PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Performance appraisal is a process concerned with determining how well employees are
doing their jobs, communicating that information to the employees and establishing a plan for
performance improvement.
Appraisal is the judgment of an employees performance in a job, based on consideration
other than productivity atone.
What is being assessed in appraisal is the employees performance in carrying out the general
duties of his/her role, together with any specific targets that have been set.
Performance appraisal is the process of determining and communicating to an employee how
he is performing on the job and establishing a plan of improvement. They tell an employee
how well he is performing and the future level of effort and too direction.
Reasons for Performance Appraisal
1. !or maing administrative decisions relating to promotions, firings, layoffs and merit
pay increases. "t helps a manager decide what increases of pay shall be given on grounds
of merit.
2. !or determining the future use of an employee.
3. Appraisal can provide needed input for determining both individual and
organi#ational training and development needs, through identifying strengths and
weanesses.
4. Appraisal encourages performance improvement. They may motivate the employee
to do better in his current job due to nowledge of results, recognition of merit and the
opportunity to discuss wor with his manager.
5. Appraisals help to identify an individuals current level of performance.
. "nformation generated by appraisal can be used as an input to the validation of
selection procedures.
!. Appraisal information is an important input to human resource planning and
succession planning, career planning and so on.
$y maing effective use of the performance appraisal system, an organi#ation may see to% &
& "mprove productivity
& Promote internal control through timely detection and feedbac on actual
performance
& 'reate a positive wor environment
& (timulate, recogni#e and reward achievements
& Provide objective measures of performance
& !urnish information for other )* sub&systems.
Fre"#enc$ of Performance Appraisal
+espite the many potential benefits of appraisal, many organi#ations do not mae effective
use of the system. When appraisal is infre,uently used, employees voice concern about the
%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
-
possible abuse. There seems to be no real consensus on how fre,uently performance
appraisals should be done, but it is good to have them as often as in necessary to let
employees now what ind of job they are doing, and measures to be taen for improvement.
An annual appraisal is not enough. !or most employees informal performance appraisals can
be conducted two or three times a year in addition to an annual formal performance appraisal.
,e$ Principles in -.e /esi0n of Appraisal Sc.emes.
-. 'reate motivation to change or improve behaviour.
.. Provide recognition for successful performance.
/. Provide valid and reliable information for pay decisions.
0. Provide guidance on what sills, competences and behaviour are needed to meet
e1pectations.
2. 3eed to be simple, clear and written in accessible language.
4. 5ust mae realistic demands on employees and managers time and other resources.
6. 5ust be perceived to be fair.
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL ME%*O(S
Selec-ion of a Performance Appraisal Me-.o/
Whatever method of appraisal an organi#ational uses, it must be job related. Therefore
before selection of a method, an organi#ation must conduct job analyses and develop job
descriptions.
Me-.o/s of Performance Appraisal
-. 7oal setting or 5anagement by 8bjectives 95$8:.
.. 5ulti&rater 9/4; < degree feedbac:.
/. *aning methods.
0. *ating methods.
2. Wor standards approach.
4. =ssay appraisal.
6. 'ritical < incident appraisal.
>. 'heclist.
?. Assessment centre.
-;. 8pen <ended method.
1. )OAL 1 SE%%IN) OR MANA)EMEN% 23 O24EC%I5ES
This is more commonly used with professional and managerial employees. 8ther
terminologies used for this include@ management by results, performance management,
results management and wor planning and review programmes.
The 5$8 process consists of the following steps%&
a: =stablishing clear and precisely defined statements of objectives for the wor to be
done by an employee.
b: +eveloping an action plan indicating how these objectives are to be achieved.
c: Allowing the employee to implementing the action plan
d: 5easuring objective achievement
e: Taing corrective action when necessary
%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
.
f: =stablishing objectives for the future.
For M2O -o 6e s#ccessf#l7
& 8bjectives should be ,uantifiable and measurable
& 8bjectives should be challenging yet achievable
& 8bjectives should be e1pressed in writing and in clear, concise, unambiguous
language
& =mployees should participate in the objective&setting process
& The objectives and action plan must serve as a basis for regular discussions
between manager and employee
A/8an-a0es
5$8 is intended to encourage employee participation and
increase job satisfaction by giving the employee a sense of achievement and involvement
with his or her sense of achievement and involvement with his or her wor.
