Introduction

Functioning and ordering is one of the most common problems in other people. It is not
uncommon for companies to expect exceptions, such as service, health, transparency and
accountability. The administration has given the majority of the answers that the highest degree
of public utility and the stubbornness of the budget paid by the general public is the price at work
and. The logo is assigned, the program, and the policy is effective. The work of government
officials and the standard of government for the desired results, the promotion of public property
and the expectations of the general public, the expectations that will be achieved It is clear that
the management performance of this third-party application (PMAS), which is a public service,
is a function of the response that is better regulated by a standard than a standard rental system.
This paper will discuss in detail the importance of performance appraisal in an organization. It
will also highlight some problems that are associated with appraisal system that does not adhere
to the requirements of relevance, reliability, practicability, sensitivity and acceptability

PMAS is a function that regulates and detects a better system It is clearly important to clarify the
plan ‫ ہ‬how to set up the goals to be achieved. Suitable for Kia Gia, a penetrating system. The
employees’ skills, talents and interest will be honed and guided for maximum performance and
the organization will benefit from the combined performance of all staff. Proper management of
the System is therefore critical to ensure that the expected benefits are realized. The Human
Resource Management Division is a key guardian of the system as well as an important conduit
for feedback that will inform changes to the System.

Performance management:

Performance management is a comprehensive process that ensures employee performance to

contribute to business objectives. It brings together many elements of the practice of managing
good people, including learning and development, performance measurement and organizational
development.

Performance management can be defined as "a strategic and coordinated approach to delivering
sustained success to people working in organizations by improving their performance and
developing the capabilities of teams and individual partners. " (Armstrong and Barron: 1998).
Fletcher (1993: 35) pointed out that the real concept of performance management was associated
with an approach to creating a shared vision of the purpose and aims of the organization, helping
employees to understand and recognize their part in contributing to them and, in so doing,
enhancing the performance of both individuals and the organization.

In 2000, Armstrong identified two senses in which performance management is integrated;

vertical integration that links objectives to basic capabilities and horizontal integration that
combines different aspects of human resource management to achieve a consistent approach to
people's management and development. Later, they renamed horizontal integration as HR
integration and identified two other senses in which it can be integrated; practical integration that
connects practical strategies to different parts of business and, finally, integration of individual
needs with the organization (2001).

Elements of Performance Management

Armstrong identifies five elements of performance management as contracts (employee, unit and
organizational goals), measurement, feedback, positive reinforcement and dialogue (Evans, G
Edward 2004). These elements ensure that the performance management process is positive,
successful and encouraging for the betterment of employees. Key to the performance
management process are continued feedback and assessment.

 Armstrong identifies that performance assessment can include the following:

 discussing what the job holder has done and achieved;

 identifying any shortfalls in achieving objectives or meeting standards;
 establishing the reasons for any shortfalls, including changed circumstances;
 agreeing to any changes required to objectives and work plans in response to changed
circumstances;
 agreeing to any actions required by the individual or the manager to improve
performance.

Performance appraisal:

Performance assessment is an assessment of employee performance over time, so evaluation is

just a piece of performance management. Performance Assessment (PA) is a way by which the
job performance of the employee is documented and evaluated. Performance assessment is a part
of career development and consists of regular reviews of employee performance within
organizations. PA is also known as performance review, performance assessment, development
debate or employee assessment. Performance assessment is an organized and periodic process
that assesses the performance and productivity of an individual employee in relation to
predetermined criteria and organizational objectives (Manasa, K. & Reddy, N. 2009). Other
aspects of individual employees are considered as well, such as organizational citizenship
behavior, accomplishments, potential for future improvement, strengths and weaknesses, etc.

Importance of Performance Appraisals:

PA is also known as performance review, performance assessment, development debate or

employee assessment. Performance assessment is an organized and periodic process that assesses
the performance and productivity of an individual employee in relation to predetermined criteria
and organizational objectives. It’s also important to focus on a desired performance
(standardized performance) and then compare the desired performance to the actual performance
of the employee. Although the process may be tedious, the end result is one of great importance.
Some of the positive results of performance appraisals are:

 It encourages employees to perform better in the future

 It presents an opportunity for employees to leverage positive performance for an
increase in salary or promotion
 During the appraisal, employees can discuss strengths and weaknesses with a
supervisor, in effect, allowing employees to discuss personal concerns
 It provides communication between a supervisor and employee on a regular basis to
discuss job duties and issues with work performance
 It allows employees to identify what skills may be lacking and need to be acquired or
improved upon. There are instances when education provided by the company is a
necessity to advance success overall
  It holds employees accountable for their job performance, and since the employee
knows that an appraisal is coming, the employee has the opportunity to prepare in
advance
 It provides the opportunity for managers to explain organizational goals and the ways
in which employees can participate in the achievement of those goals
Pitfalls of performance appraisal:

