资源描述
2020/3/27The Dilemma of Performance AppraisalPeter Prowse and Julie ProwseMeasuring Business Excellence, Iss:4, - 77AbstractThis paper deals with thedilemmaofmanaging performanceusingperformanceappraisal.The authorswillevaluatethehistoricaldevelopmentof appraisals and arguethat the critical area of line management development that was been identified as acriticalsuccessfactorinappraisalshas been ignored inthe laterliteratureevaluatingthe effectiveness of performance through appraisals.Thispaperwillevaluatetheaimsandmethodsofappraisal,thedifficultiesencountered in the appraisalprocess. It also re-evaluates the lack of theoreticaldevelopmentinappraisalandmovefromhepsychologicalapproachesofanalysistoamorecriticalrealisationofapproachesbeforere-evaluatingthechallenge toremove subjectivity and bias in judgement of appraisal.This paper will define and outline performance management and appraisal. It willstart by evaluating what form of performance is evaluated, then develop links to thedevelopment of different performance traditions (Psychological tradition, Managementby Objectives, Motivation and Development).It will outline the historical developmentof performance management then evaluate high performance strategies using performanceappraisal. It will evaluate the continuing issue of subjectivity and ethical dilemmasregarding measurement and assessment of performance. The paper will then examine howorganisations measure performance before evaluation of research on some recent trendsin performance appraisal.Thischapterwillevaluatethe historicaldevelopmentofperformance appraisalfrommanagement by objectives(MBO) literaturebeforeevaluatingthe debatesbetween linkagesbetweenperformance managementandappraisal.Itwilloutlinethedevelopmentofindividual performance before linking to performance management in organizations. Theoutcomesof techniquesto increaseorganizationalcommitment,increasejob satisfactionwill be criticallyevaluated.Itwillfurtherexaminethetransatlanticdebatesbetweenliteratureon efficiencyand effectivenessin the North Americanand theUnitedKingdom)evidence to evaluate the HRM development and contribution of performance appraisal to individual and organizational performance.What is Performance ManagementThe firstissue to discussisthe difficultyof definitionof PerformanceManagement.ArmstrongandBarron(1998:8)defineperformancemanagementas:Astrategicandintegratedapproachto deliveringsustainedsuccesstoorganisationsbyImprovingperformance of people who work in them by developing the capabilities of teams And12020/3/27individualperformance.Performance AppraisalAppraisal potentially is a key tool in making the most of an organisations humanresources. The use of appraisal is widespread estimated that 80 90%of organizationsin the USA and UK were using appraisal and an increase from 69 to 87% of organisationsbetween 1998 and 2004 reported a formal performance management system (Armstrong andBaron, 1998:200).Therehasbeen littleevidenceoftheevaluationoftheeffectivenessof appraisalbutmore on thedevelopmentinitsuse. Between1998 and 2004 a sample fromthe Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2007) of 562 firms found506 were using performance appraisal in UK.What isalsovitaltoemphasiseis therisinguse ofperformanceappraisalfeedbackbeyond performance for professionals and managers to nearly 95% of workplaces in the2004 WERS survey (seeTable .Clearly the use of Appraisals has been the development andextensionofappraisalsto cover a largeproportionof the UK workforceand thecoverageof non managerial occupations and the extended use in private and public sectors.The Purpose of AppraisalsThe critical issue is what is the purpose of appraisals and how effective is itResearched and used in practice throughout organizations The purpose of appraisalsneeds to be clearly identified. Firstly their purpose. Randell (1994) states they area systematicevaluationof individualperformancelinkedtoworkplacebehaviourand/orspecific criteria. Appraisals often take the form of an appraisal interview,usuallyannual,supportedbystandardisedforms/keyobjectiveofappraisalis toprovidefeedbackforperformanceisprovidedby thethreekey questions forqualityof feedback:1. What and how are observations on performance made2. Why and how are they discussed3. What determines the level of performance in the jobIthas been argued by one schoolof thoughtthattheseprocesscannotbe performedeffectivelyunlessthe linemanager ofperson providingfeedbackhas the interpersonalinterviewing skills to providethat feedback to people being appraised. This has been defined as the “Bradford Approach ” which places a high priority on appraisal skillsdevelopment (Randell, 1994). This approach is outlined in Fig. whichidentifies the linkages betweeninvolving,developing, rewarding and valuing people at work.Historical Development of AppraisalThe historical development of performance feedback has developed from a range ofobservation of individual work performance was reported in Robert Owenss Scottishfactory inNew Lanarkin the early 1800s (Cole, 1925). Owen hung over machines a pieceof coloured wood over machines to indicate the Super intendents assessment of theprevious days conduct (white forexcellent, yellow, blue and then black for poorperformance).Thetwentiethcenturyledto . Taylorand hismeasured performanceand thescientific management movement (Taylor, 1964). The 1930sTraits Approaches identified personality and performance and used feedback using graphic