Training needs may also emerge during the discussion at the
beginning and end of the review period
=mployees are forced to thin hard about their roles and
objectives, about why tas are necessary and how best to get things done
Targets are clarified and the crucial elements in each job
identified
(uperiors and subordinates are obligated to communicate with
each other, and there is forced co&ordination of activities between various levels of
management, departments and between short and long term goals.
(isa/8an-a0es
& 5any managers and employees find the joint objective setting and performance
review interviews difficult and sometimes inconsistent with the general management style
of the company.
& The system may then generate into a routine in which the manager simply instructs
the employee which objectives to pursue.
& Auite often, it is difficult to find new objectives, which offer a challenge, and the
system may encourage individual, selfish effort to the detriment of the woring group.
& Attempts to ,uantify performance in activities that are not really ,uantifiable. 9=.g.
advisory duties or the wor of a receptionist:
& 'oncentration on short term measurable goals while neglecting important but less
precise long term objectives
& +ifficulties arising from subordinates being given objectives but not the resources,
information and authority needed to achieve them.
& Taes a great deal of time, energy and form.
& (ome e1ecutives find it hard to even thin of their own wor habits.
& (ome areas of management are difficult to measure in terms of performance e.g.
=mployee development.
& Possibility of a tug of war with supervisors setting high targets and the subordinates
setting very low targets.
"n many organisations where the objectives are pre&determined, Bey Performance Areas
9BPAs: or Bey *esult Areas 9B*As: are also decided in advance through joint effort.
%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
/
=valuation is done in terms of the degree of achievement and non&achievement of the
objectives BPAs/B*As
2. M+L%I1RA%ER ASSESSMEN% & M+L%I1SO+RCE ASSESSMEN%
This is currently a very popular method of performance appraisal. "t is also nown as /4;&
degree feedbac. /4;&degree feedbac is CThe systematic collection and feedbac of
performance data on an individual or group derived from a number of the staeholders. With
this method, managers, peers, customers, suppliers or colleagues are ased to complete
,uestionnaires on the employee being assessed. The person being assessed also completes a
,uestionnaire. +ata on ones performance is analysed and the result shared with the employee
appraised, who in turn compares the results with his assessment.
%.e 391/e0ree Fee/6ac: Mo/el

The range of feedbac, on ones performance, could be e1tended to include other staeholders
< e1ternal customers, clients and suppliers, 9this is nown as 20;&degree feedbac:. !eedbac
may be presented direct to individuals, or to their managers, or both.
+SE OF 391(E)REE FEE(2AC,
"t forms part of a self&development or management development.
supports learning and development,
(upports appraisal, resourcing and succession planning.
The system is NO% used for formal performance evaluation or to support pay decisions. The
system is not to be used as a basis for reward.
To develop and implement /4;&degree feedbac, the following steps need to be taen.
& +efine objectives
& +ecide on recipients of the feedbac
& +ecide on who will give the feedbac
& +ecide on the areas of wor and behaviour
& +ecide on the method of collecting the data
& +ecide on data analysis and presentation
& Plan initial implementation programme
& Analyse outcome of pilot scheme
& Plan and implement full programme
& 5onitor and evaluate
%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
0
5anager
Peers
"ndividual
"nternal customers
+irect reports
A/8an-a0es an/ /isa/8an-a0es
& =mployees get a broader perspective of how they are perceived by others than before
& "ncreased awareness of and relevance of competences
& "ncreased awareness by senior management that they too have development needs
& 5ore reliable feedbac to senior managers about their performance
& 7aining acceptance of the principle of multiple staeholders as a measure of
performance
& =ncouraging more open feedbac
& "t is supporting a climate of continuous improvement
& Perception of feedbac as valid and objective, leading to acceptance of results and
actions re,uired
2#- -.ere ma$ 6e pro6lems.
