Performance Appraisal: the Extent Employees are Contributing to Organizations - Essay Example

Performance Appraisal Introduction This essay critically analyzes and evaluates a performance appraisal form by looking at the contents of an appraisal form and highlighting the importance of each component. The paper also uses theoretical knowledge concerning the purposes of performance appraisal and also the ways of improving performance appraisal. The paper is based on articles from scholarly and peer reviewed journal and textbooks that have information about performance appraisal. Performance appraisal is a method used to analyze, review or evaluate the performance of an employee or worker by the managers or supervisors. The performance appraisal process is considered to be part of managing and guiding the career development of employees in regard to their performance as argued by Harvard Business School Press (2009). It has also been described as the process of obtaining information, analyzing it and finally recording it. The information in question is usually about the relative worth of a worker within a particular organization. With performance appraisal, the recent failures and successes of an employee are analyzed. The personal strengths and weaknesses are also put under scrutiny so as to gauge the level of an employee’s strengths and weaknesses. The information that is collected from the performance appraisal process is used to gauge the suitability of a worker for promotion and further training as argued by Belak (2003). In most instances, appraisal results are utilized directly or indirectly in determining the reward outcomes. In simple terms, appraisal results are used in identifying better performing workers who should get higher available merit pay increment, promotions, and bonuses. A performance appraisal usually evaluates the workers performance in terms of quality, quantity, time and cost. It can as well be used as a part of directing and managing career improvement. It is important for the performance appraisal systems to fit into existing systems for it to be successful and effective. Performance appraisal judges the performance in a particular job based on certain criteria apart from productivity alone. Performance appraisal has a very brief history. This is because it mostly began in the early 20th Century. Performance appraisal began as a formal and distinct management practice not more than 60 years ago, from the time of the Second World War as argued by Karen (2008). However, the process of appraising performance is a very ancient art that began very many years ago. The process of appraisal in the workplace has been seen as universal and inevitable, especially by managers. Performance appraisal procedures began as simple methods that were used to justify the income that employees were given. This means that the appraisal process was used to determine whether the salaries or wages given to employees were justified or not. This followed that if the performance of an employee was found to be less than what was expected of it, the pay of the employee would be ideally cut to suit the performance of the employee as stated by Bowen (2000). On the other hand, if the performance of an employee was found to be better than the expected standards, the employee would receive a pay rise that is in line with the level of performance. The process of appraisal gave very little consideration to the possibilities of developing the employees. If an employee performed well, there was supposed to be a rise in pay but if an employee performed poorly, a cut in pay would follow immediately. This raised questions about the dangers of performance appraisal, especially on staff motivation. More often than not, the process of performance appraisal failed to achieve the desired results because it did not motivate employees as expected. This is true according to pioneer motivational researchers who found out that different employees would have roughly equal abilities of work and they get paid the same amount of money but still have very different levels of performance and motivation. Recent empirical studies have confirmed these observations made on the levels of motivation and performance of workers. The process of performance appraisal in the early years was based on gauging the performance of workers and compensating them in accordance to their levels of performance. The process was purely aimed at ensuring that employees perform better at work because they would be motivated by money or compensation for their good performance. Even though pay rates were important, research has found out that they are not the only important element or factor that influence the performance of employees as argued by Coens (2000). Workers are not only motivated to perform better because of money. There are a lot of other factors like job security, self esteem, individual morale and the type of management. Performance appraisal has been accused severally of not taking these other factors into consideration when trying to motivate employees as stated by Deblieux (2003). It has in fact be seen to discourage workers from performing better because their pays keep on fluctuating even when they did not perform well because of factors beyond their control. This potential usefulness of appraisal as a tool for motivation and development was recognized