This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
MASTER IN PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT
“The Mishandling of performance appraisal can do more harm than good. Discuss .”
Table of Contents 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Definition 1.3 Purposes of performance appraisal 1.4 Benefits of a performance Appraisal System 1.4.1 Organizational efficiency 1.4.2 Employee Motivation 1.5 Critics of performance Appraisal System 1.5.1 Scope of the system 1.5.2 Individual performance in context 1.5.3 Applying the concept of Quality in the performance appraisal process 1.5.4 Attitudes and approach of supervisors 1.5.5 Current performance versus future potential 1.5.6 Multi skilling versus tight specification. 1.5.7 Managerial performance versus professional performance. 1.6 Inconsistencies in the assumptions of an appraisal system 1.7 Failure in the implementation of performance 1.8 Consequence of Performance Appraisal system 1.8.1 Deviant behaviors
8.8.3Violation of human dignity 1.1.5 Lack of customer focus 1.8 Low commitment 1.6 Dealing with poor performance 1.8.10 TQM and Performance Appraisal 1.8.11 Performance Appraisal in the Public Service 1.2 Professionalism 188.8.131.52 Performance Appraisal – the flaws in the system 1.8.4 Scope of the system 184.108.40.206 Short termism and Individualism 1.11 5 Evaluation 220.127.116.11 Definition 1.4 Alienation of employees 1.8.12 Conclusion 3 .6 Internal politics and conflicts 1.11.1 Introduction 1.9 Reengineering the Performance appraisal systems 1.3 Purpose of Performance Management System 1.
1.” He suggests that the main building blocks of such an approach include: (a) development of the organization’s mission statement and objectives. 1. and their career progression in the future. but can contribute to their formulation. (c) clarifying individual responsibilities and accountabilities. (e) implementing appropriate reward strategies. (b) enhancing communications within the organization so that employees are not only aware of the objectives and the business plan. p. 8) succinctly defined appraisal “… as a formal documented system for the periodic review of an individual’s performance while Fletcher defines performance management as an approach to creating a shared vision of the purpose and aims of the organization. helping each individual employee understand and recognize their part in contributing to them. (d) defining and measuring individual performance.1 Introduction The term “performance appraisal” has generally meant the annual interview that takes place between the manager and the employee to discuss the individual’s job performance during the previous 12 months and the compilation of action plans to encourage improved performance.2 Definition Moon (1993. 4 . (f) developing staff to improve performance. and in so doing manage and enhance the performance of both individuals and the organization.
through the setting of objectives in a hierarchical fashion and a review of success or failure in achieving these. p. This occurs as a consequence of the establishment of goals at the beginning of the evaluation cycle which provide employees with clear performance targets. (e) remuneration and reward. ultimately. usually in the form of higher pay. 5 .3 Purposes of performance appraisal There is an increasing use of the performance appraisal process which is generally motivated by an organizational desire to affect employee behaviors and attitudes and. This process is seen to encourage employee performance in subsequent performance cycles (Moon (1993.all for succession planning purposes. It includes: (a) improvement in the communication between boss and subordinate through the use of feedback between them. retention or termination . (d) identification of the potential of individuals for future promotion. on the basis of performance. secondment. organizational performance. the monitoring of performance during the evaluation cycle (which can be used to assist poor performers) and the reinforcement provided for good performance through the provision of rewards. (c) identification of individual training and development needs. (b) identification of the scope for performance improvement and the means to achieve it. 8) Other authors have stated that there are potentially many reasons for undertaking performance appraisal.1. (f ) as a powerful means of managerial control.