rating scales, a mixed standard of performance scales noting behaviour in likert scale was used to recruit and identify management potential in the field of selection. Later developments to22020/3/27prevent a middle scale from 5 scales then developed into a forced-choice scale whichforced the judgement to avoid central evaluation also included narrative statementsand comments to support the ratings (Mair, 1958).In the1940s BehaviouralMethods were developed. These includedBehaviouralAnchoredRating Scales (BARS); Behavioural Observation Scales (BOS); Behavioural EvaluationScales (BES); critical incident;job simulation. All these judgements were used todeterminethe specificlevelsof performancecriteriato specificissuessuch as customerservice andratedinfactorssuchasexcellent,averageorneeds to improveor ratingsare assigned numerical values and added to a statement or narrative comment by theassessor. It would also lead to identify any potential need for training and moreimportantly to identify talent for careers in linemanagement supervision and futuremanagerial potential.Post1945developedintothe Results-orientedapproaches and led tothedevelopmentofmanagement byobjectives(MBO).Thisprovidedaimsand specifictargetstobeachievedandwith in time frames suchas pecificsales,profitability,anddeadlines withfeedback on previous performance (Wherry, 1957).The deadlinesmay have requiredalterationand led tospecificperformancerankingsof staff. It also provided a forced distributionof rankingsof comparative performanceand paired comparison ranking of performance and setting and achieving objectives.In the 1960s the developmentof Self-appraisal by discussion led to specific timeand opportunity for the appraisee to reflectively evaluate their performance in thediscussion and the interview developed into a conversation on a range of topics thatthe appraise needed to discuss in the interview. Until this period the success of theappraisal was dependent on skill of interviewer.In the 1990s the development of 360-degree appraisal developed where information wassought from a wider range of sources and the feedback was no longer dependent on themanager-subordinate power relationship but included groups appraisingtheperformanceof line managers and peer feedback from peer groups on individual performance (Redmanand Snape, 1992). The finaldevelopment of appraisalinterviews developed in the1990swiththeemphasisonthelinkingperformancewithfinancialrewardwhichwillbediscussed later in the paper.Measures of PerformanceThe dilemma of appraisal has always to develop performance measures and the use ofappraisalis the keypartofthis process.Quantitativemeasureofperformancecommunicated as standards in the business and industry level standards translated toindividualperformance.The introductionof techniquessuchas the balancedscorecarddeveloped by Kaplan and Norton (1992).Performancemeasures andevaluationincludedfinancial,customerevaluation,feedback on internal processes and Learning and Growth. Performance standards alsoincluded qualitative measures Which argue that there is an over emphasis on metrics ofquantitativeapproachabove thedefinitionsofqualityservicesand totalquality termsof performancemeasures therehas been a transformationin literatureand a move inthe1990s to the financial rewards linked to the level ofdebates will be discussed later32020/3/27in the paper.Criticism of AppraisalsCritiquesof appraisalhave continuedas appraisalshaveincreasedinuse and scopeacrosssectors and occupations.The dominantcritiqueisthemanagement frameworkusingappraisal as an orthodox technique that seeks to remedy the weakness and propose ofappraisals as a system to develop performance.This“orthodox ”approach argues thereare conflicting purposesof appraisal(Strebleretal,2001).Appraisalcan motivatestaffby clarifyingobjectivesand settingclearfutureobjectiveswithprovisionfortrainingand developmentneedstoestablishtheperformanceobjective.Theseconflictswithassessingpastperformanceanddistribution of rewards based on past performance (Bach, 2005:301).Employees are reluctant to confide any limitations and concerns on their currentperformanceasthiscouldimpactontheirmeritrelatedrewardorpromotionopportunities(NewtonandFindley,1996:43).Thisconflictswithperformanceas acontinuumas appraisersarechallengedwithdifferingroles as bothmonitorsand judgesof performance but an understanding counsell or which Randell(1994)argues few managershave not received the raining toManagers reluctance to criticise also stems fromclassicevidencefromMcGregorthatmanagersare reluctanttomake an egativejudgementonanindividualsperfor manceasitcouldbedemotivating,leadtoaccusationsoftheirownsupportandcontributiontoindividualpoorperformanceand toalsoavoid interpersonal conflict (McGregor, 1957).One consequence of this avoidance of conflict is to rate all criterion as centralandavoidanyconflictknownasthe centralastudyofseniormanagersbyLongneckeretal.