According to Oberg W (1981:290), official performance assessments are known to most

managers to either the painful staff experience or the growing body of critical literature" They
think the performance assessment program demands a lot from monitoring. Obviously, they need
to observe monitoring of subordinate performance at least from time to time. The typical first-
time supervision can hardly know in a very adequate way which each of his/her numerous
subordinates are doing. Piguish, Petal (1981:291) observed that all student of rate is i.e., being
either too lenience or too tough constitutes a limitation to successful appraisal”. As a result,
standard and rating often, there is a wide range of differences unfairly. Some departments have
strictly qualified people, some have less qualified people. As a result, the employee has a higher
or lower rating depending on the eligibility or relaxation of the rate. Personal values and
prejudice also limit the effectiveness of assessment programs. This term replaces organizational
standards. However, this does not mean that appraisal lacks standards but that the standards they
are sometimes wrong ones. Situations where a subordinate can have an unfair rate so that it is not
promoted outside the rate department A(1981) is more and more sure that some right bias
indicates the favored treatment of an employee". There is also a communication gap between the
employee and the appraisal by which employee think they are being judge are different from
these, their superior actually use improving performance and developing people are two of the
most common appraisal plan goals”.

It seems that the evaluation process cannot proceed to achieve goals unless there is effective
communication between the assessor and the assessed person. No system of performance
assessment of causes can be very effective for management or for any other purposes unless they
are expected and by what criteria they are being decided the most notable extent of the
performance assessment system of causes can be very effective for administrative decisions,
organizational development or any other purposes until expected of the most notable limitation
of performance appraisal system is the complete reluctance of the supervisors to lake the time
and trouble to go the rudiments of preparing the periodic appraisal of each of the subordinates
and especially to discuss the result with them.

According to McGregor, there can be concrete reasons for this reluctance, because many of the
surveillances are painful when they are placed in a position to play with God. Another limitation
that operators practice is that performance assessments are often recorded and forgotten.
Nevertheless, personnel decisions are made late without reference to these assessments, despite
the fact that the whole purpose of performance appraisal is to improve the employee’s
performance by promotion, favorable transfer merit wage and salary increase. Thus, if
performance assessments can be more clearly related to expected performance standards on each
job, there is also the possibility of being completely personally criticized as such features such as
dependency and initiative are being assessed. Another limitation of performance assessment is
the difficulty in establishing performance standards for professionals and technical employees
such as scientists and engineers.

Evaluating pain Evaluation of performance is often a disappointing task of managing human

resources. Edward Laler, a management guru, mentioned enough documents to show that the
performance assessment system neither motivates individuals nor effectively guides their
development.

One of the potential weaknesses of traditional performance assessment methods is that they lack
objectivity. For example, the classification scale procedure sits hard to measure commonly used
factors such as attitude, appearance and personality. Also, these factors may have nothing to do
with the performance of an employee's job. While theme will always be present in the methods
of evaluation, employee appraisal based primarily on personal characteristics may place the
evaluator and the company in untenable positions with the employee and equal employment
opportunity guidelines. The firm may be hard-pressed to show that these factors are job-related

A halo error occurs when a manager generalizes one positive performance feature or incident to
all aspects of employee performance, resulting in a higher rating. (HR Specialist 2010)

For example, Rodney Pirkle, accounting supervisor, placed a high value on neatness, a factor
used in the company’s performance appraisal system. As Rodney was evaluating the
performance of his senior accounting clerk, Jack Hicks, he noted that Jack was a very neat
individual and gave him a high ranking on this factor. Also, consciously or unconsciously,
Rodney permitted the high ranking on neatness to carry over to other factors, giving Jack
undeserved high ratings on all factors. Of course, if Jack had not been neat, the opposite could
have occurred. This phenomenon is known as the horn error, an evaluation error that occurs
when a manager generalizes one negative performance feature or incident to all aspects of
employee performance, resulting in a lower rating.

Some managers are too generous with praise or too hard on a person. Dick Grote, a performance
management expert and president of Grote Consulting Corporation, a management consulting
firm in Dallas, said, “It is not OK to have performance rated differently from manager to
manager because these decisions impact compensation, development and succession planning.”
(Sammer. J 2008).

Central trend error is a diagnostic error that occurs when employees are wrongly rated near or
near average or mid-scale. This process can be encouraged by some rating scale systems that
require the assessor to justify writing extremely high or very low ratings. With such a system, the
reactor can avoid potential conflict or criticism by simply giving an average rating. However,
since these ratings tend to cluster in the fully satisfactory range, employees do not often
complain. Nevertheless, this error does exist and it influences the accuracy of evaluations.
Typically, when pay raises are given, they will be based on an employee’s performance. When a
manager gives an underachiever or overachiever, an average rating, it undermines the
compensation system (Krattenmaker T 2009).

