Modeling dynamics of real time appraisal .. indian army( pinku)
MODELING DYNAMICS OF REAL TIME APPRAISAL ; INDIAN ARMYNAME : COL SANJEEV BHATTACHARJEECOURSE : INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENTGROUP : M3 ( M)ROLL NO : 21
2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS1. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all my mentors in Bharatiya VidyaBhawan who have provided me an opportunity to work on this project which has beena great learning experience.2. I would also like to thank Mr Shubhinder Singh , Managing Director Reebok ,Mr Sajjad Shamim , Director Marketing Adidas India , Mr P Suri , Regional ManagerMarketing - Nike who spared their valuable time to discuss and guide me on myproject. I would also like to thank Ms Reeta Bhattacharjee , Director HR Reebok Indiawho has been an excellent guide and mentor for helping me appreciate andunderstand the importance of consumer behaviour and its relevance in positioningstrategy and advertisements.3. I would be failing in my duty , if do not mention my sincere gratitude to thebranch mangers of branded sports accessories and apparel companies in Kolkata ,for allowing me access to their facilities and their numerous sales and outlet staff inhelping me with my survey.
3"This world rests on the arms of heroes like a son on those of his sire. He, therefore, that is a hero deserves respect under everycircumstance. There is nothing higher in the three worlds thanheroism. The hero protects and cherishes all, and things depend upon the hero".
4 INDEXSER NO CHAPTER TOPIC PAGE NO1. CHAPTER NO 1 : INTRODUCTION 7-92. CHAPTER NO 2: OBJECTIVES , HYPOTHESIS & SCOPE 10 - 143. CHAPTER NO 3 : LIMITATIONS 15 - 244. CHAPTER NO 4 : THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE 25 - 485. CHAPTER NO 5 : METHODOLOGY & PROCEDURE OF WORK 49 - 566. CHAPTER NO 6 : FINDING & INFERENCES 57 - 667. CHAPTER NO 7: RECOMMENDATIONS 67- 698. CHAPTER NO 8: CONCLUSION 70 - 819. CHAPTER NO 9 : SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT REPORT 82 - 8610. ANNEXURES : i) PROPOSAL 87 - 94 ii) REFERENCES 95 - 96
5 CHAPTER NO 1 : INTRODUCTION1. A significant development in the field of organization, in recent times, is the increasingimportance towards management of human resources. Performance appraisal has been one of themost debated management practices for several decades. It has generated a wide variety ofviewpoints. Much attention is being paid to the motivational aspects of human personality,particularly the need for self-esteem, group belonging and self-actualization. This new awakening ofhumanization all over the globe has, in fact, enlarged the scope of applying various principles ofhuman resource management in organizations. The development of human resource elements, theircompetencies, and the process development of the total organization are the main concerns of humanresource management. 2. The history of appraisal is quite brief. Its roots originated the early 20th century. This can betraced to Taylors pioneering ‘Time and Motion’ studies. But such a reference may not be that helpful,for the same may be said about almost everything in the field of modern human resourcesmanagement. As a distinct and formal management procedure used in the evaluation of workperformance, appraisal dates from the time of the Second World War - not more than 70 years ago.Yet in a broader sense, the practice of appraisal is a very ancient art, which in the scale of thingsmight well lay claim to being the worlds second oldest profession!3. There is a basic human tendency to make judgments about those one is working with, aswell as about oneself. Appraisal, it seems, is both inevitable as well as universal. In the absence of acarefully structured system of appraisal, raters tend to judge the work-performance of others,including subordinates, naturally, informally and arbitrarily. The human inclination to judge doescreate serious motivational, ethical and legal problems in the workplace. Without a structuredappraisal system, there is little chance of ensuring that the judgments made will be lawful, fair,defensible and accurate.4. Appraisal system began informally as a simple method of income justification. That is,appraisal was used to decide whether or not the salary or wage of an individual ratee was justified.
6The process was firmly linked to material outcomes. If a ratee’s performance was found to be lessthan ideal it was then decided that a cut in pay would follow. On the other hand, if their performancewas better than what the rater expected, a pay rise was in order. Little consideration, if any, was givento the developmental possibilities of appraisal. If was felt that a cut in pay, or a rise, should providethe only required impetus for an ratee to either improve or continue to perform well. Sometimes thisbasic system succeeded in getting the results that were intended; but more often than not, it failed.5. Uneasiness or resistance to adopting appraisal is linked to appraisal attitudes and knowledge.Recent research, together with considerable anecdotal evidence, suggests that many organisations andtheir senior raters still regard appraisal as a mechanistic annual ritual which is a necessary evil. It isopined that it has little relevance to their ‘bottom line’. Overall, there has been minimal recognitionand understanding of the power of appraisal practice. This phenomenon is not surprising given thefindings of earlier studies indicating that raters, generally, neither have a full appreciation of the roleof human resource management in their organisation nor do these raters see human resourcemanagement as particularly strategic in nature. The appraisal of ratee performance, as well as theappraisal of its collective contribution to organisational effectiveness, has often been perceived as acombination of informal and formal techniques. Nevertheless, there is an emerging consensus thatthese techniques together have the potential to motivate individual ratees, their work groups and toevaluate the efficacy of all human resource management functions. This would provide organisationswith a strategic advantage in their ongoing pursuit of competitive goals/objectives and imperatives.6. The functional principles of management, from the point of view of appraisal revolve around;the nature of appraisal, managing appraisal, managing the ratee/ the rater and finally, the structure andresponsibilities of the organization. There is available today the knowledge and the experiencerequired for successful practice of appraisal. But, there is probably no field of human endeavour ororganizational efforts where the tremendous gap between the knowledge and performance of the ratervis-à-vis the knowledge and performance of the ratee is widening or becoming more intractable.There is widespread agreement that success or failure in appraisal depends on at least four criteria;organizational philosophy, the attitudes and skills of those responsible for its implementation,acceptance, commitment and ownership of appraisers/ appraisees and the endorsement of the notionsof ‘procedural fairness’ and ‘distributive justice’. Procedural fairness refers to the ratees’ perception
7of the program’s overall process equity. Distributive justice is linked to perceptions of the fairness ofassociated rewards and recognition out comes.7. Advocates of real-time based appraisal systems argue that appraisal programs are the logicaland preferable means to appraise, to develop and to effectively utilise the ratees’ knowledge andcapabilities. Of course, all of these outcomes will only be possible when the end user, the rater, iseducated in the effective processes of real-time based appraisal and persuaded of the potential benefitsof getting it right. Another school of thought is less supportive as regards the perspective of the meritsof appraisal. For instance, studies suggest that appraisal and appraisal ‘nourishes short-termperformance, annihilating long-term planning, building fear, demolishing teamwork and nourishingrivalry and politics’’. Some have critiqued the practical difficulties of appraisal systems whilstsupporting the underlying principles. Comparative analyses of both the schools of thought reveal thatthere is a lack of universal agreement as regards the effectiveness of appraisal programs.8. Despite the diversity of these views, appraisal programs, if effectively implemented, canbenefit both organisations and their ratees (this infact forms the hypothesis of the present researchproblem). Arguably, the system has the potential to provide individual feedback and collatedorganisational data. This can be used for the purposes of human resource management planning andprogram evaluation purposes. Moreover, collated data can assist planning, human resourcedevelopment programs and remuneration schemes. Individual appraisal outputs include opportunitiesfor remedial skills development, retention, career development and training and up skilling programs.
