Performance Appraisals at Head Office - Coursework Example

 Performance Appraisals at Head Office Performance appraisal tends to be the method by which managers and organizations tend to evaluate the performance of the employees on varied parameters, be they cost, quantity, quality and time (Foot & Hook 2002, p. 239). What is more, performance appraisal also tends to be an integral part of employee guidance and career development management (Foot & Hook 2002, p. 240). Performance appraisal allows a manager to solicit, evaluate and document the relevant information regarding the relative worth that an employee holds for an organization (Foot & Hook 2002, p. 239). Performance appraisal tends to be a broad based and elaborate procedure that allows the managers to analyse and interpret varied facets of an employee’s performance and contribution like the successes and failures that one accrued while working in the organization, the personal strengths and weaknesses which could be attributed to an employee, and as to how suitable and employee stands to be in respect of any future training and promotion (Foot & Hook 2002, p. 240). Besides, performance appraisal also allows the managers to look beyond the conservative parameters like productivity, to consider and evaluate the performance of an employee in a much broader sense. However, if one goes by the case study under consideration where Ingrid Aspwell, the Manager of the Finance Department is required to conduct a performance appraisal of her eight staff, one simply cannot help arriving at the conclusion that in this scenario that the imminent performance appraisal has emerged as a source of ample dissatisfaction amongst some employees because of some shortcomings inherent in the appraisal system. If Ingrid could somehow redress these shortcomings, she could certainly succeed in accruing the employee support and cooperation in the intended performance appraisal. Ingrid is failing to understand the fact that the scope and relevance of the upcoming performance appraisal could be interpreted in a relative context by both the employees and the managers (London 2001, P. 19). So the intended performance appraisal may hold different meanings and importance to the employees, contrary to the expectations harboured by the organization and the management (London 2001, p. 19). So the need of the hour is for Ingrid to understand the fact that the performance appraisal has different objectives for the employees and the organization. The employees in the given case study, including the Purchase Ledger Clerk, Simon Perks seems to be interested in a performance appraisal mechanism that tends to appraise their work from the perspective of personal development involving parameters like organizational involvement and work satisfaction. Besides, Ingrid has not solicited inputs from the employees while coming out with the performance appraisal parameters and documents, as is necessary in any viable and pragmatic performance appraisal process. So Ingrid needs to assure the eight employees that the performance appraisal goals set by her are mutually acceptable to them and the management. The performance appraisal goals should not be merely organization specific, which aspire to strengthen organizational control and intend to dole out rewards and punishments for the extended performance, as being feared by the employees in this case study (Kulik 2004, p. 112). Ingrid needs to take the employees into confidence and must inform them as to what is expected of them and how the performance appraisal procedure designed by her intends to evaluate their performance. She needs to discuss the standards and parameters selected by her with the eight employees. To put it in simple words, the performance appraisal procedure designed by Ingrid ought to solicit a gesture of mutuality and acceptance from the employees (McConnell 2005, p. 246). Here, the employees are very concerned and apprehensive about the impact the intended performance appraisal will have on their future growth and development within the organization, especially in the light of the recently distributed company literature like the mission statement, outline strategy and the targets for the coming year. Ingrid urgently needs to take the employees into confidence otherwise this lacuna may jeopardize her upcoming performance appraisal. This brings the discussion to the second most important aspect of a performance appraisal system. This is that it should be acceptable to the employees whose performance it intends to measure and evaluate (Zwell 2000, p. 140). Again, the most viable way to enhance this acceptance is to involve the employees in the performance appraisal (Zwell 2000, p. 126). Here Ingrid is communicating with the employees regarding the upcoming performance appraisal by promulgating policy documents rather than resorting to a direct and first hand initiative in terms of communication and employees participation (Zwell 2000, p. 126). She has failed to forge good working relations with the important stakeholders like Simon Perks, as was done by the previous Finance Manager. Employees here are feeling themselves isolated and distant from the entire performance appraisal task, and hence are apprehensive and doubtful. Several studies have verified the fact that the participation of the employees both managerial and non-managerial tends to be an important factor in aligning the employee efforts and cooperation in tandem with the intended change (Zwell 2000, p. 126). Besides soliciting the employee participation and feedback will also help Ingrid in picking up the flaws and weaknesses inherent in her performance appraisal system, thereby making it more pragmatic and fool proof. The employees are more likely to accept the new performance standards like the ‘future work objectives’ introduced by Ingrid if she directly involves them in the development of these objectives. Even if Ingrid didn’t intend to solicit the employee inputs, the minimum that she could have done was to inform the employees at the start of the rating period as to what performance would be expected of them. However, it would be totally wrong to assume that the entire fault lies with the Finance Manager Ingrid Aspwell. There may be several other reasons that may be making the employees dare to question the upcoming performance appraisal. There certainly seems to be a scenario here where it is not obvious to the eight employees that the top management not only emphatically supports the performance appraisal procedure designed by Ingrid, but is also committed to assure its success. Hence, considering Ingrid to be a newcomer, perhaps the employees intend to take advantage of her position by being nonresponsive and non-cooperative. Hence, unless Ingrid wrests the support and help of the top management and makes it obvious to the employees that the procedure designed by her is backed by the top management, she is bound to fail, no matter how good the procedure chalked out by her tends to be (Mathis & Jackson 2010, p. 334). Senior and veteran employees like Simons Perks are very likely to see and discern as to when a performance appraisal is fully backed by the top management and when it is not. Hence the top management both verbally and through actions must convey to the employees in the Finance department that they must comply with the new procedure. The other pivotal characteristic of a viable performance appraisal procedure is that not only should it be free of biases, but must also be perceived by the employees to be so (Mathis & Jackson 2010, p. 301). Ingrid is a new entrant in the organization and the employees know her very little as they knew the previous Finance Manager. So, perhaps they are also thinking that the new procedure may be biased towards them. Here, again Ingrid needs to ameliorate the fears and apprehensions of her employees by establishing a repo with them. Everybody is likely to fear a performance appraisal if it comes from a manager whom they don’t know well. So Ingrid needs to take the initiative to open channels of communications with the employees, to solicit their support and inputs, and to pacify their fears and apprehensions. Besides she also ought to seek the full support of the top management in a manner that is both visible and obvious to the employees she intends to appraise. Reference List Foot, Margaret & Hook, Caroline 2002, Introducing Human Resource Management, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, New York. Kulik, Carol T, 2004, Human Resources for the Non-HR Manager, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. London, Manuel 2001, How People Evaluate others in Organizations, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Mathis, Robert L & Jackson, John H 2010, Human Resource Management, South-Western College Publications, New York. McConnell, John H 2005, How to Develop Essential HR Policies and Procedures, AMACOM, New York. Zwell, Michael 2000, Creating a Culture of Competence, Wiley, New York. Read More