THE PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL
THE PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL

• A METHOD BY WHICH THE JOB

PERFORMANCE OF AN EMPOYEE IS
EVALUATED
THE BASIS OF EVALUATION

• QUALITY
• QUANTITY
• TIME
• COST
 FREQUENCY

• MOSTLY ON ANNUAL BASIS

AIMS OF THE APPRAISAL SCHEME

• Give feedback on performance to employees.

• Identify employee training needs.

• Document criteria used for rewards.

• Form a basis for personnel decisions: salary

increases, promotions, disciplinary actions, etc.
AIMS OF THE APPRAISAL SCHEME

• Provide the opportunity for organizational

diagnosis and development.

• Facilitate communication between employee

and administrator.

• Validate selection techniques and human

resource policies
 THE APPRAISAL METHOD

• EMPLOYEES ARE RATED NUMERICALLY ON A

SCALE AGAINST A NUMBER OF ATTRIBUTES
OR OBJECTIVES OR BOTH
 THE APPRAISER

• THE MANAGER OF THE EMPLOYEE

BENEFITS
 A DIFFICULT TASK

• DEVELOPING & IMPLEMENTING A GOOD

APPRAISAL SYSTEM
 A DIFFICULT TASK

• MOST COMPANIES (65%) ARE DISSATISFIED

WITH THEIR PA SYSTEMS (STUDY)

• 90 % OF THE HR AND BUSINESS EXECUTIVES

BELIEVED THEIR FIRMS’ PA SYSTEMS NEEDED
REFORM
 THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS
FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
SYSTEMS
 QUALITY OF THE RATING FORM

• RELEVANT

• CLARITY OF RATING STANDARDS

 RELEVANCE

• INCLUDE ALL PERTINENT CRITERIA FOR A

PARTICULAR JOB

• EXCLUDE CRITERIA IRRELEVANT TO JOB

PERFORMANCE
 CRITERION DEFICIENCY
• OMMISSION OF PERTINENT CRITERIA

An appraisal form that rates police officers

solely on the basis of arrests made.

• CONVICTION RECORD
• COURT PERFORMANCE
 CRITERION DEFICIENT FORMS

• STEER THE EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOUR AWAY

FROM ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS
 CRITERION CONTAMINATION
• IRRELEVANT CRITERIA INCLUDED ON THE
RATING FORM

AN AUTO MECHANIC WERE EVALUATED ON THE

BASIS OF PERSONAL CLEANLINESS
 CLARITY OF RATING/PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS

• INDICATE THE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE AN

EMPLOYEE IS EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE

LOAD A TRUCK IN ONE HOUR VS WORK QUICKLY

 ACCURACY OF RATINGS

• REFLECT JOB PERFORMANCE LEVELS

• INACCURATE RATINGS CAN BE CHALLENGED
• EMPLOYEES LOOSE THEIR TRUST
• MORALE AND TURNOVER PROBLEMS
 LENIENCY & SEVERITY ERRORS

• A FIRM IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE USEFUL

FEEDBACK TO ITS EMPLOYEES
• LENIENCY ERROR: THE EMPLOYEE DOESN’T
SEE THE NEED TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE
• SEVERITY ERROR: LAWSUITS / MORALE &
MOTIVATION PROBLEMS
WHY DO APPRAISERS DISTORT
RATINGS

• POLITICALLY MOTIVATED
• LACK OF CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
 RATING ERRORS

CENTRAL TENDENCY ERROR

• RATING EMPLOYEES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE

RATING SCALE WHEN MORE EXTREME
RATINGS ARE WARRANTED
 RATING ERRORS

THE HALO EFFECT

• RATINGS ON EACH ASPECT ARE INFLUENCED

BY THE APPRAISER’S OVERALL IMPRESSION OF
AN EMPLOYEE
 RATING ERRORS

THE RECENCY ERROR

• WHEN RATINGS ARE HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY

RECENT EVENTS
TYPES OF RATING
INSTRUMENTS
 GRAPHIC RATING SCALES
• PRESENTS APPRAISERS WITH A LIST OF TRAITS

• A FIVE POINT RATING SCALE ACCOMPANIES

EACH TRAIT

• NUMBERS AND DESCRIPTIVE PHRASES

INDICATE THE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
 GRS WEAKNESSES

• VAGUELY DEFINED TRAITS

• DO NOT EFFECTIVELY DIRECT BEHAVIOUR
• DO NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC FEEDBACK
 BEHAVIORALLY
ANCHORED RATING
SCALES
 BARS
• COMPRISED OF TRAITS ANCHORED BY JOB
BEHAVIOURS

• RATERS SELECT THE BEHAVIOUR THAT BEST

DECRIBES THE WORKER’S PERFORMANCE
LEVEL
 BARS STRENGTHS
• THE ABILITY TO DIRECT AND MONITOR
BEHAVIOUR

• EMPLOYEES KNOW WHAT TYPE OF

BEHAVIOUR IS EXPECTED OF THEM

• PROVIDES BEHAVIOUR BASED FEEDBACK

 BARS WEAKNESS
• TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME AND
EFFORT TO CONSTRUCT BARS

• APPRAISER MUST SELECT ONE TYPE OF

BEHAVIOUR
• EMPLOYEE MAY EXHIBIT BEHAVIOURS AT
BOTH ENDS OF THE SCALE
MANAGEMENT BY
OBJECTIVES
 MBO

A RATING INSTRUMENT COMPRISED OF

OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR MEETING THEM
 GOAL SETTING
• INDIVIDUAL GOALS ARE MUTUALLY SET BY
EMPLOYEES AND THEIR SUPERVISORS

• SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ARE SET

• HOW GOAL ATTAINMENT WILL BE MEASURED

IS DETERMINED
 PLANNING
• EMPLOYEES & SUPERVISORS DEVISE
STRATEGIES TO REACH AGREED GOALS

• THEY MEET PERIODICALLY TO DISCUSS

PROGRESS TODATE
 EVALUATION

• IN THE FINAL PHASE EMPLOYEE’S SUCCESS AT

MEETING GOALS IS EVALUATED AGAINST THE
AGREED-ON PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
 MBO STRENGTHS
• IMPROVES JOB PERFORMANCE BY DIRECTING
BEHAVIOUR
• CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS REACHING
ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS
• LESS CHANCES OF RATING ERRORS
• FOSTERS BETTER COMMUNICATION
 MBO WEAKNESSES
• OUTSIDE FACTORS MAY EFFECT
ACHIEVEMENT OF GOALS

• CREATES HIGH DEGREE OF PRESSURE &

STRESS ON THE EMPLOYEE