8 CHAPTER NO 2 : OBJECTIVES , HYPOTHESIS AND SCOPE OF THE STUDYOBJECTIVES OF APPRAISAL9. The principal objectives of carrying out an appraisal are, to bring about better operationalresults, meet ratee’s developmental needs, provide information useful for (staffing) planning byidentifying ratees with potential for advancement and with abilities yet to be used,(i.e. evaluatingon-the-job relationships for future ratee’s),to provide a basis for compensation action, form a basisfor promotions, transfers, form a platform for efficient/effective human resources development,provide an adequate feedback to each ratee on his / her performance, serve as a basis forimproving / changing behavior towards more efficient/effective working habits (to help each rateehandle his current job better), assist the superiors in acquiring an increased understanding of theirratee work behavior, the work itself and their ratee strength / weaknesses thereby developing a teamwork among the participants in an organizational setting (enhancing ratee’sefficiency/effectiveness), remove work alienation and help ratee’s internalize the norms, valuesand ethics of the organization, exercise control , develop interpersonal relationships and developdatabase about the ratee’s job / career graph.10. What Raters Need From Appraisals? Raters need comparative performance data formaking comparative decisions that affect both the ratee’s selected and the ones not selected. Withexception of a ‘termination for cause’, it is hard to imagine a personnel decision that is notcomparative. Some examples of decisions which are comparative are; Promotions, Downsizing,Merit Rewards, Incentive Rewards Job Assignments and Training Programs .With comparativedecisions, if one is promoted others are not; if one receives a favorable job assignment, others donot. In the case of decisions with negative consequences, such as downsizing, some are let go,others are retained.Whenever ratee’s believe the outcome of a decision has negatively affected theircareers, their opportunities, their chances for advancement, they claim unfair treatment. Theorganization can only defend itself from such a claim if they can show that the ratee selected wasnot just qualified. The individual ratee’s, however, needs information about his or her performancethat provides feedback about how his or her performance is viewed by the organization and
9especially about areas of marginal or substandard performance. In addition to being a review ofperformance, the data should also stimulate a dialogue between rater and ratee’s that anticipatesfuture performance, with an eye towards growth and development.11. Career development implies continued growth-learning additional skills and overcomingnew challenges. Raters no longer need to feel they are grooming ratee’s just for promotion, eitherwithin or outside of their departments. Instead, ratee’s may find job satisfaction by moving laterallyor by enriching their present positions with different responsibilities. Helping ratee’s develop theirskills and increase their knowledge strengthens the whole team. Ratee’s feel valued and are moreefficient when they perform more job functions. Raters who do not encourage career developmentmay lose productive ratee’s when positions are eliminated or ratee’s become dissatisfied. Thus, it iscrucial for raters to assume a coaching role and accept a few additional responsibilities. Because theold career paths are gone, ratee’s need to take some more responsibility for managing their careers.However, they need some assistance in that process. Successful organisations give them theresources and it is up to raters to communicate that message by acting as career coaches.12. Key objectives of appraisals include: validating selection and other management or culturalpractices, helping ratee’s understand and take responsibility for their performance and makingdecisions about rewards or promotions. Important steps to obtaining useful traditional appraisalsinclude determining the type of data to be collected as well as who must conduct the appraisal,establishing a rating philosophy, overcoming typical rating deficiencies, creating a ratinginstrument, and engaging the ratee in making decisions on future performance changes. An effectivenegotiated appraisal helps the ratee take additional ownership for both continuing effectiveperformance and improving weak areas. Ratee goals set through appraisals should be difficult butachievable, as goals that are overly ambitious are doomed for failure. Some ratee’s tend to boycotttheir own progress by setting impossible goals to achieve. Finally, ratee does want to know whatyou think of their work. Letting ratee know that you have noticed their efforts goes a long waytowards having a more motivated workforce.13. Appraisal is a vehicle to validate / refine organizational actions and provide feedback toratee’s with an eye on improving future performance. Ratee selection, training and just about any
10cultural or management practice (such as the introduction of a new pruning method or an incentiverewards program) may be evaluated in part by obtaining ratee’s performance data. The evaluationmay provide ideas for refining established practices or instituting new ones. Some options include,paying more attention to interpersonal skills when selecting new raters, encouraging present ratersto attend communication / conflict and providing the rater one-on-one counselling. Data fromappraisals can also help ratee’s plan for long-term staffing and ratee’s development, give rewardsraises or other rewards, set up a ratee counselling session, institute discipline or dischargeprocedures.14. Keeping all the above on a holistic platform, the principal aim of this study is to narrow thegap between what can be done and what is being done by the rater and the ratee in the dynamics ofappraisal. An attempt has been initiated in examining real-time based appraisal, juxtaposed withperformance management, in organizations along with identification of the concepts and issuesinvolved in the process. The attempt aims at setting out the framework required to ensureaccountability for performance, emphasize the need for innovative mechanisms and highlight the keyparameters for a successful performance management system. The prime purpose would be tocompare the findings of earlier studies and to ascertain whether processes have evolved to provide amore effective strategic tool in the human resource appraisal repertoire. The study would update dataon the goals, purposes, types, measures, and communication techniques of contemporary appraisalsystems. With this as the backdrop, the objective of this study is; 1. To assess the suitability of appraisal an instrument of individual and organizational development, 2. To examine the mechanics of modeling appraisal, 3. To apply the model in the context of Indian Army, and 4. To offer constructive criticisms and recommend a set of functional package pertaining to the dynamics of appraisal.HYPOTHESIS15. Real-time based appraisal facilitates individual and organizational development.
11 SCOPE OF THE STUDY16. The scope of the present study is to examine the various facets of real-time based appraisal and their inter-relationships in a macro perspective. However, the scope the case study has been restricted to the Officer’s cadre of the Indian Army. The organization harbors a vast pool of respondents who are apprised and do the job of appraising at various levels on a different platform. This adds to the diversifying nature of appraisal. The sole instrument for appraisal in the Army is the Annual Confidential Report which is based on a rating scale system. There is a general resentment that the appraisal system suffers from various lacunae and does neither meet the respondents’ needs nor the organizational needs. ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION 17. The issues under consideration are as under : a) There is a need to review the extra-role contributions of appraisal correlates. This would specify the appraisal referent that is tied to the extra-role contributions, a need for re- formulation of the appraisal proposition and finally, establish the linkage between individual and organizational development. b) While analyzing the above issues there is a pressing need to examine the objectivity and transparency of appraisal, the assessment of individual skills and individual worth, the aspects of communication, motivation, performance satisfaction ,training ,superior - subordinate relationship working environment ,significance in organizational setting and emphasis on the date-process . JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE STUDY 18. Appraisal is attaining an increased order of importance from the point of view of achievement of meaningful personal and system goals. There is a need to establish a frame-work wherein, the appraisal can target at improving skills, productivity, organization and excellence towards individual and organizational development. 19. Appraisal programmes has not fared well in the eyes of the critics. It is often argued that such instruments have not contributed any new ideas. The argument put forth is that most or all of the
12appraisals are not based on real-time dynamics. There is the inadequate status of present knowledge.This necessitates adapting real-time based innovative mechanism with a survey of the conceptual andempirical parameters.20. Apparently the present arrangement in the Indian Army does not fully meet the organizationalrequirements. Nor does it enjoy implicit faith of the Respondents reported upon. This needs to becritically evaluated, examined and replaced with a more comprehensive and transparent system. Thisis in order to ensure that the objectives of appraisal are recognized and respected in principle andpractice.21. There is the need to re-examine certain select principles and practices of the appraisalprogrammes. This would have to be done by establishing and interpreting human statistics. There is aneed to envision a more research focused and multi- disciplinary engagement with complexfundamental issues that face organizations today. There are specific questions that would benefit fromdeeper intellectual engagement given the array of appraisal criterion and methodologies beingadopted and followed by various organizations.22. Appraisal criterion and methodologies are often inadequately described and not based on real-time considerations. With some degrees of controlled exploration there is a possibility of prescribing astandard bench-mark apparatus.ASSUMPTIONS23. The following are the assumptions to this study: (a) That, the decision maker (rater) determines a solution to his routine or repetitive problem of assessing his rates, (b) That, the decision maker (rater) has the ability to examine a situation, for the multiplevariables, from various angles and simulating it.