Anyone who has observed the behavior of young children several weeks before Christmas can
easily identify with the problem of recent behavioral bias. Suddenly, neighborhood wild children
produce angel figures in anticipation of the rewards they receive from old St Nick. People in the
workforce are not children, but they are human beings. Virtually every employee knows exactly
when performance review is set. Although his or her actions may not be conscious, an
employee’s behavior often improves and productivity tends to rise several days or weeks before
the scheduled evaluation. It is natural for a reactor to remember recent behavior more clearly
than the actions of the distant past. However, formal performance assessment saith usually
covers a certain time, and the performance of an individual should be considered throughout.
Maintaining performance records during the assessment period helps in avoiding this problem.
Personal Bias (Stereotyping) is a pitfall that occurs when managers allow individual differences
to affect the ratings they give. If these are factors to avoid such as gender, race, or age, not only
is this problem detrimental to employee morale, but it is blatantly illegal and can result in costly
litigation. The effects of cultural bias, or stereotyping, can definitely influence appraisals.38
Managers establish mental pictures of what are considered ideal typical workers, and employees
who do not match this picture may be unfairly judged.

In some instances, managers control virtually every aspect of the appraisal process and are
therefore in a position to manipulate the system. For example, a supervisor may want to give a
pay raise to a certain employee or the supervisor may just “favor” one worker more than another
(Krattenmaker T 2009). To justify this action, the supervisor can give the employee an unjust
high-performance assessment and perhaps a less desirable, but productive, low rating (Fox) to
the employee. A 2009) or, supervisor wants to get rid of an employee and thus give an unjust low
rating to the individual. In either instance, the system is distorted and the goals of performance
appraisal cannot be achieved. In addition, in the latter example, if the employee is a member of a
protected group, the firm may wind up in court. If the organization cannot adequately support the
evaluation, it may suffer significant financial loss.

The evaluation process can also create trouble for the assessed employee. It can take the form of
discontent, insensitivity and business. In the worst-case case, a lawsuit is filed on the basis of
genuine or supposed injustice. Thomas S. Etal (2008) may depend on growth opportunities,
better work assignments, and increased compensation results. This could cause not only
apprehension, but also outright resistance. One opinion is that if you surveyed typical employees,
they would tell you performance appraisal is management’s way of highlighting all the bad
things they did all year.

Conclusion

The main objective of achieving human resources in any organization is to help in the realism of
organizational objectives. However, production targets differ from reality or actual performance
due to the extent of variables. Environment: Human technology, organizational etc. Management
work is on variables that have shaped themselves as obstacles to productivity in productivity
opportunities. So, announce a tiring job of personnel managers in any organization. Performance
assessment helps in assessing training requirements, determining the antiquity of compensation
package, acting as primary maintenance and separation functions of the executive etc. Yet the
real positives of performance assessment in personnel management work are being filtered or
misused. Many organizations in the world shows that rigor and vigor effectively and efficiently
utilized performance appraisal as an instrument or a basic ingredient for productivity.

Unlike traditional annual assessments, performance management provides feedback to

employees throughout the year. This system allows continuous reassessment of targets, progress
and performance. Performance assessment swells into one of the good ways for organizations to
increase employee motivation and hone their competitive edge. But it is not easy to evaluate
useful performance and ensure that they are used effectively throughout the institution. To do so,
the organization must follow a principle to help the organization get closer to evaluation as well
as help staff perform at their best.
References

Performance management: the new realities, Michael Armstrong, Angela Baron, Institute of
Personnel and Development, Institute of Personnel and Development, Aug 1, 1998

Evans, G. Edward. Performance Management and Appraisal: A How-to-Do-It Manual for

Librarians. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2004.

Muchinsky, P. M. (2012). Psychology Applied to Work (10th ed.). Summerfield, NC: Hyper
graphic Press.

Manasa, K. & Reddy, N. (2009). Role of Training in Improving Performance. The IUP Journal
of Soft Skills, 3, 72-80

HR Specialist (2011) “Writing and Giving Job Reviews: 8 Do’s and Don’ts,” p 6.

Joanne Sammer (2008), “Calibrating Consistency,” HR Magazine 53: 73–75.

Krattenmaker T (2009), “Appraising Employee Performance in a Downsized Organization,”

Harvard Management Update 14: 3–5.

HR Specialist (2009) “Playing Favorites: How to Avoid Unintended Partiality in Decisions,

Reviews,” p 6.

Fox. A (2009), “Curing What Ails Performance Reviews,” HRMagazine 54: 52–56

Thomas S. et al (2008) “Appraising Employee Performance Evaluation Systems,” CPA Journal

78: 64–67.

Jay Forte, (2009) “Give Feedback, Get Performance,” Supervision 70: 3–4.