(1987),they found organisational politics influenced ratings of 60 seniorfindings were that politics involved deliberate attempts by individuals to enhance orprotectself-interestswhen conflictingcoursesofactionare possibleand thatratingsand decisionswere affectedby potentialsourcesof biasor inaccuracyin theirappraisalratings (Longeneckeret al., 1987).There are methods of further bias beyond Longenecker s evidence. The politicaljudgements and they have been distorted further by overrating some clear competenciesin performance rather than being critical across all rated competencies known as thehaloeffectand ifsome competenciesarelowerthey may prejudicethejudgmentacrossthepositive reviews known as the horns effect (ACAS, 1996).Some ratings may only cinclude recent events and these are known as the recencyeffects. In this case only recent events are noted compared to managers gathering andusing data throughout the appraisal period .A particular concern is the equity ofappraisal for ratings which may be distorted by gender ,ethnicity and the ratings ofappraisersthemselves .Arangeofstudiesinboth theUS and UKhave highlightedsubjectivityintermsof gender (Alimo-Metcalf,1991;White,1999) and ethnicityof theappraiseand appraiser(Geddesand Konrad,2003).Suggestionsand solutionson resolvingbias will be reviewed later.42020/3/27The secondanalysisisthe radicalcritiqueofappraisal.Thisisthemore criticalmanagement literature that argues that appraisal and performance management are aboutmanagement control(Newton and Findley, 1996;Townley, 1993). It argues that tightermanagement controloveremployee behaviourcan be achievedby theextensionofappraisalto manual workers, professional as means to control. This develops the literature ofFoucaultusingpowerand surveillance.Thisliteratureuses cases in examplesofpublicservicecontrolonprofessionalssuchateachers(Healy,1997)andUniversityprofessionals(Townley, 1990).This evidence argues the increased control of public services using appraisal asa methodofcontrolandthattheoutcomeofmanagerialobjectivesignoresthedevelopmentalroleofappraisaland ratingsare awarded for peoplewho acceptand embracethe culture and organizational values . However, this literature ignores the employeeresistanceand theuse ofprofessionalunionstochallengetheattemptstoexertcontrolover professionals and staff in the appraisal process (Bach, 2005:306).One of the different issues of removing bias was the use of the test metaphor(Folgeretal.,1992).This was based on the assumption that appraisal ratings were atechnical question of assessing“true ” performance and there needed to be increasedreliabilityandvalidityofappraisalas aninstrumentto developmotivationandperformance.Thesourcesofraterbiasanderrorscanberesolvedbyimprovedorganisational justice and increasing reliability of appraisers judgement.However therewere problems such as an assumption thatyou can statejobrequirementsclearly and the organization is“rational” with objectives that reflect values andthat the judgment by appraisers are value free from political agendas and personalobjectives.Secondlythereisthesecond issueofsubjectivityifappraisalratingswheredecisions on appraisal are ratedby a“political metaphor”(Hartle, 1995).This“political view” argues that a appraisal is often done badly because thereis a lack of training for appraisers and appraisers may see the appraisal as a wasteof time. This becomes a process which managers have to perform and not as a potentialto improve employee performance .Organisations in this context are“political” andthe appraisers seek to maintain performance from subordinates and view appraises asinternalcustomerstosatisfy.Thismeans managersuseappraisaltoavoidinterpersonalconflictand developstrategiesfortheirown personaladvancementand seeka quietlifeby avoiding censure from higher managers.This perception means managers also see appraisee seeks good rating and genuinefeedbackand careerdevelopmentby seekingevidenceofcombiningemployeepromotionandpay meansappraisalratingsbecome politicaljudgementsand seek to avoidinterpersonalconflicts.The approachesofthe“test” and “political” metaphorsofappraisalareinaccurateand lackobjectivityand judgementofemployeeperformanceis inaccurateandaccuracy isissue is how can organisations resolve this lack of objectivitySolutions to Lack of Objectivity of AppraisalGrint(1993)argues that the solutions to objectivity lies in part with McGregors(1957) classic critique by retraining and removal of“top down ” ratings by managersand replacement with multiple rater evaluation which removes bias and the objectivity52020/3/27by upward performance appraisal. Thevalidity of upwardappraisal means theremoval ofsubjective appraisalapproach is also suggested to remove gender bias in appraisalratingsagainstwomen inappraisals(Fletcher,1999).Thesolutionofmultiplereporting(internalcolleagues,customersandrecipientsofservices)willreducesubjectivity and inequity of appraisal ratings. This argument develops further by theriseintheneedto evaluateprojectteamsand increasinglevelsofteamworkto includepeerassessment.The solutionsalsointheorymean increasedclosercontactwithindividual manager and appraises and increasing services linked to customer facingevaluations.However, negativefeedbackstilldemotivatesand plentyof feedbackand explanationby manager who collates feedback rather than judges performance andfail to summarisearehoweverstillproblemswithaccuracyofappraisalobjectivityasWalker and Smither(1999)5yearstudyof252managersover 5 yearperiodstillidentifiedissueswithsubjective ratings in 360 degreeare still issues on the subjectivity of appraisalsbeyond the areas of lack of training.The contributionof appraisalisstronglyrelatedtoemployee attitudesand strongrelationshipswith job satisfaction(FletcherandWilliams,1996).The evidence onappraisal still remains positive in terms of reinvigo rating social relationships atwork (Townley,1993)andthewidespreadadoptionin largepublicservicesin the UK suchas the national health Service (NHS)is the valuable contribut
展开阅读全文