& People not giving fran or honest feedbac
& People being put under stress in receiving or giving feedbac
& Dac of action following feedbac
& 8ver&reliance on technology
& Too much bureaucracy
CRI%ERIA FOR S+CCESS
& Active support of top management
& 'ommitment everywhere on the process <briefing, training
& +etermination by all to implement the system as a basis for development
3. RAN,IN) ME%*O(S.
The core element of the use of ranings is that employees are compared to each other, and
given some number that supposedly indicates whether they are better than, about the same or
less effective than their colleagues. "t is used to determine who will get a pay rise from a
limited resource pool, or for other decision&maing processes. "n raning methods, especially
the simplest form, the supervisor lists all subordinates in order, from the highest to the lowest
in performance.
The following methods are used in raning% &
a: (traight raning
b: Alternation raning
c: Paired comparison.
A. S%RAI)*% RAN,IN).
)ere the supervisor simply rans all members of a group from best to worst, based on some
dimension of performance e.g. $est ,uality, most researched, sales etc. The method is
appropriate for small companies. As the number of employees increases, it becomes
gradually more difficult to discern differences between individuals performance. The method
has other drawbacs@ first, the si#e of differences between individuals is not well defined.
=.g. the differences between the individuals . and / may be little, but between / and 0 very
huge. This can be overcome by assigning points to indicate the si#e of the gaps e1isting
among employees. The method offers little or no feedbac for improving performance. The
method assumes a normal distribution of performance.
%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
2
2. AL%ERNA%ION RAN,IN).
(ince it is easier to distinguish between the best and the worst employees, than just ran
them, this method is more popular. !irst, list all the subordinates to be rated and then cross
out the names of any not nown well enough to ran. Then one piece of paper, indicate the
employee who is the highest on the characteristics being measured and also who is the
lowest. Then choose the ne1t highest and the ne1t lowest, alternating between highest and
lowest until all employees to be rated have been raned. The method suffers from the same
disadvantages as straight raning, but initially may be easier to complete.
C. PAIRE( COMPARISON
This helps mae the raning method more precise. !or every trait 9,uality of wor, ,uantity
of wor etc:, every subordinate is paired with and compared to every other subordinate.
(uppose there are 2 employees to be rated. A chart of all possible pairs of employees for
each trait is made. Then for each trait, indicate with a 9E or &: who is the better employee of
the pair. 3e1t add the number of times an employee is rated better and add then up.
!or the trait
CAuality of worF
Emplo$ee Ra-e/ Emplo$ee Ra-e/
As
compare/
-o
As
compare/
-o
A
r-
Ma
-
C.e (i
a
4
o
A
r-
Ma- C.e (ia 4o
Art E E & & Ar- & & & &
5at & & & & Ma- E & E E
'he & E E & C.e E E & E
+ia E E & E (ia E & E &
Go E E E & 4o E & & E
5at is a good employee under C,uality of worF but Art is a good employee under
CcreativityF
4. RA%IN) SCALES
A. )RAP*IC RA%IN)1SCALE
With this method, the rater assesses an employee on factors such as ,uantity of wor,
dependability, job nowledge, attendance, accuracy of wor and cooperativeness. 7raphic
rating scales include both numerical ranges and written descriptions.
The method has several weanesses@ one of them being that evaluators are unliely to
interpret written descriptions in the same manner due to differences in bacground,
e1perience and personality. Another potential problem relates to the choice of rating
categories. "t is possible to choose categories that have little relationship to job performance
or omit categories that have a significant influence on job performance.
%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
4
!or the trait
C'reativity of worF
E;ample of a )rap.ical&Linear ra-in0 scale
The appraiser is faced with a list of characteristics or job duties and is re,uired to tic or
circle an appropriate point on a numerical, alphabetical or other simple scale.
E;ample 1<
A $ ' + =
INI%IA%I5E
=H'=DD=3T 383&
=H"(T=3T
INI%IA%I5E - . / 0 2
D8W )"7)
INI%IA%I5E =H'=DD=3T 788+ AI=*A7= P88*
%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
6
E;ample 2<
(ample "tems on a 7raphic (cale =valuation !orm
=#an-i-$ of >or: ? -.e amo#n- of >or: an emplo$ee /oes in a >or:/a$.