gradually from the 1950s. That is where the general model of appraisal that is used today began from. Modern performance appraisal has been defined as a formal interaction between a supervisor and their subordinates that is structured and usually takes place periodically during interviews in which the individual performance of the workers is examined, analyzed and discussed. This is done with the aim of identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the individual workers and also to find opportunities that can help the employees to improve their performance. The process of performance appraisal is also meant to identify opportunities can help to develop the skills and talents of the workers as argued by Glover (1996). Modern appraisal in modern organizations are meant to produce results that can be used either directly or indirectly to determine the performance of workers so that they can be rewarded according to their performance. The results obtained from performance appraisals are used to identify the employees who perform better than the others so that they can know who are eligible for promotions, bonuses and pay increases. In the same light, the results obtained from performance appraisals are also used to identify poor performers who may need some level of counselling, or in cases that are very extreme cases, decrease in pay, demotions or dismissals as illustrated by Boice & Kleiner (2000). These factors have raised contentions and controversies because many people are opposed to the use of performance appraisal as a way of encouraging employees while there are those in management positions that take performance appraisal to be an effective way of motivating workers to perform better. Many researchers, psychometricians and management commentators have openly expressed their doubts about the reliability and validity of the performance appraisal process. Some of them have even said that the process is so inherently flawed to such an extent that it may not be possible to make it work perfectly. On the other hand, there are those who strongly support the processes of performance appraisal in organizations. They advocate for it because they believe that it is one of the most crucial aspects of the life of any organization according to Johnson & Kaupins (2002). Those that support performance appraisal do so because they believe that there are many ways in which the process can lead to the development of the careers of the workers. They believe that performance appraisal can contribute to helping the workers perform better because they know they are judged on the virtue of their performance. They also believe that the process of performance appraisal can discourage workers from performing poorly. There are also those that vehemently oppose the use of performance appraisal in organizations. They believe that performance appraisal eliminates many developmental values. They believe that the process of performance appraisal does not contribute to the encouragement of workers towards better performance as argued by Wycoff (2003). The process of performance appraisal has general aims and objectives. The first one is that it is meant to give employees feedback on their performance. They can know whether they are performing well or not as argued by Grote (2000). Performance appraisal is also aimed at identifying the training needs of the employees. Another aim of performance appraisal is to document the criteria that can be used to allocate rewards within the organization. The process of performance appraisal also aims at forming a reliable basis for making personnel decisions as illustrated by Roberts (2002). The process of performance appraisal provides an organization with opportunities for diagnosis and development in the organization. Through performance appraisal, communication between the employer and the employee can be facilitated and enhanced. Selection techniques can also e validated and the human resource policies can be aligned to meet federal equal employment opportunities requirements. With performance appraisal, development programs, coaching and counselling can be used to improve the performance of the organization. The process of conducting performance appraisal requires one to use a performance appraisal form. A performance appraisal form is used to conduct the process of performance appraisal. In order to analyze an appraisal form, one must be able to know the contents of an appraisal form. The appraisal form to be analyzed was drafted by the employee performance solutions. The form contains the employee’s name, the position of the employee in the organization, the name of the manager and the date that the performance appraisal is to be done. What I feel is missing from this performance appraisal form is the department that the employee that is being appraised. This is important in uniquely identifying the employee and the information can also be used to analyze the performance of the individual departments as stated by Robinson & Robinson (2001). The performance appraisal form under review also lacks the performance plan section. This section is important because it has ratings of the performance of employees on a scale of one to five. These ratings are more effective when it comes to comparing the achievements of the workers. An effective performance appraisal form should have the following components: 1. Assessment of the quality of work • The appraisal form should consider accuracy, effectiveness and thoroughness. • It should put pressure on the ability to meet quality standards. • The appraisal form should also be able to use of time well and accomplish the volume of work. • In the performance appraisal form, work output should match the expectations established. 