employees value PA process controls as it promotes predictability (Cardy. R.1 Organizational Efficiency Organizational efficiency can be affected by the quality of the performance appraisal process There is a body of empirical research that suggests that performance appraisals do result in increases in employee performance and productivity ( Taylor and Pierce. R. M.2 Employee Motivation Employees are motivated to work at a higher level by the offer of financial incentives that are contingent on their performance. 1999). The relational school of thought emphasizes the needs for belonging and self-esteem and acknowledges the informal actions of someone in a position of authority over the employee (Hartle. 1. Work efforts are directed to activities that will be of benefit to the organisation.J. Poor performing employees are identified during the evaluation cycle and given feedback on how to improve. (1997). and these financial incentives are important in encouraging the retention of high performing employees (Lebas. Process controls can be established through operation of formal procedures (such as the right to present evidence to a supervisor) and enhance quality by ensuring that the process applies to all employees.4 Benefits of a performance Appraisal System 1. training) in order to rectify performance deficiencies.4. (1998). They might also undertake some developmental activities (for example.L. an individual's standing is thought to be conveyed by their interpersonal treatment during social interactions (Gerst. The relational school of thought postulates that individuals care about PA quality because it signals their status and worth within the organization.4.M. (1995) 6 . (1995) According to the instrumental school of thought. F. Further.1. These improvements are seen to derive from the greater employee identification with and commitment to the objectives of the organisation.
An organization's performance appraisal system can be a practical tool for employee motivation and development when employees perceive their performance appraisals as accurate and fair (Ilgen et al. p.1 Scope of the system However..Low quality interpersonal treatment conveys the view that management regards the individual as being of low status and disrespect for individual rights communicates that their interests are unlikely to be protected (Jas.3. The appraisal process can also become a source of frustration and extreme dissatisfaction when employees perceive that the appraisal system is biased. developing an appraisal system that accurately reflects employee performance is a difficult task.. Skelcher. C. and may include procedures for establishing work objectives. Appraisal practices often include formal review and feedback sessions. P.5. and setting performance goals. 1991. Organizational appraisal systems are an attempt to formalize these activities for the benefit of both the individual and the organisation (Torrington and Hall. Each system inevitably will be skewed or slanted towards one or more of these purposes at the expense of others. Performance appraisal systems are not generic or easily passed from 7 . and their organization as a whole.5 Critics of performance Appraisal System 1. 1979). conducting self-appraisals. 480). The processes inherent in these systems and the performance appraisal outcomes themselves can have an important influence on employees' reactions toward their work. (2005) 1. 1997) However. empirical studies have shown that no single performance appraisal system will effectively produce high quality results in all areas as discussed at section 1. their supervisors. political or irrelevant (Skarlicki and Folger.
Moncrieff ( 1992) has expressed this in the formula: Individual = energy × ability × motivation x performance external factors Energy is the individual’s capacity to do work. but is also powerfully affected by the social. Their design and administration must be tailor-made to match employee and organizational characteristics and qualities (Henderson. skills and innate abilities which enable an individual to convert energy into productive output. Motivation is the will to channel energy in a particular direction and to use ability to achieve particular ends. team-related (demands on time and other resources) or job-related (scope and discretion) However. p. 54). particularly those caused by stress. It is now recognized that personal happiness. etc. 1984. state of the economy. no single performance appraisal system can capture all these variables for an individual. It is also about flows and blockages. strength and peak performance are associated with the setting and achievement of personal goals and that this activity produces an energetic sense of “flow”. Ability is the sum of the knowledge. policies and systems. 1. External factors may be environmental (legislation.one company to another. 8 .5.).2 Individual performance in context There is a growing recognition that the work performance of people in organizations comes primarily from within. organizational (structure. etc). economic and political environment in which people work. It is a more encompassing term than behavioral “competence”.
. F. Weightman.G. Many writers have identified the reluctance of supervisors to undertake appraisals. S. One source of quality variation derives from the general attitudes that supervisors have towards the process. notes that “when surveyed about most disliked tasks. J. Hartle.. particularly when the supervisor is required to make subjective judgments of employee performance (as compared with an objective performance appraisal where the measurement focuses on the quantifiable aspects of job performance). (2005). L. Shanock. As a consequence Pollitt.1. managers say they hate conducting appraisals.R.3 Applying the concept of Quality in the performance appraisal process Quality is typically defined as establishing and operating processes that promote organisational efficiency.5. 1995) 1. second only to firing employees”. (1996).4 Attitudes and approach of supervisors The attitudes and approach of supervisors to the PA process has been identified as a source of quality variations in PA. stated that supervisors conduct appraisals in an “arbitrary and perfunctory manner” as they believe that “conducting performance appraisals requires considerable amounts of time and effort.5. generates few rewards and adds considerably to the manager's level of conflict and stress”. PA is a complex process and there is a lot of scope for variation. (2006). The aim of a quality approach is to reduce variation in every process in order to obtain greater consistency (Roch. Murphy and Cleveland. 1987. believes that many practitioners see appraisal as a necessary evil in corporate life. C. (1997). Subjective judgements have the potential to dilute the quality of the PA process as they may be influenced by bias or distortion as a result of emotion (Longenecker et al. 9 .