13 CHAPTER NO 3 : LIMITATIONSCOMPLEXITIES IN APPRAISAL24. Recent trends and developments in the mechanism of appraisal have raised a package ofpertinent issues. The questions are; how to define a job, how to design an appraisal system ,how todifferentiate between performance and potential appraisal / development, whether appraisal should bemixed / paired /absolute / 360-degree, how to assign weights to parameters , how to conduct aperformance audit , what are the significant errors , how to bring about statistical soundness, whatshould be the nature and form of feed back, how to make the system of appraisal more pragmaticand how to make the purpose of appraisal more development – oriented rather than punitive , to list afew. All these require serious introspection on an inter-disciplinary basis.25. Appraisal has many facets. It is an exercise in observation and judgment; it is a feedbackprocess and is an organizational intervention. It is a measurement process as well as an intenselyemotional process. Above all, it is an inexact human process. While it is fairly easy to prescribe as tohow the system should work, descriptions of how it actually works in practice are rather discouraging.Most ratees want feedback as long as it mirrors their self-perception. When it does, they tend to likeit. When it doesn’t, they don’t.COMMON PITFALLS26. Obstacles to the success of formal appraisal programs are familiar to most raters, either frompainful personal experience or from the growing body of critical literature. Presented in thesuccessive paragraphs are the most troublesome and frequently cited drawbacks:27. Appraisal programs demand too much from raters. Formal appraisals obviously require atleast periodic rater observation of subordinates performance. However, the typical first-line ratercan hardly know, in a very adequate way, just what each of his subordinates are doing. Standardsand ratings tend to vary widely and, often, unfairly. Some raters are tough, others are lenient. Somedepartments have highly competent ratee’s; others have less competent ratee’s. Consequently,ratee’s subject to less competition or lenient ratings can receive higher appraisals than equallycompetent or superior associates. Personal values and bias can replace organizational standards.
1428. An appraiser may not lack standards, but the standards he uses may be sometimes the wrongones. For example, unfairly low ratings may be given to valued subordinates so they must not bepromoted out of the rater’s department. More often, however, outright bias dictates favoredtreatment for some ratee’s. Because of lack of communication, ratee’s may not know how they arerated. The standards by which ratee’s think they are being judged are sometimes different fromthose their superiors actually use.29. No appraisal system can be very effective for management decisions, organizationdevelopment, or any other purpose until the ratee’s being appraised know what is expected of themand by what criteria they are being judged. Appraisal techniques tend to be used as performancepanaceas. If a ratee’s lacks the basic ability or has not been given the necessary training for his job,it is neither reasonable to try to stimulate adequate performance through appraisals, nor fair to basesalary, dismissal, or other negative decisions on such an appraisal.30. Poor performance represents someone elses failure. In many cases, the validity of ratings isreduced by rater’s resistance to making the ratings. Rather than confront their less effectivesubordinates with negative ratings, negative feedback in appraisal interviews, and below-averagesalary increases, raters often take the more comfortable way out and give average or above-averageratings to inferior performers. Appraisal ratings can boomerang when communicated to ratee’s.Negative feedback (i.e., criticism) not only fails to motivate the typical ratee, but also can cause himto perform worse .Only those ratee’s who have a high degree of self-esteem appear to be stimulatedby criticism to improve their performance. Appraisals interfere with the more constructive coachingrelationship that should exist between a superior and his subordinates. Appraisal interviews tend toemphasize the superior position of the rater by placing him in the role of judge, thus countering hisequally important role of teacher and coach. This is particularly damaging in organizations that areattempting to maintain a more participative organizational climate.31. The organization must not get trapped into the various pitfalls that come along withadministration of appraisal system. The question that arises here is how to avoid these pitfalls? Anecessary condition for the effective management of appraisal system in any organization is theneed to clarify and communicate to all concerned, the objectives that the system intends to achieve.
15Everyone in the organization especially the key decision makers should be fully aware of preciselywhat objectives the system of appraisal is expected to achieve, and the priorities within theseobjectives.BARRIERS TO APPRAISAL32. The widely recognized barriers to an efficient/effective appraisal are; a) Faulty Assumptions (that, appraisers naturally wish to make fair and accurate appraisal of ratee is untenable, that, appraisers take a particular appraisal system as perfect and continue with that format for ever, that, personal opinion is better than formal appraisal and that, ratee’s eagerness to know their position is not valid). b) Psychological Blocks (appraisers feeling of insecurity, appraisal as an extra burden, degree of being excessively modest or sceptical, disliking of resentment by ratee, treatment of ratee failure as deficiency of own and disliking of communication of poor performance to ratee). c) Technical Pitfalls (Criterion problem which is difficult to define, ambiguous, vague and generalization, distortions that include halo effect, central tendency, constant errors and appraisers’ degree of liking / disliking and shifting standards that include first impression, latest behaviour, horn effect and spill-over effect ).33. Many researchers are skeptical about the use of self-ratings. They believe that problemsassociated with informant fallibility strongly contaminate the results from questionnaires askingratee’s to report on themselves and their performances. It has been observed that inaccurate recall inretrospective reporting can result from inappropriate rationalizations, oversimplifications, faultyattributions and simple lapses of memory. Besides, ratee’s are naturally motivated to presentthemselves in a favorable light; that is, self-assessment suffers from enhancement or inflation bias.This tendency, referred as the ‘leniency-effect’, is related to notion that ratee’s are motivated bydrives of self-enhancement, which lead to the emphasizing of merits and de-emphasizing of faults.Nevertheless, despite doubts on the validity of self-ratings and its utilization in applied research
16 settings, there is reason to believe that individual ratee’s are in a good position to make a valid assessment of their own professional knowledge and skills. They possess the greatest familiarity with the job and provide ratings that are reliable and have fewer errors. Who else has a better understanding of a job and one’s functioning in it than the one who has access to wide samples of behaviors under varying situations and periods of time.34. Empirical studies by various agencies and authors during the last decade highlight issues like, non- conducive work culture, lack of appreciation towards appraisal dynamics, lack of interest by top brass for adoption, fear and apprehension about the outcome, lack of confidentiality, interference by unions and associations, lack of proper system / procedure, lack of accountability, lack of clarity, lack of proper skills in the rater towards performance analysis, constraint of time availability, personal bias on the part of the rater and subjectivity, non-uniformity in the criteria of appraisal, lack of trust and openness between ratee and rater, heterogeneous interest, low motivation, target achievement oriented system and non-recognition of the effort in subordinate development as certain burning issues in the dynamics of appraisal.35. To tackle barriers, attempts must be directed at, a) Barrier Smashing (recognize the benefit of removing barriers in the systems and processes of the everyday work flow, identify types of flowcharts that can be used to examine work flow, determine if critical ratee’s and core resources are performing to the fullest extent in a scenario and identify ways to eliminate waste that occurs in the work flow). b) Performance Standards and Measurement ( recognize the value of utilizing standards and measurement as a means of improving performance and removing barriers to achievement , identify factors for consideration prior to measurement , identify the various categories of indicators that can be used to provide measurement data and determine if a rater appropriately develops and implements performance standards in a scenario ). c) Tracking Improvement ( recognize the benefits of challenging the traditional appraisal approach to ratee evaluation , identify the truths behind most appraisals ,
17 determine if a rater uses appropriate strategies for managing performance in a given scenario and use appropriate methods for providing direction to ratee’s in a given scenario ). d) Risk-taking and Experimentation (recognize the critical importance of taking risks and experimenting when developing as a leader, identify reasons why risk-taking is important and beneficial, encourage ratee’s to take risks in a given scenario and demonstrate commitment to risk-taking in a given situation ).36. To overcome the above barriers, the standard prescriptions towards a rational appraisal are,go for satisfactory level of reliability only, focus on objective analysis of performance, appraisalsystem be so designed to minimize undesirable effects, ratee and rater organization to monitor theappraisal system, ratings be reviewed with the ratee, appraisal system should be backed by afeedback mechanism and organization should have a supportive management logic.LEGAL ASPECTS37. Legal aspects on performance accountability can provide a framework through which rateesand organizations are required to set strategic goals, measure performance and report periodicallyon the degree to which goals are met. Such legal aspects require the development of multi-yearstrategic plans focused on long-term goals and annual performance plans with specific indicators tomeasure performance. The legal aspects create a process to be used by the ratees and organizationsin measuring their annual performance by identifying four key distinct performance indicatorswhich are, output, outcome, efficiency and effectiveness. Ultimately, such objectivemeasurement means that decisions are based on programme effectiveness rather than supposition.This ultimately provides policy makers with better information for allocating resources. A rationalperformance model must include featureslike: performance accountability system, a comprehensive performance accountability system for allorganizations, two-fold accountability; internal accountability (accountability to internal processes)and external accountability .38. Organizations need to submit reports to the appropriate authority at periodical intervals.Focus on consolidating and analysing performance of organizations and preparation of reports.
