Employees And Performance Appraisal Systems

Helping performance raters avoid bias is an important factor in creating a legally sound performance management system (Aguinis, 2013). All people leaders will be required to attend yearly and bi-yearly training to help manage the performance of employees. They will also be required to justify their ratings to their direct leader. Once the leader approves the rating, the performance review will be made available to the employee. The employee will be able to leave feedback and sign the performance review. Once signatures have been received the performance review will not be

In today’s business world, performance appraisals are still widely used, yet at the same time very criticized. One of the reasons appraisals are criticized is some feel that they are a waste of time and are not value added. Samuel Culbert, author of the book,“Get Rid of Performance Reviews” states, “This corporate sham is one of the most insidious, most damaging, and yet most ubiquitous of corporate activities” (Culbert). He goes on to say that, “Everybody does it, and almost everyone who’s evaluated hates it” (Culbert). He feels that appraisals are worthless and should never be a method used for giving employees feedback. After doing more

For one there is a serious problem with the general reliability of the method, and of course the raters are under the influence of the several different, well documented cognitive biases (Murphy, 2008). Oddly this subjective method is often used even in situations where there are more objective criterions, like sales or turnover, available (Vinchur et al., 1998). Its weaknesses aside, supervisory ratings of individuals can indeed be meaningful under certain conditions, and there are situations where no other measures are available. Researchers has suggested that the method can be improved by using a carefully conducted job-analysis as a foundation for the construction of the rating scales, and training for the observers conducting the ratings (Borman & Smith, 2012).

The measurement of employee’s performance is only internal. A good performance appraisal should have multiple raters, both internal and external.

Performance Management Within the Workplace The basis of the mainstream of performance appraisals within the modern workplace is one person (a manager or executive) rating one more, an intrinsically individual process. There are distinction such as 360 degree appraisals that include the judgment of others such as clientele and peers/colleagues in the process but it is the action of one person transitory judgment upon another that is subjective in nature and the root cause of many of the problems encountered in the research associated with performance appraisals. Performance appraisals are of importance to the organisation, as they often provide the only measure of an individual's contribution and

Performance is evaluated, and information is provided to employees that enables them to reflect on their performance and develop plans. The 360-degree approach allows a wider range of people to evaluate and give feedback on an employee’s performance. A manager might conduct a self-appraisal, as well as receive feedback from peers, subordinates, superiors, and even customers and clients. Some advantages of 360-degree appraisal are that employees can get more than one perspective, and that people who work closely with the employee on a day-to-day basis can give feedback on overall performance, not just once a month or once a year. It is also a useful technique for meeting customer needs. It is sometimes easy for members within an organization to lose sight of the customers' perspectives, and 360-degree appraisal brings the customers' viewpoints into the larger picture. Some disadvantages include the possibility of spiteful evaluations from disgruntled subordinates, especially if evaluations are anonymous, coerced positive evaluations from intimidated employees, or misguided evaluations from employees who are not knowledgeable enough about the job they are evaluating.

Performance appraisals are an aid to creating and maintaining a satisfactory level of performance by employees on their jobs. Chatterjee, B (2002: 216) has argued that “the mere knowledge that their performance is being assessed and that such an assessment will have an important bearing on their future within the organisation is a powerful incentive for them to sustain and if possible better their present level of performance”. Therefore performance appraisals help management in motivating and maximising the potential of its employees.

“There is a basic human tendency to make judgement about those one is working with, as well as about oneself” states Dulewicz (1989). Thus, the implication that the tendency to judge others is innate in regards to the question set, suggests that’s organizations that carefully structure there performance appraisal techniques will establish a reliable reference base for personnel decisions assisting towards increasing organizational productivity; if bias is omitted. Hence, many theorists argue that performance appraisal is the most crucial aspect of organizational life (North, 2014).

Research Methodology Used to Evaluate Employee Performance Appraisal Systems (n.d.) this is not a good source… try to find a published, peer review source that can provide you with authors and publication dates reports that work performance appraisal systems assess the employee 's effectiveness, work habits and also the quality of the work produced. The research methodology used to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of the appraisal instrument takes different forms and depends on the type of career professional under the microscope for evaluation, but the foundation for all evaluations rests on several basic research techniques. The evaluation methodology corroborates the original employee evaluations and performance appraisals through supporting multiple research reporting measures.

Performance ratings are a significant part of Performance Management in companies that utilize rating scales. Ratings often translate to merit increases, qualify employees for additional training and development, serve as a launch pad for promotion, identify high performers and other rewards or punishment a company wants to tie to performance ratings. Some performance reviews and ratings are skewed by the rater or supervisor. This paper intends to review types of bias and propose a method to eliminate bias in performance reviews.

According to Zweig (1991), performance appraisal instruments are tools that are used to measure the performance of employees in the workplace. They are used to put employees up against one another or a predetermined standard, and the appraiser is required to give an evaluation. Practical and effective performance appraisal instruments are drafted when the company has already clarified its philosophy and performance management system. It is also imperative that the performance appraisal instruments are calculated accurately, and that the supervisors are empowered to produce

The goals of the organization cannot be fulfilled without the skills or talent of the employees and a direction to apply them. The employees will have goals, actions, and behaviors to bring the company closer to the organization’s vision. Moving forward requires direction so that new and current employees stay on track. Appraising an employee may affect their base pay, promotional status, and retention decisions. The employees who are found to have deficiencies may be identified and corrected when their appraisal is interpreted. This can also reinforce the employees existing strengths. A performance appraisal reviews an employee’s career plans and identify any training needed. Other components related to performance

Leventhal and Greenberg discussed three broad principles that influence perceived fairness in performance appraisal systems. First, employees should possess the ability to correct or rebut inaccurate information. Second, that specific procedures should be introduced to increase the accuracy of performance information (such as performance diaries, comprehensive rater training, objective performance standards). Third, that procedural safeguards are present to discourage biased ratings (appeal processes, evaluating the rater on how well they administer the process). To fully operationalize these principles, a much greater voice and role for the employee is necessary. What are the preferred means for accomplishing these goals?

Performance appraisal is defined as a systematic and structured system for measuring and evaluating job related behaviours to discover reasons for performance and identify potential for the improvement of an individual, and eventually the performance of the organisation. (Singh, 2015) In this day and age of globalisation, managers tend to extensively use performance appraisals, as a measure of the productivity and effectiveness of the employees. In the case of a positive performance, the manager rewards the employee and on the contrary, the managers can seek to correct the lack of performance. Such exercises, allows the organisation to form a perception about the measures that need to be taken to bolster productivity in the future. Performance appraisals act as a control process for the managers, through which they can monitor the activities of the employees, to ensure they are accomplishing goals, and to correct any significant deviations (Hunsaker and Alessandra, 2008).

Managers have always had to make tough decisions in the workplace, but one of the most challenging aspects of their job is the employee performance appraisals. Evaluating an employees’ performance, if done right, will be an objective as possible process. However, the naturally subjective aspects of the evaluation process are what pose many ethical dilemmas. This process customarily comprises of giving constructive feedback to an employee so that they are better able to improve their job performance, but many appraisals are based on lies. This theoretically disqualifies it from being an effective resource from which employers can accurately determine compensation increases, identify those deserving of promotions, cuing the need for progressive discipline and identifying termination candidates (Gilbert,2012,117). Yet, these erroneous official forms are signed and filed away, year after year.