are uncomfortable about providing negative feedback. at the expense of how it is to be done. (1992). G.6 Multi skilling versus tight specification. Harris. Millar. Managers are encouraged to focus on producing visible short-term results at the expense of their organization’s capacity to deliver results in the longer term.5.Lawton A. but quality is ultimately the assessment made by the recipients of the process namely employees. The short-termism which is a feature of organizations emerges in the continuing obsession with current performance at work. believe that managers often avoid the appraisal process because they either fear the consequences or they feel the potential returns from their appraisal efforts are not worthy of the required investments.5 Current performance versus future potential. M. halo errors). 10 . (2000). Both historical approaches and modern job evaluation approaches push for tighter and more detailed job descriptions. J. hence the growing use of assessment and development centre methodologies to identify this..with what is to be done. often put off doing appraisals or apply their own set of internal values about performance when assessing their employees (Moncrieff. in terms of task accomplishment . Two contradictory trends produce a tension in considering managerial performance. 1. McKevitt. Empirical research has demonstrated that supervisors are a major source of quality variations in PA. but managerial performance in the short term is a poor indicator of future potential. D.5.. (2005). A second source of quality variation derives from the way supervisors exercise their responsibilities under an appraisal process. In order to encourage supervisors to conduct high quality performance appraisals. Researchers have demonstrated that supervisors make mistakes (for example. a supervisor is likely to find the assessment of their performance is partly a function of the way they manage the evaluations of those who report to them (Cunningham. 1. Performance appraisal systems reflect this trend. J.
Many professions therefore opt for audit .6 Inconsistencies in the assumptions of an appraisal system The performance appraisal system is fraught with inconsistencies: (a) The performance appraisal system by its design is a hybrid of a performance measurement and performance management. In all organizations where the core services are provided by professional staff there is the question of whether systems designed to appraise managerial performance are applicable to the performance of professional staff. accountability and hierarchical boss/subordinate relationships inherent in systems for appraising managerial performance skewed or slanted towards one or more of these purposes at the expense of others.an approach which emphasizes intra-professional autonomy. the growing deregulation of labor markets and the moves towards multiskilling and flexible working embodied in business process re-engineering suggest that individuals should be capable of performing a wide range of work activity as need and circumstances arise.5. (c)There is an assumption that the precision and accuracy of the measurements are the correct ones 11 . standard-setting and retrospective peer review . Performance management is action. motivation and processes and promotes innovation.In the opposing direction. based on performance measures and reporting.in direct contrast to the managerial leadership. 1. 1.7 Managerial performance versus professional performance. leadership and authority. Performance measurement is quantifying. either quantitatively or qualitatively. yet many performance appraisal system incorporate both these factors into a single process (b) There is an no operational definition for the indicator and there is no guarantee that the data are replicable. and the source data are not clearly defined. These are two extremes concept. which results in improvements in behaviour.
attitudes and orientations. 2004) (g) There are no difficulties of interpretation and simplistic measures are used performance evaluation data. Alternatively. The results are audited. employee satisfaction can be used to foretell customer satisfaction).(d) Frequently indicators are focused on short-term results which can hinder innovation and prevent investment in longer term initiatives (Allio. analysed and communicated they are “old news” and they have changed from being useful to merely providing accountability. (e) Indicator are usually split indicators into lagging indicators (which report results after the event) and leading indicators (which are used to predict a future event. 2004: Carlin. but rarely validated or reliability tested (Evans. 2006). It has been reported in a study that within schools. A data is most useful when it is analyzed and used in a predictive and dynamic way rather than as painting an historical picture. (h) It does not create dysfunctional behavior in an organization. by the time the data have been collected. based only on the contents of the exams. for example. and a narrower curriculum. 12 .7 Failure in the implementation of performance Some of the causes of failure in the implementation of a performance appraisal system are summarized below: (a) There entire process does not begins with some data collection and diagnosis aimed at establishing a base line of existing systems. extra attention is given to those “borderline” pupils to ensure they pass the exams. (f) One of the main problems is the lack of statistical rigor and testing carried out on performance indicator data (Brown. 2005). etc. These differences are not made in most performance appraisal system. is studied in an attempt to improve teacher performance 1. excessive time is given to exam techniques.