18Reports should incorporate grading of performance according to the criteria prescribed and followedby the organization. Periodic evaluation of performance of organizations and feedbacks on theirimplementation should be assessed. Results of such evaluation should be reflected in the annualperformance report of the concerned organization.39. SUGGESTIONS : (for Limiting Appraisals’ Unwanted Effects) a) That, employment is understood to be at will; b) That, the rater expressly reserves the right to discharge the ratee at any time for any reason with or without cause and with or without notice; c) That, nothing in the rater’s policies, practices, or procedures, including appraisals, should be construed to confer any right upon the ratee to continued employment; d) That, the rater expressly reserves the right to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of employment, including the manner in which performance is or is not appraised; e) That, the rater is under no obligation to appraise performance; f) That, neither the fact that appraisals are or are not conducted, nor the manner in which they may be conducted, should be construed to give rise to a ‘just cause’ requirement for terminating the employment relationship. g) That, appraisals and other evaluation procedures should in no way be considered in any other manner in determining the existence or nature of any employment relationship that may be found to exist between the parties.40. PROCEDURES (for Legally Sound Appraisals). Appraisal procedures: a) Should be standardized and uniform for all ratee’s within a job group; b) Should be formally communicated to ratee’s;
19 c) Should provide notice of performance deficiencies, and opportunities to correct them; d) Should provide access for ratee’s to review appraisal results; e) Should provide formal appeal mechanisms that allow for ratee input; f) Should use multiple, diverse, and unbiased raters; g) Should provide written instructions and training for raters; h) Should require thorough and consistent documentation across raters that include specific examples of performance based on personal knowledge; i) Should establish a system to detect potentially discriminatory effects or abuses of the system overall.41. LEGAL GUIDELINES : Performance ratings must be job-related. a) Ratee’s must be given a written copy of their job standards in advance of appraisals. b) Raters who conduct the appraisal must be able to observe the behaviour they are rating. c) Raters must be trained to use the appraisal form correctly. d) Appraisals should be discussed openly with ratee’s and counselling or corrective guidance offered. e) An appeal procedure should be established to enable ratee’s to express disagreement with the appraisal.ISSUES IN APPRAISAL42. Certain issues need to be tackled while dealing with the appraisal mechanism. These arewhat to asses, which rater should assess performance, which appraisal technique needs to be used,how to communicate appraisal output and how to train appraisers for efficient/effective appraisal?
2043. Forms of change requirements that necessitate incorporation are, need to be more realisticabout limitations of human ability, need for development of a rational and scientific foundation inthe appraisal dynamics, need to recognize vital aspects of total human existence, need to incorporateethical aspects, exploring whether to go in for a ‘run-of-the-mill’ system developed elsewhere inresponse to certain unfortunate legal demands (given the fact that it is of little, if any, utilityvalue),information collected from a variety of sources should be balanced and a heterogeneousblend of ‘excellent-good-average-poor-hopeless’, how does the rater propose to deal with it, whatquality of conclusions can an appraiser reasonably draw from such a clumsy feedback, what rangeof personnel-related decisions does a rater intend to take through the instrumentality ofcumbersome, time-consuming, yet contextually useless documentation in the face of high mobilityrates (this is the result of a marked shift from the traditional long-term loyalty to job-hopping), whatdevelopmental purpose must such a frustrating, multi-rater feedback possibly serve and finally, isthere the need of an ‘alibi’ in the shape of a stack of junk forms for applying negative sanctionswhich that be necessary or even indispensable in an organisation that has been characterized by a‘hire-and-fire-at-must’ mindset.44. Performance - based budgeting serves as a strategic planning tool towards improving theclarity and consistency of scheme of appraisal designs. This facilitates a common understanding andbetter communication between organization and ratee’s in the desired results of scheme ofappraisals. Performance - based budgeting allows organizations to attain a unified sense of purposeand direction. Moreover, through the measurement of performance in achieving defined results,performance - based budgeting provides feedback to scheme of appraisals on how well they aredoing and creates a strong incentive for adopting best practices and efficiencies in use of resources.This improves the quality of services and other outputs.45, Performance - based budgeting has also been proposed as a means to release raters fromoverly restrictive input and/or central controls and to accord them more discretion in determiningthe right mix of human-technical-material - financial resources to meet expected results. Inperformance - based budgeting, the increase of the accountability and responsibility of concernedofficials (a consequence of holding them responsible for achieving results) is designed to go hand inhand with an amplified authority for managing all resources , including human resources.
2146. To overcome the demerits and subjectively further there are laid down ethics. If followedreligiously, it would not only give a true picture of the Rates but reveal the strength of their timetested system. One issue that merits attention here is regarding the ‘Ethical Dilemma’ in reporting.Can, or should a rater go strictly by his convictions / ethical standards and grade an ratee lowdespite being aware of the general inflationary trends in reporting in the environment, when he iscertain that the ratee is better than another ratees, who is perhaps graded better that this ratees.There is no answer for the riddle. There as initiating raters and future reviewing raters will have toresolve this issue by themselves. It can summed up by making a statement here that perhaps it is afalse sense of regimentation, that has been a major contributor of the present inflationary trends thesystem.ISSUES OF DIVERSITY47. This section provides information regarding the issues of diversity in appraisal. For purposeof this, ethnicity is considered part of the overall ‘diversity’ issue. a) Religion: Although religion should not be considered in the appraisal process, it would be prudent to be sure that all raters or ratee’s to cognizant of the religious customs and practices of ratee’s they supervise. This must make sure that ratee’s are not held liable for actions inappropriately. b) Gender Issues: Psychoanalysts and psychoanalytically-oriented organizational practitioners have made considerable progress over the last four decades in the exploration and interpretation of organizational behaviour. Their efforts have resulted in an in-depth understanding of the complexities of contemporary organizations and the complications they can create for employees. Theory, research, and application have been quite illuminating, particularly in the areas of management, leadership, personality characteristics, group dynamics, stress, and executive emotional health. However, not surprisingly, most of what has been learned about organizations has come from the study of men and their work in male-dominated institutions. Exploration of the experience and meaning of professional
22 work for women has only received serious consideration in the past fifteen years and has been researched largely from social and organizational psychology and management theory perspectives.48. Evaluate the ratee on work related elements, which have been made clear and do notevaluate on differences in communication style. Ensure that appraisal criteria focuses on theobjective results and targets achieved. If there is a low ratio of women to men then the ladiesshould not be given any undue privileges. There is a need to discourage any disparity offunctioning and appraisal.49. When conducting appraisals, raters should clearly convey work expectations and make surethat ratee’s understand expectations. This can be accomplished by incorporating equal performancestandards for all ratee’s. Equally important is realizing that some raters expect some ratee’s to besuperstars and from others they must expect very little. Raters should re-examine judgments to makesure that poor performance is not overlooked due to being uncomfortable about providing feedback tothose different than self. If raters provide feedback often and equally to all members then this issueshould not prevail. Failure to give legitimate feedback because of being feared labelled as sexist,racist or discriminatory can demean the importance of the ratee’s career goals and expectations.An attempt has been done towards modeling appraisal on a real-time basis. From the operationalresearch point of view modeling may not actually represent the core ‘real universal problem’ in whichdecisions are made.50. Modeling efforts are complex and the results so obtained through real – time efforts aredifficult to be explained to the Rater. This may fail to gain their support and confidence. Raters arerequired to be quite explicit about their objectives, their assumptions and their way of visualizing theirconstraints. There may be problems of quantifying in real terms.