9 : 9 : 9 : 9 : 9 :
+oes not meet +oes just Iolume of wor Iery industrious )as a superior
5inimum enough to is satisfactory. does more than is wor production
re,uirements get by. re,uired. record.
(epen/a6ili-$ ? -.e a6ili-$ -o /o re"#ire/ @o6s >ell >i-. a minim#m of s#per8ision
9 : 9 : 9 : 9 : 9 :
*e,uires close (ometimes Jsually completes *e,uires little *e,uires absolute
supervision@ re,uires necessary tass with supervision@ absolute minimum of
is unreliable prompting reasonable promptness is reliable supervision
4o6 ,no>le/0e ? informa-ion an emplo$ee s.o#l/ .a8e on >or: /#-ies for sa-isfac-or$ @o6 performance
9 : 9 : 9 : 9 : 9 :
"s poorly Dacs nowledge "s moderately informed Jnderstands all )as complete ledge
"nformed about mastery can answer all phases of job of all phases of job.
duties of some phases most ,uestions about
of job the job.

%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
>
2. 2E*A5IO+RALL3 ANC*ORE( RA%IN) SCALE A2ARSB
This method is designed to assess behaviour re,uired to successfully perform a job. The
assumption is that functional behaviour will result in effective job performance. 5ost $A*(
use the term job dimension to mean those broad categories of duties and responsibilities that
mae up a job. =ach job will have several job dimensions and separate scales must be
developed for each. $A*( are developed through the active participation of both managers
and job incumbents < increasing the lielihood of the method getting accepted.
The anchors are developed from the observations and e1periences of employees who actually
perform the job. $A*(, can be used to provide specific feedbac concerning an employees
job performance.
$A*( however tae time and commitment to develop separate forms must be developed for
different jobs.
E;ample of a 2e.a8io#rall$ Anc.ore/ Ra-in0 Scale
Scale 5al#es Anc.ors
6K L =1cellent +evelops a comprehensive project plan, documents it well, obtains re,uired
approval, and distributes the plan to all concerned.
4 K L Iery good Plans, communicates, and observes milestones@ states wee by wee where
the project stands relative to plans. 5aintains up&to&date charts of project
accomplishments and baclogs and uses these to optimise modifications
re,uired. =1periences occasional minor operational problems but
communicates effectively.
2K L 7ood Days out all the parts of a job and schedules each part@ sees to beat schedule
and will allow for slac.
(atisfies customers time constraints@ time and cost overruns occur
infre,uently.
0K L Average maes a list of due dates and revises them as the project progresses, usually
adding unforeseen events@ instigates fre,uent customer complaints.
5ay have a sound plan, but does not eep trac of milestones@ does not report
slippages in schedule or other problems as they occur.
/K L $elow average Plans are poorly defined, unrealistic time schedules are common.
'annot plan more than a day to two ahead, has no concept of a realistic
project due date.
.K L Iery Poor )as no plan or schedule of wor segments to be performed.
+oes little or no planning for project assignments.
-K L Jnacceptable (eldom, if ever, completes project, because of lac of planning, and does not
seem to care.
!ails consistently due to lac of planning and does not in,uire about how to
improve.
%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
?
C. FORCE(1C*OICE RA%IN)
The most common practice re,uires the evaluator to ran a set of statements describing how
an employee carries out the duties and responsibilities of the job. The statements are
normally weighted and the weights nown only to the rater. After all the items have been
rated and raned, the )* department applies the weights and computers a score.
The method sees to eliminate bias by forcing the rater to ran the statements. )owever the
method is nown to irritate raters who feel they are not being trusted. The results of such an
e1ercise may be hard to communicate to the employees.
(ample set of forced < choice statements
Ran: (escrip-ion
MMMMM "s easy to get ac,uainted with
MMMMM Places great emphasis on people
MMMMM *efuses to accept criticism
MMMMM Thins generally in terms of money
5. 'OR, S%AN(AR(S APPRAISAL APPROAC*
This approach is used most fre,uently for production worers, and is basically a form of goal
setting for these employees. "t involves setting a standard or an e1pected level of output and
then comparing each employees performance to the standard. Wor standards should reflect
the average output of a typical employee. Wor standards attempt to define a fair days wor.