It should be pointed out that trade union and professional association representatives can have useful contributions to make to the design of systems in ways which reflect the concerns of their members. etc (h) There is no recognition that performance appraisal can be applied in modified versions to non-managerial staff. etc. although there should be some scope for further negotiation once a system is introduced. This is especially important if a new system is designed to replace earlier approaches which have a high degree of ownership by some staff groups. There are two aspects to training need. (d) No training investment is planned and implemented. (e) The system does not embodies some element of self-appraisal in addition to boss/subordinate review. coaching. The second is the more important. mentoring. and that team or group appraisal is therefore a key element. which means that it needs to be linked to such activities as business planning. (c) There is no adequate briefing and preparation. Adequate lead time and a planned and phased introduction which is consciously managed are vital components. (e) There is realization that performance appraisal can be used to install performance appraisal. (f) There is no understanding and acceptance that some managerial tasks are collective rather than individual in nature. and to skimp on training investment is dangerous. (g) There is no recognition that performance appraisal is a central management process. the mechanics of the system and the interpersonal skills needed for counseling. Setting a manager objectives to have all his/her staff subject to appraisal by an 13 .(b) There is no collaboration with trade unions and professional associations which is built in at the outset.
agreed date and then reviewing performance against this is an obvious means of doing this. 14 . (g) It is also possible to specify “failure criteria” (h) There is an underestimation of the time. effort and cost of designing a good system and then making it work. 1. from time to time need to be reviewed. therefore. rejuvenated and relaunched. despite good practice. ongoing and regular management activity. on the principle of “what gets measured is what gets done”. (j) Where there is over-concentration on the achievement of quantitative objectives and a corresponding underplaying of qualitative aspects.8 Consequence of Performance Appraisal system 1. Deviant behaviors fall into the following categories. (h) There is an unwillingness or inability to design and redesign work and jobs as a result of the outcomes of the appraisal process. (i) Where paperwork systems associated with appraisal are over-complex and where the system has degenerated into an annual ritual. performance appraisal systems often decay and.1 Deviant behaviors It has been reported in the literature review that performance appraisal create deviant behaviors.8. rather than a central. (k) Where there is an unwillingness to address the problem of unequal standards of appraisal applied by different appraisers in different parts of the same organization. (f) There is not an understanding that.
which runs counter to all thinking on quality and results in poorer performance(Adcroft and Willis (2005) 1. sup-optimization. Chang (2006) cites the example of waiting lists. 1977.4 Alienation of employees Pidd (2005) defines public sector organizations as consisting of being predominantly hierarchist. (iii) concentrating on meeting targets at the expense of other (unmeasured) factors. Performance management systems have emphasized the 15 .8. Subsequently the waiting lists were reduced. 1. This “improvement” was achieved by selecting the easy operations first (not based on clinical need).3Violation of human dignity Performance appraisal are assertions of organizational control which violate the assumption that everyone is acting with competence and in good faith. on which performance was based. p. measure fixation and misrepresentation.8. and those waiting for major operations such as hip replacements had to wait longer than previously. 359) 1. performance clustering around the target either through deliberately underperforming or manipulating the data.8.2 Professionalism It has also been reported that performance measurement reduces the professionalism of public sector staff and turns services into commodities. Violating this assumption lowers morale and confidence (Meyer and Rowan. and this can result in myopia.(i) (ii) setting undemanding targets and working to only just achieve them. and (iv) choosing indicators and targets to influence the results/manipulating the measures. tunnel vision.