23 CHAPTER NO 4: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVEVIEWS OF PETER DRUCKER51. Drucker (1946) proclaimed peak performance by the ratee as a goal. This was by assertingthat appraisal should go beyond human relations and inter-ratee aspects. Insistence on high goals andhigh performance requires that an individual’s ability to set high goals and attain them must besystematically appraised. Appraisal is judgment and this always requires a definite standard thatshould always be based on proven performance. To judge means to apply a set of standard values.Value judgments without clear and sharp standard are irrational and arbitrary. An appraisal thatfocuses on potential, on personality, on promise etc. on anything that is not proven is an abuse. Thegreatest mistake is to build on weaknesses.52. Any real-time based appraisal must involve and systematically evaluate comparison ofperformance parameters of ratees holding similar areas of work responsibilities, their performance onthe job and their potential for development. This would thereby determine their worth for theaccomplishment of organizational goals by reducing important discrepancies between the desired /required conditions and the present / anticipated conditions.REAL-TIME CONCEPTUALISATION53. Focus on real-time based performance introspection has recently emerged as a criticalinstrument for improving the delivery of services and infrastructure to the ratee .To ensureaccountability for results, the organization and agencies at various levels must implement aperformance measurement and management system that would establish a link between developmentgoals, policies, priorities, plans, strategy, vision, mission, programmes, projects, action plans andperformance towards achieving the desired aims and objectives. Balances of quantitative andqualitative, financial and non-financial indicators are necessary to measure the effectiveness andefficiency of organization programmes and functions.
24TECHNIQUES OF APPRAISAL:54. The various techniques of appraisal usually practiced by various organisations are, writtenappraisal method, field review method, critical incident method, adjective type method, forcedchoice method, graphic rating scale method, ranking method, grading method, paired comparisonmethod, forced distribution method, check list method, essay method, results or objectives method,behaviourally anchored rating method and appraisal technique, to list a few.55. Essay appraisal: In its simplest form, this technique asks the rater to write a paragraph ormore covering an individuals strengths, weaknesses, potential, and so on. In most selectionsituations, essay appraisals from former employers or associates carry significant weight. Theassumption seems to be that an honest and informed statement, either by word of mouth or inwriting, from someone who knows the ratee well, is fully as valid as more formal and morecomplicated methods. The biggest drawback to essay appraisals is their variability in length andcontent. Moreover, since different essays touch on different aspects of a mans performance orpersonal qualifications, essay ratings are difficult to combine or compare. For comparability, sometype of more formal method, like the graphic rating scale, is desirable.56. Graphic Rating Scale: This technique may not yield the depth of an essay appraisal, but itis more consistent and reliable. Typically, a graphic scale assesses a ratee on the quality andquantity of his work (is he outstanding, above average, average, or unsatisfactory?) and on a varietyof other factors that vary with the job but usually include personal traits like reliability andcooperation. It may also include specific performance items like oral and written communication.The graphic scale has come under frequent attack, but remains the most widely used rating method.In a classic comparison between the ‘old-fashioned’ graphic scale and the much more sophisticatedforced, choice technique, the former proved to be fully as valid as the best of the forced, choiceforms, and better than most of them. It is also cheaper to develop and more acceptable to raters thanthe forced, choice form. For many purposes there is no need to use anything more complicated thana graphic scale supplemented by a few essay questions.
2557. Field Review: When there is reason to suspect rater bias, when some raters appear to beusing higher standards than others, or when comparability of ratings is essential, essay or graphicratings are often combined with a systematic review process. The field review is one of severaltechniques for doing this. A member of the personnel or central administrative staff meets withsmall groups of raters from each ratery unit and goes over each employees rating with them to ,identify areas of inter, rater disagreement, help the group arrive at a consensus and determine thateach rater conceives the standards similarly. This group, judgment technique tends to be fairer andmore valid than individual ratings and permits develop an awareness of the varying degrees ofleniency or severity, as well as bias, exhibited by raters in different departments. On the negativeside, the process is very time consuming.58. Forced Choice Rating: Like the field review, this technique was developed to reduce biasand establish objective standards of comparison between ratee’s, but it does not involve theintervention of a third party. Although there are many variations of this method, the most commonone asks raters to choose from among groups of statements those which best fit the individual beingrated and those which least fit him. The statements are then weighted or scored, very much the waya psychological test is scored. Ratee’s with high scores are, by definition, the better ratee’s; thosewith low scores are the poorer ones. Since the rater does not know what the scoring weights foreach statement are, in theory at least, he cannot play favorites. The rationale behind this technique isdifficult to fault. It is the same rationale used in developing selection test batteries. In practice,however, the forced, choice method tends to irritate raters, who feel they are not being trusted. Theywant to say openly how they rate someone and not be second-guessed or tricked into making‘honest’ appraisals. An additional drawback is the difficulty and cost of developing forms.Consequently, the technique is usually limited to middle, and lower, management levels where thejobs are sufficiently similar to make standard or common forms feasible. Finally, forced, choiceforms tend to be of little value, and probably have a negative effect, when used in appraisalinterviews.
2659. Critical incident appraisal: The discussion of ratings with ratee’s has, in manyorganizations, proved to be a traumatic experience for raters. Some have learned from bitterexperience who receive honest but negative feedback are typically not motivated to do better , andoften do worse , after the appraisal interview. Consequently, raters tend to avoid such interviews, orif forced to hold them, avoid giving negative ratings when the ratings have to be shown to the rater.One stumbling block has no doubt been the unsatisfactory rating form used. Typically, these aregraphic scales that often include rather vague traits like initiative, cooperativeness, reliability, andeven personality. Discussing these with a rater can be difficult. The critical incident technique lookslike a natural to some ratee’s for performance review interviews, because it gives a ratee actual,factual incidents to discuss with an employee. Raters are asked to keep a record, a ‘little blackbook,’ on each ratee and to record actual incidents of positive or negative behavior. There are,however, several drawbacks to this approach. It requires that raters jot down incidents on a daily or,at the very least, a weekly basis. This can become a chore. Furthermore, the critical incident ratingtechnique need not, but may, cause a rater to delay feedback to raters. And it is hardly desirable towait six months or a year to confront an employee with a misdeed or mistake. Finally, the rater setsthe standards. If they seem unfair to a subordinate, might he not be more motivated if he at least hassome say in setting, or at least agreeing to, the standards against which he is judged?60. Management by objectives: To avoid, or to deal with, the feeling that they are being judgedby unfairly high standards, raters in some organizations are being asked to set, or help set, their ownperformance goals. It should be noted, however, that when MBO is applied at lower organizationallevels, raters do not always want to be involved in their own goal setting. Many do not want self,direction or autonomy. As a result, more coercive variations of MBO are becoming increasinglycommon, and some critics see MBO drifting into a kind of manipulative form of management inwhich pseudo, participation substitutes for the real thing. Raters are consulted, but managementends up imposing its standards and its objectives. Some organizations are introducing a work,standards approach to goal setting in which the goals are openly set by management. In fact, thereappears to be something of a vogue in the setting of such work standards in white-collar and serviceareas.
2761. Work-Standards approach: Instead of asking raters to set their own performance goals,many organizations set measured daily work standards. In short, the work standards techniqueestablishes work and staffing targets aimed at improving productivity. When realistically used, itcan make possible an objective and accurate appraisal of the work of raters and raters. To beeffective, the standards must be visible and fair. Hence a good deal of time is spent observing raterson the job, simplifying and improving the job where possible, and attempting to arrive at realisticoutput standards. It is not clear, in every case, that work standards have been integrated with anorganizations appraisal program. However, since the work, standards program provides eachemployee with a more or less complete set of his job duties; it would seem only natural that raterswill eventually relate appraisal and interview comments to these duties. The use of work standardsshould make performance interviews less threatening than the use of personal, more subjectivestandards alone. The most serious drawback appears to be the problem of comparability. If ratee’sare evaluated on different standards, how can the ratings be brmustgether for comparison purposeswhen decisions have to be made on promotions or on salary increases? For these purposes someform of ranking is necessary.62. Ranking methods: For comparative purposes, particularly when it is necessary to comparepeople who work for different raters, individual statements, ratings, or appraisal forms are notparticularly useful. Instead, it is necessary to recognize that comparisons involve an overallsubjective judgment to which a host of additional facts and impressions must somehow be added.There is no single form or way to do this. Comparing ratee’s in different units for the purpose of,say, choosing a service rater or determining the relative size of salary increases for different raters,requires subjective judgment, not statistics. The best approach appears to be a ranking techniqueinvolving pooled judgment. The two most effective methods are alternation ranking and pairedcomparison ranking.63. Alternation ranking: In this method, the names of raters are listed on the left-hand side of asheet of paper, preferably in random order. If the rankings are for salary purposes, a rater is asked tochoose the ‘most valuable’ employee on the list, cross his name off, and put it at the top of thecolumn on the right-hand side of the sheet. Next, he selects the ‘least valuable’ employee on the list,crosses his name off, and puts it at the bottom of the right-hand column. The ranker then selects the
28‘most valuable’ person from the remaining list, crosses his name off and enters it below the topname on the right-hand list, and so on.64. Paired- comparison ranking: This technique is probably just as accurate as alternationranking and might be more so. But with large numbers of raters it becomes extremely timeconsuming and cumbersome. Both ranking techniques, particularly when combined with multiplerankings (i.e., when two or more ratee’s are asked to make independent rankings of the same workgroup and their lists are averaged), are among the best available for generating valid order, of, meritrankings for salary administration purposes.
