Performance appraisal systems are a major source of dissatisfaction at work. But however unpopular, appraisal enables quality to be measured in a company. When the cost of developing, and maintaining the appraisal system is considered, some argue that it is not worth discussing one; even if a company introduces a modestly successful system enthusiasm is most likely to dwindle.
Sometimes organisations may be bound by legal guidelines or a contract and therefore there are subsequent guidelines to aid people in sticking to these legally sound appraisals:
- Performance ratings should be based on specific dimensions of job performance requirement
- There should be multiple raters where possible to ensure reliability
- Negative ratings should always be accompanied with documentation concerning data, location and outcome
- The system should have an appeal process.
Organisations, however, are not legally required to introduce any system and do appraisal systems hurt rather than help an organisation? There are three classic objections to the systems:
1. The system can interfere with teamwork
People are often asked to work in teams despite performance appraisal being an individual exercise. The system can be seen to seek divisions, emphasizing diversity over morale and common goals; these divisions may not even be there. Job performance in the service industry principally depends on the ability and effort of individuals because there are few dictates on how to behave. However, there is nothing that prevents an appraisal system being carried out for teams of individuals sharing the mean team rating. People tend to be happy to join in with the team average if they feel that the team has had equitable input.
2. Appraisal systems send mixed messages
A significant problem posed is the gap between the rhetoric and reality. The rhetoric claims that the system concerns communication and improving decision making. However, in reality, it usually concerns solely performance related pay. Although organisations rarely reward managers for carrying out the appraisal process well or punish those who do a bad job, they claim that the appraisal system is vital for providing the data for administrative decisions to be made.
Appraisers do not always have a clear idea of what ratings are used for, partly because few organisations have a consistent policy on how they actually process and make the decisions from them. Those that do have a policy tend to communicate it poorly; the system needs to be introduced effectively.
3. The appraisal system is a major cause of dissatisfaction and discontent
The system is complained about regularly throughout any organisation for a number of reasons. Firstly, we have the ranking, rating and forced distributions which have been described as a demoralising trilogy. The system forces appraisers to make distinctions which are not functional or even realistic, often to fill the statistical necessity. Secondly, appraisers often feel that their appraisal is unfair and insensitive even when it is completely accurate; self-assessments tend to be more favourable than other’s.
Thirdly, the managers who do the rating play the part of judge, evaluator, counsellor and mentor. These roles are ambivalent and contradictory, which can cause stress for managers who are more used to challenging their staff than supporting them. Lastly, ratings are inevitably subjective. Because they are not objective, even when thorough and fair, they can generate concerns for fairness and equity. To solve this multiple raters are required; peers, subordinates, supervisors and customers.
When faced with complaints, it is best to encourage the disillusioned to look at how it can be fixed rather than just stating what is wrong. Possible alternatives should be the focus; the problems cannot be overcome without causing new ones. Critics need to consider the possibilities; without an appraisal system pay is dependent upon collective bargaining and promotions are mainly linked to who you know and an alternative system could enable managers to distribute cash at their own discretion.
Appraisal systems evidently help organisations; most obviously they provide copious useful data to enhance the quality of human resource decisions. These include layoffs, promotions, pay and transfers across the organisation. The systems also help individuals give thought to their present and future roles as well as building and cementing employee commitment and satisfaction. These benefits are not automatic following an appraisal system, but they can be imagined through a well devised and widely organised system. The army is consistent at running well-accepted, tough and efficient systems.
The function of implementation is the predominant reason for the disillusionment with appraisal systems. All organisations must estimate quality as people cannot manage what they do not measure. At work, people can be highly emotional about appraisal and untrained appraisers along with uncommitted senior staff certainly do not help matters. |