5 Lack of customer focus Behn (2005) suggests that problems occur because managers implement a performance system with rules and regulations and then leave it to run. However reality is completely different and this has 16 . The test metaphor relies on the assumptions that an objective view of reality exits and. 1. As such. hence alienating most employees 1. or more consequential results that are valued by customers”. rather than take a hands-on operational approach.6 Internal politics and conflicts Around the world there are common issues arising in performance management systems from conflicts between different interest groups – internal politics between factions and coalitions. pressures from special interest groups. to the detriment of the long-term vision and ethos of the public sector.8. In many respects. performance appraisal has tendency to make employee to focus on internal process and internal politics rather than concentrating on the big picture i. or better. financial and numerical aspects to the detriment of the qualitative factors. and use leadership skills to “motivate people […] to produce more.rational. in the ideal appraisal situation.7 Short termism and Individualism It has been reported that managers have become more focused on obtaining immediate results.e the customers.8. this change in the management style and system represents a shift in values from equity. conflict between central agencies wanting control and departments/local bodies and professionals all wanting autonomy (Radin. 2003) 1.8. that both rater and the employee share this view.8 Low commitment Traditional research has viewed performance appraisals as “analogous to the psychometric process of constructing a test”.8. security and resilience – features of the public sector – to efficiency and individualism 1.
9 Reengineering the Performance appraisal systems Waldman. (1994) has distinguished between enabling and disabling systems in work organizations. There is a powerful element of self-fulfilling prophecy in this approach. rather than a ceiling beyond which no one can rise. (b) The system should start with a basic assumption that people want to do a good job and are trustworthy.a floor below which no one has an excuse for falling. The former encourage individuals and groups in organizations to improve their performance. For this reason they will be more attractive to professional staff who value their autonomy. D. rather than rules which they have to obey. in terms of a set of principles which people will need to follow. which a rigid system does not.cause interpersonal conflicts . (a) The system should identify minimum standards to be achieved . discretion and room for manoeuvre. Principles allow for choice. then diversity of approach for different areas of sub-organization entirely acceptable. This implies that.A.because someone else will change it ! (c) The performance appraisal system should be expressed. decrease of commitment and has been major cause of low motivation. turf fighting . or professional groups is 17 . while the latter act as a drag or brake on this process. 1. as far as possible. provided minimum standards are adhered to (and this can be proven). Using this distinction it is possible to devise some rules of thumb for the design of effective performance appraisal systems. (d ) The touchstone for judging the success of the appraisal system should be the extent to which it helps the organization deliver a better service to the customer. not least because a system designed to check and double-check performance will not encourage people to give of their best .
etc. rather than the 80 per cent interesting many. (i) Finally. merit rating and annual review” as the third of his “seven deadly diseases” of western management. but how it is to be done. often associated with the financial year and the business planning cycle.It should not be allowed to transform into one whose main purpose is to generate information for record-keeping or planning purposes.what are the 20 per cent vital few data which are needed. in an attempt to facilitate the journey towards business excellence through TQM initiatives. Deming suggest that organisations should relinquish and eliminate performance. In fact. 1. which are not. of the organization. before going on to the design of paperwork. 18 . who listed “evaluation of performance. training. The Pareto principle or 80/20 rule should apply . (g) The system needs to be piloted in representative parts of the organization. but with the understanding that the purpose of the pilot is not to consider if performance appraisal is to go ahead. a performance appraisal system designed to promote dialogue between people .10 TQM and Performance Appraisal The majority of literature on performance appraisal in the context of TQM are based on the discussion originally proposed by Deming (1986).(e) The system should be minimalist and not generate mountains of data. (h) Performance appraisal systems need to fit into the natural rhythms of organizational life .the existing peaks and troughs of activity. Design of the system would need to begin with how it reflects and affects the mission. purpose. (f) Performance appraisal systems should be line management designed and driven. with the role of the HR function being to provide support in ways that line management deems important. etc.