2. The quantity of work • The performance appraisal form should check for thoroughness, competence and efficiency of work regardless of volume. • Neatness and accuracy should be reflected in the form. 3. The appraisal form should reflect teamwork • It should be able to establish and maintain effective working relationship with others. • Shares information and resources with other stakeholders • Should follow instructions of the supervisors and respond to requests from others in the team in a helpful manner. • Should contribute work and effort to group performance to meet agreed upon objectives and achieve team success 4. Job knowledge should be reflected in the appraisal form • There should be application of appropriate levels of technical and procedural knowledge in specific field • A high degree of technical competence should be observable • Understanding of job methods, procedures, facts and information related to assignments. • Perform duties with minimal supervision but seek guidance where and when appropriate to the job, consults the appropriate staff 5. Initiative should be a key issue • Consider the extent to which the employee sets own constructive work practice and recommends and creates own procedures. • Self-starter, develop and implement new methods, procedures, solutions, concepts, designs and/or applications of existing designs or procedures. • Accepts additional challenges and responsibilities and willingly assist others, self- reliant. • Completes assignment on time. 6. Interpersonal relations should be catered for • Consider the extent to which the employee is cooperative, considerate, and tactful in dealing with supervisors, subordinates, peers, faculty, students and others. 7. Health and safety compliance should be issues of high priority They are various types of performance appraisals that have developed with time. Such include traditional, self-appraisal, employee-initiated reviews, paired comparison analysis, forced ranking (forced distribution), behavioral observation scales, performance ranking method, critical incident method, weighted checklist method, management by objectives method, and 360-degree feedback (Deblieux, 2003). In traditional appraisal, supervisors or managers discuss previous performance period. The discussion is usually based on the observations onto employee’s performance and abilities as illustrated in the job description. The performance rating is tied with percentage of salary increment. Another type of appraisal is self-appraisal; this is almost self-explanatory where it is used in encouraging employees to undertake their responsibilities. Employees are encouraged to evaluate their own accomplishments or failures while promoting self-management. Employee-initiated reviews are another appraisal method; it is usually an employee-initiated review system. Employees are usually informed that they can initiate a review from their supervisors. This appraisal usually promotes a self-management attitude among the employees. Behavioral observation scales is a frequent rating of critical incidents performed by a worker. It is a list of critical incidents behaviors that supervisors rates in terms of frequency as illustrated by as illustrated by Amy (2007). It uses five scales towards the identification of behavior frequency and includes seldom, never, sometimes, always, and generally. Essay evaluation is another method of performance appraisal where managers and supervisors describe the behaviors of employees in terms of their weaknesses and strengths. It is usually a non-quantitative method. In this method, the supervisor is supposed to have a clear knowledge and potential of their employees. Conclusion In conclusion, performance appraisal is one of the crucial tools in the current economic world that determines the extent to which the employees are contributing to their organizations. It is the role of management within organizations to ensure they undertake a thorough assessment of their employees’ perform as stated by Myers (2001). This is because it will act as a guide in deciding who to promote and when to promote. It also assists in determining the employees who require extra training towards improving their productivity and achievement. It is also crucial to ensure that poor performing employees are assisted in ensuring that their weaknesses are identified. This will ensure the performance of the employees is well attained. However, the issues of performance appraisal’s disparity should be addressed critically to ensure there is no favoritism. This is because biasness can affect the performance of the employees. Appendix The form below is an example of an improved appraisal form: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM Employee:_________________________________ Position:_______________________________ Supervisor:________________________________ Department:____________________________ Date: _____________________________________ Time in Position:________________________ SECTION I - GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Consider each standard separately. Mark an X in the appropriate box which most reflects the evaluator’s response. A substandard performance rating on any performance standard must be supported by specific comment in the space provided. Use additional sheets if necessary. 