity to improve themselves. Develop awareness and manage feedback-seekers. Learning to be aware of this situation is crucial in order to avoid being “ambushed” for giving untimely feedback. It is therefore best to establish parameters for the right place and time for rendering feedback and evaluation. Adequate preparation of the appraisers. Encourage full participation of the employees. Employ conscientious performance management. As such, through the aforementioned recommendations, the risk of failures in implementing performance appraisal schemes in the public arena will truly be minimized. Bibliography Archer North & Associates (2006) ‘Introduction (Modern Appraisal)’. Performance Appraisal [Online]. Available at: http://www.performance-appraisal.com/intro.htm. (Accessed: 22 June 2009). Archer North & Associates (2006) ‘Common Mistakes’. Performance Appraisal [Online]. Available at: http://www.performance-appraisal.com/mistakes.htm. (Accessed: 22 June 2009). Bradley, L.M. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2001) ‘Formal performance Appraisal Interviews: Can they really be objective and are they useful anyway?’. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 39 (2): 83-97. Corporate Leadership Council (2002) Building the High-Performance Workforce - A Quantitative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Performance Management Strategies. London: Corporate Executive Board Company (UK) Ltd. de Bruijn, H. (2001) Managing Performance in the Public Sector. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Hilyard, K. (2001). ‘Contemporary Issues for Managing Performance in the APS’. Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, No. 102: 22-26. Larson, J.R. (1989) ‘The dynamic interplay between employees feedback-seeking strategies and supervisors delivery of performance feedback’. Academy of Management Review, Vol 14 (3). Longenecker, C.O. (1989) ‘Truth or consequences: politics and performance appraisal’. Business Horizons, Vol 32 (November-December). Salway, P.R. 1998. ‘Managing Performance. Public Sector Experience and Directions in Victoria’. Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, No. 89: 106-112. Read More