2965. Assessment centers: What about the assessment of future performance or potential? In anyplacement decision and more so in promotion decisions, some prediction of future performance isnecessary. How can this kind of prediction be made most validly and most fairly? One widely usedrule of thumb is that ‘what a man has done is the best predictor of what he will do in the future.’ Butsuppose you are picking a person to be a rater and this person has never held raters responsibility?Suppose a person is selected for a job from among a group of candidates, none of whom has donethe job or one like it? In these situations, many organizations use assessment centre to predict futureperformance more accurately. Typically, ratee’s from different departments are brmustgether tospend two or three days working on individual and group assignments similar to the ones they willbe handling if they are promoted. The pooled judgment of observers, sometimes derived by pairedcomparison or alternation ranking, leads to an order, of, merit ranking for each participant. Lessstructured, subjective judgments are also made. There is a good deal of evidence that those ratee’schosen by assessment centre methods work out better than those not chosen by these methods. Thecentre also makes it possible for ratee’s who are working for departments of low status or lowvisibility in an organization to become visible and, in the competitive situation of an assessmentcentre, show how they stack up against ratee’s from more well-known departments. This has theeffect of equalizing opportunity, improving morale, and enlarging the pool of possible promotioncandidates.METHODOLOGY FOR RATERS66. Strategic Plan: Each and every organizations need to submit a strategic plan for all itsactivities, along with an annual performance plan, and performance budget to the appropriateauthority. The plan has to detail in specific terms the goals and objectives and how these goals andobjectives are programmed to be achieved. ‘Who We Are – Mission Statement’ are designed toguide organizations/agencies into sharper focus, explain why and what for the organization exists,explain what it is doing and describe how it is doing along with the constructive criticisms.Strategic goals are an outgrowth/development/progress of clearly stated mission and aligning ofactivities to support mission-related goals and making linkages between levels of funding and theiranticipated results are a welcome sign in the dynamics of real-time appraisal.
3067. Annual Performance Plans: Each organization/agency must submit a well-designed, awell- defined and a concrete annual performance plan. Direct linkage to be programmed betweenthe strategic goals outlined in the strategic plan and what the organization appraisers and ratee’s areactually doing. Annual performance goals need to be identified so as to gauge the progress towardaccomplishing strategic goals and identifying performance measures. Ratings provided in‘administrative purpose with severe consequences’ condition must be more lenient than thoseprovided in ‘training purpose’ (and administrative purpose with less severe consequences’)condition. Decisions in ‘administrative purpose with severe consequences’ condition must be morelenient than decisions in ‘training purpose’ (and ‘administrative purpose with less severeconsequences’) condition. Purpose and self-monitoring must interact to affect leniency. Ratingsprovided by high self-monitors be most lenient in the’ administrative purpose with severeconsequences’ condition.68. Performance Management Indicators: Performance management system has to beintroduced in all organizations. This is by taking into account the availability of resources and theinherent constraints. Promotion of culture with respect to performance management and focus onresults among its political structures, political office bearers and in its administration has to beensured.69. Appropriate performance indicators needs to be introduced in each organization as ayardstick for measuring performance. Measurable performance targets must be introduced. Monitormeasure and review performance against the performance indicators and targets set in. Initiate stepsto improve performance with regard to those development priorities and objectives whereperformance targets are not met. Establish a process for regular reporting of performance-relatedinformation to the appropriate authority.70. Be honest and fair in evaluating all ratee’s. Be certain that the rater has reviewed allratee’s in an objective and consistent manner as ratee’s and relative to other ratee’s in the group.The purpose of performance evaluations is to take a realistic snapshot of the ratees performance. Donot endorse that the ratee is improving if (s) he is not performing well.
3171. Be consistent in approach. Do not subscribe to a situation where it appears that the ratercan create excuses for one ratee while holding another ratee accountable. Define your criteria foreach level of ranking and use the same criteria for every ratee. Dont set separate criteria for certainratee’s.72. Give comments. A ranking or number used to rank a ratees performance is useless withouta written comment. Comments are required for any ranking that is less than 4 or meets expectationsand also for the highest ranking of 9 or exceed expectations. Comments may confirm achievementsor be constructive depending on the nature of the ranking. Make the comments consistent withrankings. Dont give ratee’s a ‘meets expectations’ ranking if comment describes a substandardperformance. There is a need to be realistic. Dont inflate ratings. Inflation of ratings only inflates aratees expectations.73. Rate the ratees performance, not the ratees ‘attitude.’ Keep comments job related andbased on the ratees ability to perform his job. Avoid phrases like ‘bad attitude,’ ‘hes not a teamplayer,’ and other subjective type comments. Explain the behavior that is a result of the ‘attitude.’74. Set goals with the ratee. Dont just criticize a deficient performer; set goals for follow upand for improvement or development. Work together to create a plan of action to help the ratee indeficient areas and to establish goals for the coming year. Set a follow up period and be sure toreevaluate the ratee at the appropriate time.75. Performance evaluation should motivate a ratee to improve. The ratee should feelexcited about the challenges and his ability to meet them. If ratee’s hear only about their failuresand weaknesses, theyll start to believe they cant succeed. If ratee’s get support and encouragementfrom their rater, theyll gain the desire and confidence to keep trying. When the rater’s suggestionsfor improvement bring results - and recognition - ratee’s are even more likely to listen to futuresuggestions.76. No surprises. The evaluation should be a review of the past years performance. Throughprevious counseling and other communications, the ratee should be aware of any concerns you
32might have about their job performance. The annual evaluation should not be the first time the rateelearns of your concerns.77. One tool that may be used is to ask the ratee to review his or her own performance andexpectations for the future by preparing a self-appraisal. They can complete the evaluation form thatthe rater uses, draft a memo or list reviewing performance strengths, weaknesses and future goals.Having the ratee undergo the same exercise may make it easier for him / her to understand the valueof evaluation. The limited usefulness of self-appraisals as an evaluation tool has elicited doubtsabout the use of self-ratings in the appraisal process.JOB PERFORMANCE SUMMARY78. An essential part of the Appraisal Program is the Job Performance Summary, which iscompleted by the rater for each ratee at the end of the work planning/appraisal cycle. This summaryincludes the following, overall rating and summary statement, comments by rater and ratee and nextlevel rater review. a) Overall Performance Rating :The overall rating for each ratee is determined at the end of the work cycle. The rater reviews performance information (examples: notes, records and reports) collected during the work cycle against the expectations for each key responsibility/ result and dimension. These are then rated expectations in order to record the actual performance on the work plan form. The rater combines actual performance of the individual key responsibilities/results and dimensions into a single overall rating and records it on the overall summary page of the work plan form. If 50 percent or more of the individual performance ratings are at the same level of performance, the overall rating is most likely to be at that level of performance. In determining the overall rating consideration must be given to, the priority order of the key responsibilities/results and dimensions, the impact of not performing the primary job factors and relationship of the key responsibilities/ results plus dimensions to accomplishment of the entire job. The statement supporting the overall rating must be entered in the raters comments section of the work plan form. The rater signs the job performance summary page and obtains the signatures of the ratee and the next level rater.