1991. Deming (1986) characterised the current approach to appraising performance in western management as “management by fear”. appraisal practices Second. Bounds and Pace. Ghorpade et al. In addition. Deming indicated that differences in employee performance within the middle of the distribution should be attributed to system factors. equipment. in an attempt to meet their appraisal objectives Taken together. claiming that staff are forced to look for short term. 1996). Deming (1986) questioned the degree of fairness of the current performance management systems since they hold the worker responsible for errors that may be the result of faults within the system (cited in. co-worker support. for Deming (1986).. managers need to maintain statistical process control charts on their employees. 1996). individual achievements. the following issues were highlighted as the main difficulties of performance appraisal from a TQM perspective: (a) Holds the worker responsible for errors that may be the result of faults within the system.He stressed that system factors exert a major influence on organisational performance and thus variance in performance is determined by systems-level features Systems-level features are generally beyond the control of the employee. and even proper training and direction by management (Cardy and Dobbins. According to Deming (1986). p. and only employees who are out of control limits (upper and lower 7. Examples of system factors include: quality of raw materials.5 per cent) should be considered as performing higher or lower than other employees. 1995. Cardy and Dobbins. over 85 per cent of variance in organisational performance is due to system factors and only 15 per cent of performance variance is due to person factors (see. 33). More specifically. suppliers. 19 . for further details.
in fact. 20 . (f) Encourages an approach to problem-solving that is superficial and culprit-oriented. cynics. undermines teamwork. (g) Disregards the existence of a system. and wasted human resources. (d) Creates a band of discouraged workers who cease trying to excel.(b) Focuses on the past rather than the improvement of future performance. (g) Tends to establish an aggregate of safe goals in an organisation. (f) Disregards and. and (i) Seeks to provide a means to administer multiple managerial functions . (e) Robs the workers of their pride in workmanship. (h) Disregards variability in the system. (c) Promotes worker behavior that compromises quality. (j) Promote individualism rather than team work – a sine qua non for cross funtional process improvement The consequences are (a) They promote worker behaviour that compromises quality. (i) Uses a measurement system that is unreliable and inconsistent. (h) Creates losers.
(f) They engender dysfunctional employee conflict and competition (g) They underemphasize the importance of the work group. p.11 Performance Appraisal in the Public Service 1. (e) They assume a false degree of measurement accuracy.11. (c) They assign an inordinate amount of responsibility for poor performance to individual employees while undervaluing the importance of the overall work process. The PRB initially proposed a performance management system for the public 21 . (d) They rob the workers of their pride in workmanship.(b) They create a band of discouraged workers who cease trying to excel. and (c) Awards and recognition must emphasize teams (team-based awards).1 Introduction This part of the assignment will critically look at performance appraisal in the public service. 202) precisely discussed team-oriented performance management and its congruity with the TQM context and listed the following steps needed to develop a team approach to performance management: (a) The performance management focus must shift from individuals to teams (b) An atmosphere of blame must be changed into one of trust so that the appraisals can be used to develop employees skills and abilities (driving out fear). 1. and they are often used as a managerial “Theory X” control device White and Nebeker (1996.
which are identified through strategic planning processes. standards and support incentives. It also purports to create a common bond of ownership among all employees as well as an environment where all individuals are developed. teams and individuals by understanding and managing performance within an agreed framework of planned goals.” 1. continuous process aimed at positively influencing employee behavior for the achievement of the organization’s strategic goals. In short. It seeks to establish clear links between organizational development.service in its 2003 Report and in the 2008 Report. motivated and inspired to deliver a quality performance. objectives. it is recommended that the system should be operationalised as from 2011 . 22 .11.11. the delivery of quality services and the development of employees at work. and a means of improving results from the organization. 1. the main purpose of the new system is to manage and improve performance at all levels in the Ministries/ Departments. the determination of the correct activities as well as the evaluation and recognition of the execution of tasks/duties with the aim of enhancing their efficiency and effectiveness.2 Definition The Guide to Performance Management of the Ministry of Civil service Affairs defines ‘performance management as a purposeful.3 Purpose of Performance Management System The purpose of the system is set out below: The primary aim of the Performance Management System at Ministries/Departments is to improve performance by focusing on key areas of activity.