(everal methods can be used to set wor standards, the most common ones being@
& Average production of wor groups
& Performance of specially selected employees
& Time study
& Wor sampling
& =1pert opinion
An advantage of this method is that the performance review is based on highly objective
factors. The most serious criticism of wor standards is a lac of comparability of standards
for different job categories. .
. ESSA3 APPROAC*
This re,uires that the evaluator describe an employees performance in written narrative
form. A typical essay appraisal ,uestion might be C+escribe, in your own words, this
%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
-;
'.a- are of -.e >ea:nesses of ra-in0 scalesC
Is i- 0oo/ eno#0. -o ra-e emplo$ees on a ra-in0 scaleC
In >.a- >a$s s.o#l/ performance appraisal in-er8ie>s 6e con/#c-e/C
'.a- are some of -.e pre1appraisal prepara-ions one .as -o ma:eC
employees performance, including ,uantity and ,uality of wor, job nowledge and ability
to get along with other employees. What are the employees strengths and weanessesN
The primary problems with this method include@ the length and content of the essay, which
may vary considerably, depending on the rater@ essay appraisals are difficult to compare@ the
writing sill of the appraisers vary% an effective writer can mae an average employee loo
better than the actual performance warrants.
!. CRI%ICAL ? INCI(EN% APPRAISAL
This re,uires the evaluator to eep a written record of incidents as they occur. The incidents
recorded should involve job behaviours that illustrate both satisfactory and unsatisfactory
performance of the employee being rated. The recorded incidents provide a basis for
evaluating performance and providing feedbac to the employee. A main draw bac is rater is
e1pected to jot down incidents regularly, and can be burdensome and time consuming. Also
the definition of a critical < incident may not be clear and be interpreted differently by
different people. 5ethod may lead to friction when employees believe the manager is
eeping a boo on them.
D. %*E C*EC,LIS%
"n the checlist method, the rater maes yes&or&no responses to a series of ,uestions
concerning the employees behaviour. The checlist can also have varying weights assigned
to each ,uestion.
Sample c.ec:lis- "#es-ions
O=( 38
i: +oes the employee lose his or her temper in publicN &
&
ii: +oes the employee play favouritesN &
&
iii: +oes the employee praise employees in public when they have done a good jobN &
&
iv: +oes the employee volunteer to do special jobsN & &
$ecause the raters can see the positive or negative connotation of each ,uestion, bias can be
introduced. Additional drawbacs to the checlist method are that it is time consuming to
assemble the ,uestions for each job category and the checlist ,uestions can have different
meanings for different raters.
E. ASSESSMEN% CEN%RES
This is a special form of appraisal intended to identify potential for promotion. An
assessment centre is not a place rather a process that consists of a small group of participants
who undertae a series of tests and e1ercises under observation, with a view to assessing their
sills and competencies and suitability for particular roles and their potential for
development. "t consists of a series of e1ercises such as leaderless group discussions, role&
playing, business games and ten&minute speeches. A group of candidates is brought together
at a fairly isolated spot where they go through the e1ercises over a period of one to three
days. They are judged by assessors who are usually managers of the company who have
received appropriate training.
%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
--
Assessment centres are sometimes used for initial selection of supervisors, managers and
sales staff. The advantages of assessment centres are that%&
a: They offer assessors far more information about candidates than is available from
conventional interviews.
b: They present suitable environments for the evaluation of candidates interpersonal
sills < persuasiveness, assertiveness, ability to cope with stress, communication sills
etc.
c: 'andidates have time to settle into the assessment process may not be as nervous as
should be the case
d: Attendance at an assessment centre can be a useful and interesting learning e1perience
e: )as a higher probability of selecting the correct candidate than with any other
selection method.
Pro6lems >i-. Assessmen- Cen-re incl#/e< 1
a: Are e1pensive and must be carefully designed to meet a companys special
re,uirements, and staffing them is e1pensive and time consuming.
b: The personal characteristics e1amined via assessment centre e1ercises cannot be
measured accurately since many are psychological.
c: Assessors might not be fully familiar with the details of the wor that successful
candidates will have to undertae hence the wrong ,ualities may be assessed.
d: Assessment of a candidates personality and other characteristics must inevitably
depend to some degree on the assessors subjective value judgments.