33 b) Summary Statement and Comments :The summary statement explaining the raters Overall Performance Rating should indicate how the actual performance was compared to the performance expectations described. In the comments section, ratee’s and raters may make statements regarding the appraisal and the appraisal process. c) Next Level Rater Review : The next level rater is required to review and sign the performance rating completed by subordinate raters for ratee’s in their areas of responsibility before the performance rating is discussed with the ratee. Comments are optional.COMPETENCY OF APPRAISER79. Performance rater uses a specific set of competencies to help ratee’s identify and resolvehuman performance problems. These competencies are embedded in the human performancetechnology process and include the skills of problem analysis, solution design, development, changemanagement, impact evaluation and remediation. Analysis skills are fundamental, covering bothorganizational and cause analysis, and are supported by strong relationship-building ability. Designskills demand strength in intervention selection, solution development and coordination.Implementation skills are rooted in organizational management and change resistance abilities.Evaluation skills are rooted in reliable measurement of intermediate plus final results across theentire performance analysis and improvement process. Acquiring core competencies of theperformance professional is a question of formal and informal skill acquisition. Observation andpractice in real-time performance improvement scenarios and close attention to and improvement ofone’s emotional skill set is of prime importance. If such a factor is necessary for an appraiser todevelop credible assignment results, the appraiser is responsible for having the appraisal to addressthat factor or for following the steps outlined above to satisfy this appraisal rule.80. The background and experience of appraisers varies wide. Lack of knowledge or experiencecan lead to inaccurate or inappropriate appraisal practice. The appraisal rule requires an appraiser tohave both the knowledge and the experience required to perform a specific appraisal servicecompetently. Trying to find real quantitative data to appraise your knowledge ratee and avoidsubjective ratings? If quantitative data about performance is available that are neither trivial nor
34contaminated, it makes perfect sense to use them for evaluating performance. But our mostimportant and valuable ratee — our executives, raters, and knowledge ratee — generally performjobs that require subjective skills such as analysis, problem solving, creativity, and judgment. Evenwhen there appear to be ‘bottom line’ results such as profits or sales, the performance picture willalways be incomplete without subjective evaluations.81. If an appraiser is offered the opportunity to perform an appraisal, but lacks the necessaryknowledge or experience to complete it competently, the appraiser must disclose his or her lack ofknowledge or experience to the ratee before accepting the assignment. Then necessary orappropriate steps to complete the appraisal service competently can be undertaken. This may beaccomplished in various ways, including but not limited to, personal study by the appraiser,association with an appraiser reasonably believed to have the necessary knowledge or experience, orretention of others who possess the required knowledge or experience. In an assignment whereappraisal is necessary, an appraiser preparing an appraisal in an unfamiliar setting must spendsufficient time to understand the nuances involved. Such understanding should not be impartedsolely from a consideration of specific data. Although this requires an appraiser to identify theproblem and disclose deficiency in competence prior to accepting an assignment, facts or conditionsuncovered during the course could cause an appraiser to discover that he or she lacks the requiredknowledge or experience to complete the assignment competently.82. Applying templates from the performance criterion literature, there is a need to implement aconstruct-based approach to the investigation of errors in appraisal ratings. Context effects inappraisals have been operationalized at a personal level phenomenon. The need is to investigatecontext effects at the instrument level by examining: the influence of rating contextual items onsubsequent ratings of task items and influence of rating task items on subsequent ratings ofcontextual items.83. ‘Item response’ theoretical methods of differential item functioning detection can be appliedto investigate the influence of context on item ratings of task and contextual performance. Theorder in which task and contextual items can be presented would to some extent influence ratingresponses. Specifically, when task items are preceded by contextual items, the relatedness between
35 task items and their underlying construct can be reduced. These observed slope effects, as conceptualized within the item response theory framework, does demonstrate an advantage of item response theory methods over traditional approaches for detecting the influence of context on responses to appraisal questions.84. The rater personality study needs to examine the relationship between levels of rater agreeableness, conscientiousness and ratings of task and contextual performance. Use of a more precise operationalization of performance would be capable of detecting complex relationships between personality and ratings on task and contextual performance. While rater agreeableness and conscientiousness are both related to task performance ratings, conscientiousness does moderate the relationship between rater agreeableness and contextual performance ratings. Overall, high agreeable raters tend to give higher ratings than low agreeable raters. However, these difference a researched to be greatest among low conscientious raters but minimized among high conscientious raters. RATING SCALE 85. Outstanding Performance: Performance is far above the defined job expectations. The ratee consistently performs outstanding work, regularly above and beyond what is expected of ratee’s in this job. Performance that exceeds expectations is due to the effort and skills of the ratee. Any performance not consistently exceeding expectations is minor or due to events not under the control of the ratee. a) Very Good Performance: Performance meets the defined job expectations and in many instances, exceeds job expectations. The ratee generally is doing a very good job. Performance that exceeds expectations is due to the effort and skills of the ratee. b) Good Performance (Meets Expectations) : Performance meets the defined job expectations. The ratee is performing the job at the level expected for ratee’s in this position. The good performance is due to the ratee’s own effort and skills.
36 c) Below Good Performance: Performance may meet some of the job expectations but does not fully meet the remainder. The ratee generally is performing the job at a minimal level, and improvement is needed to fully meet expectations. Performance is less than good. Lapses in performance are due to the ratee’s lack of effort or skills. Requires guidance and supervision. d) Unsatisfactory Performance: Performance generally fails to meet the defined performance expectations or requires frequent, close supervision and/or the redoing of work. The ratee is not performing the job at the level expected for ratee’s in this position. Unsuccessful job performance is due to the ratee’s own lack of effort or skills. CONSTRUCTING AN APPRAISAL MODEL86. The appraisal summary rating for each ratee is used to support other personnel decisions such as promotions, demotions, disciplinary actions, reductions-in-force, etc. Each ratee must have a current appraisal on file and the appraisal must be consistent with the action to be taken. There is a need to monitor recommended actions and require justification by raters for any actions requested which are inconsistent with the rating. This may be accomplished through meetings and/or written information87. Studies on designing configurations for appraisal reflect upon the following key parameters for a successful appraisal; a) Leadership is critical in designing and deploying efficient/effective performance measurement and management systems. Clear, consistent, and visible involvement by senior organization officials and appraisers is a necessary part of the successful performance measurement and management systems. Senior leadership should be actively involved in both the creation and implementation of the organizational systems. b) A conceptual framework is needed for the performance measurement and management system. Every organization/agency needs a clear and cohesive performance measurement framework that is understood by all levels of the organization. This framework should support its objectives and reflection of results.
37 c) Efficient/effective internal and external communications are the keys to successfulperformance measurement. Such communication with ratee’s, appraisers, process ownersand participants is vital to the successful development / deployment of performancemeasurement and management systems. It is the ratee’s and appraisers who ultimately judgehow well it has achieved its goals and objectives. Those within the organization entrustedwith / expected to achieve performance goals and targets should be clear as to how successis defined. They must be aware as to what their role in achieving that success is. Bothoutsiders and insiders need to be part of the development / deployment of performancemeasurement systems. d) Accountability for results must be clearly assigned and well-understood. High-performance organizations clearly identify on what it takes to determine success. It mustmake sure that all appraisers and ratee’s understand what they were responsible for inachieving organizational goals. Accountability is typically a key success factor, but one withmultiple dimensions and multiple applications. e) Compensation rewards and recognition should be linked to performancemeasurements. Linking performance evaluations and rewards to specific measures ofsuccess and tying incentives directly to performance, sends a clear and unambiguousmessage to the organization as to what is important, relevant and significant. f) Performance measurement systems should be positive and not punitive. Mostsuccessful performance measurement systems are not punitive systems but learning systems.This helps organizations identify as to what works and what does not so as to continue withand improve those. Performance measurement is a tool that lets the organization track itsprogress and direction towards the strategic goals and objectives. It should not lead toperverse incentives with a clandestine view to fudge figures or manipulate performanceachievements. Results and progress toward programme commitments should be openlyshared with ratee’s. While sensitive information generally must be protected, performancemeasurement system information should be openly and widely shared.
