Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Performance Appraisal
by David K. Banner and James M. Graber
DePaul University
Introduction
This article summarises a number of recommendations emerging from
research and practice on performance appraisal Although the work is
based upon North American experience it is suggested the principles
have wider application.
In a few areas of applied behavioural science, much research and prac-
tice seems to lead, in some crucial ways, to a "roadblock". Despite the
attention of management consultants, academic researchers, and
organisational practitioners, performance appraisal seems to be one such
area. In several key areas, there seems to be a consensus about PA:
(1) methodologically, there have been great strides forward in terms
of reliable, valid instrumentation;
(2) traditional "trait" and other similar subjective measures of per-
formance are increasingly shunned by sophisticated organisations;
and
(3) despite the obvious gains in PA technology the gap between
theory and practice remains wide.
In this article, we will explore the state of PA theory/practice and offer
some suggestions about avoiding common "pitfalls" in its application.
RCA Corporation and Black and Decker are just two of a growing
list of companies that have moved to a "hybrid" approach. RCA's
system uses multiple raters, emphasis on behaviour rather than traits,
and the use of training to help managers give feedback to
employees[16]. Black and Decker's MBO-oriented approach requires
goals or targets for both personal development and for work activities,
periodic review sessions (rather than annual) are required of raters,
and rater and ratee both collaborate on the goal setting and the
evaluation.
Recommendation 6
Innovations like multiple raters and instruments, emphasis on behaviours
and outcomes rather than traits and PA training for raters and ratees
should be used, and periodic feedback throughout the year should be
implemented. This way the data from the process can be more nearly
tailored to multiple corporate purposes.
Many companies have special staff and resources assigned to career
development, freeing supervisors from this responsibility. Though this
is a luxury more affordable for larger companies, it is a good idea because
many supervisors either lack the necessary skills or are unwilling to get
involved in this. Training for supervisors in performance appraisal of
course is intended to result in more valid ratings, which becomes in-
creasingly important as more and more decisions are made based on
PA. Currently, training on how to conduct the appraisal interview is
widespread, and training for the development of evaluation criteria is
somewhat less prevalent. "Rater error" training is also commonplace.
Recommendation 8
PA feedback must attend to appraisee's desires and expectations. For
this reason, pay should be a topic of discussion at PA sessions[20, 21].
We have seen too many situations where the lack of connection bet-
ween appraisal and administrative decisions such as pay, promotion,
etc., has given employees and supervisors the impression that PA "doesn't
really count for anything". In fact, we can generalise this even further
by saying that any action that can underline the significance of PA should
be taken.
There are a number of things companies do to increase the perceived
relevance of PA. Some evaluate all persons with supervisory respon-
sibilities on how well they discharge these duties. Role modelling by
higher-ups in the organisation is essential. If top management doesn't
set a good example, first and second level supervisors will get the wrong
message.
Recommendation 9
Appraisers must be rewarded for giving realistic ratings of appraisees.
Obviously, appraisers are more comfortable giving high ratings than giv-
ing low ratings. This gradually leads to rating inflation. In some organisa-
tions anything less than a perfect rating is tantamount to failure.
Summary
The management development professional can serve a number of useful
roles in bringing about such changes.
The first step is to become better educated about PA. This is a challenging
area with a great many misperceptions. One must have facts in hand
about the key ingredients of good PA to argue successfully against tradi-
tional practices that don't work.
Second, it is necessary to analyse what potential PA benefits will be
most appealing to one's organisation. Is it objective reviews free from
favouritism? The linking of performance and positive outcomes such
as rewards and recognition? The creation of the legal defensibility of
actions taken? Improved performance through clearer goals and counsell-
ing? The most attractive benefits chosen, the company should concen-
trate on designing a system to meet these needs, and selling the system
based on these merits.
Third, it must be realised that performance appraisal is not a process
that supervisors naturally do well. Unfortunately, it is often the people
who think they are doing fine that actually need the most help. Train-
ing should be mandatory for all appraisers, including upper level manage-
ment. Teaching appraisers to conduct effective reviews requires giving
them specific models to follow, not generalities, and practice through
realistic role plays.
References
1. DeVries, D.L., Morrison, A.M., Shullma, S.L. and Gerlach, M.L., Performance
Appraisal on the Line, Greensboro, N.C.: Centre for Creative Leadership,
Technical Report No. 16, December 1980, p.1.
2. Ibid., p. 32.
3. Landy, F.J. and Farr, J.L., "Performance Rating", Psychological Bulletin, No.
87, 1980, pp. 72-107.
4. Patten, T.H., Jr., Paz: Employee Compensation and Incentive Plans, The Free
Press, New York, 1977.
5. Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S., "Power, People and Performance Reviews", Ad-
vanced Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, 1961, pp. 13-17.
6. Fletcher, C.A., "Interview Style and the Effectiveness of Appraisal", Occupa-
tional Psychology, No. 47, 1973, pp. 225-30.
7. Resnick, S. and Mohrman, A.M., "An Appraisal of Performance Appraisal
Results of a Large Scale Study", Centre for Effective Organisations, University
of Southern California, 1980.
8. DeVries, et al., op. cit.
9. Ibid., p. 11.