23 . mission and values Departmental medium term strategic plans as well as annual plans and budgets Service delivery improvement plans Job descriptions Induction and orientation Job rotation Recognition programmes (non monetary) Employee personal development plans Workplace skills plan 1. it must be seen as part of an integrated HRM system and not as an isolated event or tool and should take the following into consideration:Ministry vision.11 5 Evaluation The evaluation is carried out using two criteria : (a) An individual key result are /Key task in terms of the requirement.1. To ensure that the system is effective.11.4 Scope of the system The Performance Management System requires that the management of performance at individual level integrates with the management of performance at organizational and unit levels. with emphasis on the outputs and their measures and the actual achievement against these outputs.
e both appraisers and appraisee) (c) The performance system is generic in the sense that it does cater for the diverse work force of the public sector eg a doctor will be assessed on the same basis as a Clerical Officer. (b) The system has been poorly planned and enough training has not been given to public officers (i. As mentioned in the literature review.6 Dealing with poor performance According to the guidelines.11. hence de motivating the employee. Work environment audits to establish whether there are other factors affecting performance. some of the options open to the Appraiser for overcoming poor performance are: Personal counseling.(b) The competencies of the employees on at least 10 factors 1.11. 24 . On-the-job coaching Training. measuring competence is a subjective factor and it could be perceived as unfair by the appraisee. Redefining the PA. 1.7 Performance Appraisal in the Public Service – the flaws in the system (a) The system is framed to measure both output and competence .
there is a great danger that performance appraisal will be taxed as a “management fad’ in two or three years time 1. As noted in the literature review. a famous author on quality i.e Deming (1986) was against performance appraisal because it does not promote team work but rather an individualistic behavior. (g) The system does not make provision for sociologist and psychologist to assist line managers as performance appraisal is a people issue. On the basis. On one hand PMS is at odd with quality and on the other hand no provision has been made in the PMS to frame and design the system to include team work. 25 .g a Civil service college (f) The Ministry is promoting quality in the Civil Service by assisting organization to implement ISO 9001:2008. All these factors point out that performance appraisal is the public sector will create more harm than good and it is heading towards a total failure. This could have served as a basis for fine tuning the system. the Ministry has limited resources allocated to training as well as it has not both the capacity and capability to train all the employees in the public sector e.(d) Although the outcome of a performance appraisal is to identify the area where an employee need to improve.12 Conclusion The above discussions on this topics have pointed out that there are two school of thought surrounding the benefits of performance appraisal the MBO (Management by Objectives) school and the quality management school. (h) There has not been a learning process as the system has not been tested on a pilot run in one or two Ministries. (e) With respect to training. there is not a systematic process to capture those information in the process eg training.
26 . workers could be motivated provided that the system is comprehensive and take into account the specificities of the organization while in the Quality Management school.In the MBO school. there is a need to foster team work in a performance appraisal system As such it can be concluded that there is more risk of mishandling performance appraisal in the MBO school.
in Smither.Managing Learning..5. J.386-400. R.. pp. G. CA. 26 No. (2004). Quorum Books. Bounds. "The (un)intended outcome of public sector performance measurement".W. Government Finance Review. Harris. pp. "Implementing performance management in England's primary schools". "The effects of performance review in appraisal: evidence and implication".219-32. Jossey-Bass Publishers. "An exploratory study of performance measurement systems and relationships with performance results".Competing Globally Through Customer Value: The Management of Strategic Suprasystems. Vol. M.M. (1991). Isles. (1986). San Francisco. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 22 pp. (Eds). 27 . (1996). Deming. 54 No. Behn. pp. (2005). "Human resource management in a total quality management environment: shifting from a traditional to a TQHRM approach". "Development of performance measurement systems in quality management organisations".648-82. (Eds). Dobbins.468-81 Carlin. 15 pp. New York. R. "Output-based management and the management of performance: insights from the Victorian experience". "Toward a theory of performance reporting to achieve public sector accountability: a field study". Vol. C.267-83.References Adcroft.63-4. Cardy.. H. C. London. in Stahl. (Eds). L. Vol. Vol.1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.115-32. W. R. Vol.5/6.765-86 Cunningham. (2004). 648-682 pp. (2005). R. 1 No. NY. pp. Chang. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.L.15-42.H. Vol. G. Vol. "Human resource management for competitive capability". (1998). G..E. Out of Crisis. J. T. pp.A. Vol. P.L. in Mabey. 21 No. J.. Bounds.133-61 . Fletcher.5-20.M. "Performance appraisal in a quality context: a new look at an old problem".J. (2006). pp. pp.Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice.7. Pace. Willis. G. Brown. Public Budgeting and Finance. Summer pp. Journal of Quality Management. (2005).. Journal of Operations Management. A. (2005). Routledge. (1986).. A. 18 No. Management Accounting Research. Vol.1. The Service Industries Journal. Cardy. Evans. "On the ludicrous search for the magical performance system".
