Scribd
Upload
21 views

Introduction

Performance appraisal began in the early 20th century as a way to justify salaries and link pay to performance. Little consideration was given to employee development. Modern appraisal systems involve periodic interviews to discuss employee performance, strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement. Results are used to determine rewards and identify poor performers needing counseling or penalties. Common appraisal methods include rating scales, essays, and management by objectives where employees help set goals. Benefits include motivation, training identification, recruitment evaluation, and performance evaluation. However, the evaluative aspect can clash with development and cause tension.

Uploaded by

Anish Tiwary
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
21 views

Introduction

Performance appraisal began in the early 20th century as a way to justify salaries and link pay to performance. Little consideration was given to employee development. Modern appraisal systems involve periodic interviews to discuss employee performance, strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement. Results are used to determine rewards and identify poor performers needing counseling or penalties. Common appraisal methods include rating scales, essays, and management by objectives where employees help set goals. Benefits include motivation, training identification, recruitment evaluation, and performance evaluation. However, the evaluative aspect can clash with development and cause tension.

Uploaded by

Anish Tiwary
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Performance Appraisal 

The history of performance appraisal is quite brief. Its roots in the early 20th century can be
traced to Taylor's pioneering Time and Motion studies. But this is not very helpful, for the
same may be said about almost everything in the field of modern human resources
management. Performance appraisal systems began as simple methods of income
justification. That is, appraisal was used to decide whether or not the salary or wage of an
individual employee was justified.
The process was firmly linked to material outcomes. If an employee's performance was found
to be less than ideal, a cut in pay would follow. On the other hand, if their performance was
better than the supervisor expected, a pay rise was in order. Little consideration, if any, was
given to the developmental possibilities of appraisal. If was felt that a cut in pay, or a rise,
should provide the only required impetus for an employee to either improve or continue to
perform well. 

Modern Appraisal

Performance appraisal may be defined as a structured formal interaction between a


subordinate and supervisor, that usually takes the form of a periodic interview (annual or
semi-annual), in which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and discussed,
with a view to identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities for improvement
and skills development. In many organizations - but not all - appraisal 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 available
merit pay increases, bonuses, and promotions.

By the same token, appraisal results are used to identify the poorer performers who may
require some form of counselling, or in extreme cases, demotion, dismissal or decreases in
pay. (Organizations need to be aware of laws in their country that might restrict their capacity
to dismiss employees or decrease pay.) Whether this is an appropriate use of performance
appraisal - the assignment and justification of rewards and penalties - is a very uncertain and
contentious matter.

Rating Scales

The rating scale method offers a high degree of structure for appraisals. Each employee trait
or characteristic is rated on a bipolar scale that usually has several points ranging from "poor"
to "excellent" (or some similar arrangement). The traits assessed on these scales include
employee attributes such as cooperation, communications ability, initiative, punctuality and
technical (work skills) competence. The nature and scope of the traits selected for inclusion is
limited only by the imagination of the scale's designer, or by the organization's need to know.

The one major provision in selecting traits is that they should be in some way relevant to the
appraisee's job. The traits selected by some organizations have been unwise and have resulted
in legal action on the grounds of discrimination.
Essay Method

In the essay method approach, the appraiser prepares a written statement about the employee
being appraised. The statement usually concentrates on describing specific strengths and
weaknesses in job performance. It also suggests courses of action to remedy the identified
problem areas. The statement may be written and edited by the appraiser alone, or it be
composed in collaboration with the appraise.

Results Method

Management By Objectives (MBO)

The use of management objectives was first widely advocated in the 1950s by the noted
management theorist Peter Drucker. MBO (management by objectives) methods of
performance appraisal are results-oriented. That is, they seek to measure employee
performance by examining the extent to which predetermined work objectives have been met.

Usually the objectives are established jointly by the supervisor and subordinate. An example
of an objective for a sales manager might be: Increase the gross monthly sales volume to
$250,000 by 30 June. Once an objective is agreed, the employee is usually expected to self-
audit; that is, to identify the skills needed to achieve the objective. Typically they do not rely
on others to locate and specify their strengths and weaknesses. They are expected to monitor
their own development and progress.

Benefits of Appraisal

Motivation and Satisfaction-: Performance appraisal can have a profound effect on


levels of employee motivation and satisfaction - for better as well as for worse. Performance
appraisal provides employees with recognition for their work efforts. The power of social
recognition as an incentive has been long noted. In fact, there is evidence that human beings
will even prefer negative recognition in preference to no recognition at all.

Training and Development-: Performance appraisal offers an excellent opportunity -


perhaps the best that will ever occur - for a supervisor and subordinate to recognize and agree
upon individual training and development needs. During the discussion of an employee's
work performance, the presence or absence of work skills can become very obvious - even to
those who habitually reject the idea of training for them! Performance appraisal can make the
need for training more pressing and relevant by linking it clearly to performance outcomes
and future career aspirations.

Recruitment and Induction-: Appraisal data can be used to monitor the success of the
organization's recruitment and induction practices. For example, how well are the employees
performing who were hired in the past two years? Appraisal data can also be used to monitor
the effectiveness of changes in recruitment strategies. By following the yearly data related to
new hires (and given sufficient numbers on which to base the analysis) it is possible to assess
whether the general quality of the workforce is improving, staying steady, or declining.

Employee Evaluation-: Though often understated or even denied, evaluation is a


legitimate and major objective of performance appraisal. But the need to evaluate (i.e., to
judge) is also an ongoing source of tension, since evaluative and developmental priorities
appear to frequently clash. Yet at its most basic level, performance appraisal is the process of
examining and evaluating the performance of an individual. Though organizations have a
clear right - some would say a duty - to conduct such evaluations of performance, many still
recoil from the idea. To them, the explicit process of judgement can be dehumanizing and
demoralizing and a source of anxiety and distress to employees.

You might also like