19. %*E OPEN1EN(E( ME%*O(
This is a recent innovation, introduced because of dissatisfaction with rating scales. The
method emphasi#es the way the job is performed and e1pects the manager to write a few
sentences about the subordinate rather than pic tics in columns. The method cannot be used
directly to decide pay but it fulfils the other purposes of appraisal as well. "t is more
intellectually demanding and is best suited where the subordinates jobs are relatively
unstructured.
2IASES IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL.
There are many possible sources of error in the performance appraisal process. 8ne of the
major sources is mistaes made by the rater. There is no simple way to eliminate these errors,
but maing raters aware of them is helpful. The most common errors committed in
performance appraisal include% the halo effect@ leniency@ strictness@ the central tendency error@
the recency effect@ and the contrast error.
%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
-.
What are the essential features of effective staff appraisal systems?
Discuss any disadvantages of appraisal systems
Discuss the role of the; senior management, the line manager and the
employee in an appraisal process
%.e *alo Effec-.
The halo effect occurs when a manager rates an employee high on all items because of one
characteristic. !or e1ample, if a worer has few absences, her supervisor might give her a
high rating in all other areas of wor, including ,uantity and ,uality of output, because of her
dependability. The manager may not really thin about the employeePs other characteristics
separately. The opposite of a halo error is a .orn error, where negative performance in one&
dimension influences any positive aspects of the employeePs performance.
An appraisal that shows the same rating on all characteristics may be evidence of the halo or
horn effect. 'learly specifying the categories to be rated, rating all employees on one
characteristic at a time, and training raters to recognise the problem are some means of
reducing the halo and horn effects.
%.e Lenienc$ Error.
A second common and often intended rating error is called leniency error & or the process of
being Ptoo easyP. Deniency bias may e1ist because supervisors are concerned about damaging
a good woring relationship by giving an unfavourable rating. 8r they may wish to avoid
giving negative feedbac, which is often unpleasant, so they inflate the ratings.
%.e Error of S-ric-ness.
At the opposite e1treme of leniency is the error of strictness in which ratees are give
unfavourable ratings regardless of performance level. *aters with low self&esteem or raters
who have personally received a low rating are most liely to rate strictly. *ater training,
which includes reversal of supervisor subordinate roles and confidence building, will reduce
this error.
%.e Cen-ral %en/enc$ Error.
*ather than using e1tremes in ratings, there is a tendency on the part of some raters to
evaluate all ratees as average even when performance actually varies. This bias is referred to
as the error of central tendency. *aters with large spans of control and little opportunity to
observe behaviour are liely to rate the majority of employees in the middle of the scale,
rather than too high or too low. This is a Pplay&it&safeP strategy. 'entral tendency can also be a
by&product of the rating method. The forced&distribution format re,uires the most employees
be rated PaverageP.
%.e Recenc$ Effec-.
*ecent events are weighted more heavily than they should be. They as such influence the
overall rating of an employee. As the typical appraisal period Ksi1 months to a yearL is far too
long for any rater to ade,uately remember all performance&relevant information. As the
appraisal interview draws near, the rater searches for information cues as to the value of
performance. Jnfortunately, recent behaviours or outputs are more salient. As a result, recent
events are weighted more heavily than they should be. 'alled the recency of events error, this
bias can have serious conse,uences for a ratee who performs well for si1 months or a year
but then maes a serious or costly error in the last wee or two before evaluations are made.
=mployees and managers can minimise this error by eeping ongoing behavioural or critical
incident files in which good and poor behaviours and outputs are recorded. Although time
consuming, they ensure that information for the entire period is incorporated into the
appraisal.
%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
-/
%.e Con-ras- Error.
Tendency on the part of some raters to evaluate all ratees as average even when performance
actually varies. *ating should be done on the basis of standards that are established before the
rating. The contrast error is the tendency to rate people relative to other people rather than to
performance standards. !or e1ample, if everyone else in a group is doing a mediocre job, a
person performing somewhat better may be rated as e1cellent because of the contrast effect.