(1979). Gioia. C. M. J. D.1. "Behind the mask: the politics of employee performance appraisal".M.I. London. "Coping with ambiguity: reconciling external legitimacy and organizational implementation in performance measurement". M. 64 pp. (1995). Fisher. 83 No.February. Moon. Journal of Applied Psychology. B. Rowan. Vol. A. (1977). (1997).. British Journal of Management. Henderson. Virginia. "Performance management in practice: a comparative stuffy of executive agencies".85-8 Ghorpade. "Creating quality-driven performance appraisal systems". Vol. R.M..Gerst. McKevitt. "Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations".J. Vol..3. Meyer. M. Kogan Page. (1992). Vol. Vol. (1993). (2005). Vol.. "Empowering people to perform". No. 16 pp. International Journal of Production Economics. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. Ilgen. Caggiano. C. P.. pp. Journal Public Administration Research and Theory. 1 pp.. Millar. Vol. Appraising Your Staff. pp. Taylor. "Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony". pp.18393. Quality Progress. pp. 16 pp.13-19 Lebas.D.. "Perversity in public service performance measurement".P. Practical Guide to Performance Appraisal. Chen. . Reston Publishing. (2005). C.R. H.5/6. Hartle.349-71. F. . P. The Academy of Management Executive.482-93. J. "Assessing organisational performance". Longenecker. 9 No. Pollitt.1. (1995). London. (2005).. pp. D. Transforming the Performance Management Process. Kogan Page.340-63.. American Journal of Sociology. "Performance measurement and performance management". (2000). Academy of Management Executive. 28 . J. Skelcher. Public Money & Management. M. 54 No.Association for Management Education and Development. pp.2. in Developing a Performanceoriented Culture (Eds). Vol. C. Vol. (1995). Lawton. (1987). J.23-35. "Performance decline and turnaround in public organizations: a theoretical and empirical analysis". London. Moncrieff.O. (1984).W..32-40. Jas. D.195-210.. Sims. R. 41 No. M.2544.S.A. Pidd. 20 No.
"Organizational justice in an exchange framework: clarifying organizational justice distinctions". Vol. 7 No. 13 No. Institute of Personnel and Development. Personnel Management – A New Approach.. L. D.193-215 29 . S. R. Vol. Journal of Applied Psychology. PrenticeHall International (UK). 26 No.6. New Zealand and the United States". "Evolution of quality management: British Benefit Enquiry Line". Nebeker. White. 32 pp. procedural. pp. M. Employee Resourcing. Waldman. London. C.. and interactional justice". . D. Train.A. Williams. L.. (1996). ASQC Quality Press. International Journal of Public Sector Management. Journal of Organisational Change Management. Vol. Journal of Management. "Designing management system for total quality implementation". "Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive. Milwaukee.2. B. Institute of Personnel and Development.31-44. "Team-oriented performance management: an alternative to traditional performance appraisal".1355-76. (1998).B... Roch.G. Managing People in the Health Service. (1996)..434-43 Taylor. (2000).12. D. pp. Skarlicki.P. (1997). London.M. D.Radin. Hertfordshire. (Eds). Shanock. Torrington. (2006). Vol. "A comparative approach to performance management: contrasting the experience of Australia. (1994). Hall.R.A.. (1991). 82 pp.Human Resources Management Perspectives on TQM. in Knouse. S. Weightman.299322. WI.52639. (2003). Concepts and Practices. S. L. Vol. pp. Folger. J. pp.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.