1. JOB KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES: The employee demonstrates the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to perform work satisfactorily. Does not have the basic knowledge, skills and abilities to perform work satisfactorily. Has the basic knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform work satisfactorily. Has exceptional knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform work. COMMENTS: 2. QUALITY OF WORK: The employee demonstrates accuracy, attention to detail and effectiveness in completion of work. Work is sometimes inaccurate or incomplete; fails to meet departmental standards. Work is usually accurate and thorough; work meets departmental standards. Work is consistently of excellent quality, accuracy, and detail. COMMENTS: 3. PRODUCTIVITY: Employee performs work with efficiency, consistency and timeliness. Works slower than expected; work is of substandard consistency and timeliness. Completes work on time, with consistency and efficiency; meets departmental standards. Quickly completes work, often ahead of schedule; effectively prioritizes works; exceeds departmental standards. COMMENTS: 4. RELIABILITY: The employee exhibits dependability and conscientiousness in performing work and in willingness to accept responsibilities. Sometimes is not dependable and conscientious in performing work; unwilling to accept responsibilities. Consistently dependable and conscientious; usually accepts responsibilities; meets departmental standards. Extremely dependable; follows through promptly on all tasks; accepts responsibilties; exceeds job goals; show high level of initiative. COMMENTS: 5. COMMUNICATION: The employee demonstrates the appropriate level of written and verbal communication skills necessary to satisfactorily perform the job. Communication skills impair work performance. Œ Possesses the required communication skills and is effective in the position; meets departmental standards. Œ Has excellent communication skills; very effective in verbal and written interactions. Œ COMMENTS: 6. WORK RELATIONSHIPS: The employee possesses the ability to maintain effective and productive working relationships with fellow employees, supervisors and the public. Has trouble getting along with other employees, supervisors, and the public. Œ Has a generally positive approach in assisting others; maintains effective working relationships; meets departmental standards. Œ Exceeds departmental standards; highly cooperative; works hard to promote positive work relationships. Œ COMMENTS: 7. SAFETY: The employee adheres to the rules and regulations to ensure safety standards are met. Fails to follow safety rules and regulations; falls below departmental standards. Œ Follows safety rules and meets departmental standards. Œ Exceeds departmental standards for safety. Œ COMMENTS: References Amy, D 2007, The Performance appraisal handbook: legal & practical rules for managers, Nolo, London. Belak, T 2003, Performance appraisals: are you “punishing” with paper or charting a course for the stars, Transformata Publishing, Louisville, Kentucky. Boice, DF & Kleiner, BH 2000. ‘Designing effective performance appraisal system’, Work Study, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 197-201. Bowen, RB 2000, Recognizing and rewarding employees, McGraw-Hill Trade, New York. Coens, T 2000 ‘Say goodbye to performance appraisals (really!) and hello to a happier, more productive workplace’, American Society for Quality, Annual Spring Conference Proceedings, vol. 22, pp. 1-10. Deblieux, M 2003, Performance appraisal source book: a collection of practical samples, Society for Human Resource Management, Alexandria, Virginia. Glover, RB 1996, ‘Why are we ignoring performance appraisal research?’, National Recreation and Parks Association, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 24-28. Grote, D 2000, ‘Performance Appraisals: Solving Tough Challenges’, HR Magazines, Vol. 23, pp.90-124. Harvard Business School Press 2009, Performance Appraisal: Expert Solutions to Everyday Challenges, Harvard Business School Press, London. Johnson, MA & Kaupins, GE 2002, ‘Keeping lies out of the performance appraisal’, Industrial Management, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 6-8. Karen, M 2008, Powerful Performance Appraisals: How to Set Expectations and work Together to improve Performance, Macmillan, New York. Myers, J 2001, ‘How to Evaluate your Evaluation System’, Memphis Business Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 45-89. Roberts, GE. 2002, ‘Employee performance appraisal system participation: a technique that works’, Public Personnel Management, vol. 31, no.3, pp. 333-342. Robinson, JC & Robinson, DG 2001, Shifting from training to performance: what smart trainers know, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San Francisco. Wycoff , J 2003, ‘The “big 10” innovations killers: how to keep your innovation system alive and well’, Journal for Quality and Participation vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 17-22. Read More