$ut in a group performing well, the same person might have received only a poor rating.
Although it may be appropriate to compare people at times, the rating should reflect
performance against job re,uirements, not against other people.
Similari-$ Error
8ccurs when the evaluator rates other people in the same way he perceives himself. An
aggressive evaluator may evaluate others by looing at their aggressiveness. Those with this
characteristic benefit while others may suffer
Miscellaneo#s Error
$ias against employees on grounds of gender, religion or position. !or e1ample, a higher
rating may be assigned to a senior employee and not a junior one.
O%*ER CA+SES OF 2IAS IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS
Social /ifferen-ia-ion< rating is sometimes impeded by the evaluators style
of rating behaviour. )igh differentiators use all most the entire scale, while low
differentiators use a limited range of the scale. Dow differentiators tend to ignore or
suppress differences while the high differentiators tend to utilise all available information
to the utmost e1tent.
F#n/amen-al A--ri6#-ion Errors< refers to the tendency to attribute
observed behaviour to the disposition of the person being observed and thereby
underestimate the causal role of factors beyond the control of the performer. "t is also
nown as the actor&observer bias. "t tends to result in people being given insufficient
credit for their successes and e1cessive blame for their failures. This causes perception of
unfairness in appraisal decisions.
%.e Ma-.e> Effec-< 3amed after the 5athew of $iblical fame, QTo him who
has shall be given, and he shall have abundance% but from him who does not have, even
that which he has shall be taen away. "t occurs where employees tend to eep receiving
the same appraisal results year in and year out. 3o matter how an employee strives, their
past appraisal records will prejudice their future attempts to improve. "t tals of a group
of worers nown as the in&groupers < those favoured by supervisors and the out&
groupers < those not favoured. An in&grouper who fails to perform a tas properly will
have this shortcoming ignored by the supervisor but will get a reward when performance
is 8B. An out&grouper performing very well will rarely get recognition from the
supervisor, but will get low ratings when performance is low.
APPRAISAL IN%ER5IE' APPROAC*ES.
!our basic approaches to conducting a performance review%
%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
-0
-. %ell< "n this style the manager tells the employee e1actly what are the results of the
appraisal and what should be done without inviting any tal from the employee. The
employee just listens.
.. %ell an/ sell< manager acts as a judge and tells the employee how well he/she is
doing and then persuades he/she to change in the way the manager desires.
/. %ell an/ lis-en< similar to above e1cept the manager conveys assessments about the
strengths and weanesses in the employeePs performance and then lets the employee
respond to these statements@ the manager tries to understand the employeePs feelings
by emphasi#ing active listening sills.
0. Pro6lem1sol8in0 approac.< the manager acts as a partner and wors jointly with the
subordinate to develop the employeePs performance@ the manager must practice both
joint goal setting and active listening
%*E APPRAISAL FEE(2AC, IN%ER5IE'
8nce appraisals have been made, it is important to communicate them so that employees
have a clear understanding of how they stand in the eyes of their immediate superiors and the
organisation. "t is fairly common for organisations to re,uire that managers discuss appraisals
with employees. The appraisal feedbac interview can clear up misunderstandings on both
sides. "n this interview, the manager should emphasi#e counselling and development, not just
tell the employee, P)ere is how you rate and whyP. !ocusing on development gives both
parties an opportunity to consider the employeePs performance and its potential for
improvement.
The appraisal interview presents both an opportunity and a danger. "t is an emotional
e1perience for the manager and the employee because the manager must communicate both
praise and constructive criticism. A major concern is how to emphasi#e the positive aspects
of the employeePs performance while still discussing ways to mae needed improvements. "f
the interview is handled poorly, the employee may feel resentment and conflict may result,
which probably will be reflected in future wor.
APPRAISAL IN%ER5IE' APPROAC*ES.
%M&RE'AR( M)%&*AN(O+% 2
-2
(isc#ss -.e >a$s in >.ic. one can a8oi/ -.e pro6lems associa-e/ >i-.
performance appraisals.
'.a- are some of -.e fac-ors -o consi/er in -.e selec-ion of an appraisal
-ec.ni"#eC