38 g) A progressive transformation from good performance monitoring and measurement system towards good appraisal is called for. Performance management is a tool as well as a means for real-time appraisal. The biggest challenge of an organization is to create a system of good, equitable, rational, just optimal appraisal which promotes supports and sustains human development. Good appraisal is among other things participatory, transparent, accountable, efficient/effective and equitable. It promotes the role of human resource development (management) and ensures that political, social-economic and cultural priorities are based on a broad consensus. There is a requirement to design an optimal and comprehensive agenda, keeping in view the individual and organisational objectives in which appraisal architecture/monitoring/regulation/ administration form key components.88. While building the above architecture, the following aspects need to be looked into:indicator-wise base data (to learn about recent levels and patterns of performance in order to gaugesubsequent policy/programme/scheme of appraisal impact), clarity (as to data sources: primary andsecondary, data collection method :review, interview, field visit, survey, census, fieldexperiment),how and who must collect data(frequency and cost of data collection), practicaldifficulties (in collecting data, setting indicator targets, clear understanding of baseline startingpoint, funding and level of personnel resources expected throughout the target period), quantum ofoutside resources (expected to supplement efforts) and only one target (for each indicator).DIFFICULTIES WITH TRADITIONAL APPRAISAL SYSTEMS89. For many, the term appraisal system embodies the major difficulties with these traditionalapproaches. The appraisal itself suggests assessment of the past rather than improvement in thefuture. An appraisal system suggests a tightly controlled, formal, procedure which limits the scopeof the discussion and activities of the rater and ratee. Consequently both parties tended to view theappraisal interview with apprehension (at best) or at worst judge the process a waste of valuabletime.90. A focus on the past: Most appraisal systems are based upon assessment of the past. Whilstit is much easier to assess the past than the future, viewing the appraisal as a control andmaintenance system does little to realise future performance improvement. A consideration offuture potential, opportunities and development needs is an essential aid for both organisations and
39ratees. Future performance improvement needs organisational investment in development but this,together with succession planning, is often very poorly managed if at all. Learning objectives,learning potential, opportunity to apply learning and the means by which learning can be acquiredall need identification, and all need close support of line raters. Hence, the evolvement ofperformance review and development systems.91. Use of quantifiable measures: Rating scales and quantifiable measures do not alwaysreflect the true value of a ratee. Depending on the role, non-quantifiable behaviours (such asmotivation, ability to learn and quality of work) should represent important factors within theappraisal process. Once a list of quantifiable factors becomes established, ratee’s must often modifytheir behaviour to maximise their performance in those areas.92. Traits are inputs to work, not outputs: Traits describe a persons characteristics andapproaches to work. They represent what somebody puts into the job. They do not necessarilypredict or reflect the outcome or results of a persons work. The problem is similar to the differencebetween effort and achievement. Organisations which put a premium on effort in the appraisal maynot necessarily yield high performance improvement. Those which put all appraisal emphasis onresults may appear to be insensitive towards ratee’s personal contributions. But where appraisalsystems value achievement, the degree of change, self determination and then the consequentialdevelopmental cultural must produce high value results for both the individual and organisation.Trait based measurements are inherently subjective and require judgment on the part of appraiser.The difficulty here is that any appraisal system utilising judgment criteria must generate markedlydifferent results between different appraisers. The outcome of an appraisal may therefore dependmore upon who is the appraiser than upon actual performance. A particular problem identified inthis area is the Halo and Horns effects.93. Conservative use of scales : It has been researched that with all appraisal rating scales thereis a very high tendency to only give middle range scores .The consequence is that both high and lowperformers are not recognised and managed (rewarded or punished) accordingly and therefore theappraisal system is ineffective. Appraisees have an awareness of how well they are performingcompared with their colleagues, they do talk to each other about their appraisal results and unlessthe appraisal process fairly utilises the full rating range the appraisal system itself must rapidly
40become discredited. Performance review and development systems focus on self realisation ofindividual potential and not some arbitrary comparison with colleagues that often results in conflict.94. Rewards/ awards unrelated to appraisal : In systems where there is a time lapse betweenthe appraisal interview and the rewards award itself, there can grow a concern either thatperformance has not been fully recognised or that the calculation is somehow fudged. In addition,ratee’s still know that the appraisal does have a bearing on the rewards award, however hidden.Many organisations today prefer a more open and honest approach.95. Emphasizes formal procedures: For the rater to take full responsibility, they have tocontinually monitor, review, feedback, discuss performance improvement during frequent andinformal meetings with each ratee. A formal annual appraisal can falsely suggest that this effectiveinformal process can be replaced by the formal annual meeting. Documentation supporting theappraisal interview often reinforced this by describing the formal procedure in great detail, withonly a passing reference to informal meetings and continuous development.96. The limits of only two appraisal views: Where the appraisal only required input from theappraiser and the appraisee then the appraisal process must potentially miss the rich sources offeedback that can be offered by peers and subordinates, hence 360 degree appraisal. Thisinformation can often reveal problems in perceptions of roles and the quality of workingrelationships, including that between the appraiser and appraisee and the need for the appraiser toaccept criticism. In organisations where team working and open management are encouraged, theappraisal process must recognise the value of the information gained from these sources.97. May impede wider discussion: Completing a appraisal form can easily become the taskobject, rather than a performance improvement review. In addition, appraisals forms are oftengenerated by personnel departments and do not always cover the real performance improvementissues between a rater and ratee. The one appraisal form cannot deal effectively with organisationaldiversity.98. Not always measurable: Much criticism has been made, by ratee’s, of the use of appraisalobjectives. Raters who cannot set SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-based) objectives are accused of changing the goal-posts, creating confusion and increasing theappraisal standard without performance related rewards recognition or increase in grade. This is
41often because appraisal objectives are not related to the goals and direction of the business or thedepartment. Hence, the movement towards performance review and development systems.99. Different schemes for different ratee’s: Diverse appraisal systems are often introducedbecause of the need to measure different factors and reward in different ways. However, differentappraisal systems risk being divisive and causing resentment. If the use of different appraisalsystems generate us and them attitudes they must be divisive, in which event it is unlikely that theappraisal process must be much more than a meaningless paper exercise. Better to differentiatebetween roles, and attendant competence definitions, using the level of work principle, than havingseparate appraisal systems.100. A common practice is to set goals that must force the organization to ‘stretch’ in order toexceed its past performance. By benchmarking such measures, an organization can validate the factthat the designed goals are still attainable. It is also important to provide information onperformance goals / results to ratee’s and appraisers. This increases their understanding of theorganization’s mission / goals and unifies the workforce behind them. It also helps emphasise teamlogic rather than fostering individual competition.101. The key objectives of a performance monitoring and evaluation system is to provide real-time based crucial information about performance to the ratees, provide a view over time on thestatus of a scheme of appraisal/programme /policy, promote credibility and ratee’s confidence byreporting on the results, help formulate and justify requests, plan interventions, identify potentiallypromising programmes/practices and help building a performing organization.A sound performancemonitoring system needs to be guided by the following principles; ownership/management need torealize that movement of performance information be both horizontal and vertical, identify demandfor performance information, clarify responsibilities at each level to each ratee and rater ,datacollection/collation/analysis/measurement /reporting, should not be limited or under a set ofconstraints but cater to the requirement ( precise, reliable, consistent, valid, and timely).102. A well-designed performance monitoring system tracks implementation (input/output andactivities), results (outcomes and impacts) and monitors whether a scheme of appraisal, programmeor policy is cruising along the desired path towards achieving the desired goals or results.
42Implementation monitoring involves tracking the means and strategies used to achieve goal ablysupported by the use of management tools. Developing the system requires, conduct ‘readinessassessment’, agree on performance outcomes, select key performance indicators to monitoroutcomes, gather baseline data, plan for improvement in setting targets, build a monitoring system,analyse and publish findings, undertake evaluation, use findings to institutionalize monitoring andevaluation. While designing a appraisal instrument, the focus should be towards goals andresults(objective), be conducted under the surveillance of a responsible rater, appraisal beconsistently pursued, should include the interaction of personal and situational variables, beregularly reviewed and modified when required, appraisals to reinforce commitment withsatisfaction among organizational membership/employment and it should for provide a continuityof relationships from one appraisal stage to the next.PRACTICAL APPROACHES103 Trying to find real quantitative data to appraise your knowledge ratee and avoid subjectiveratings? If youve got quantitative data about performance that are neither trivial nor contaminated,it makes perfect sense to use them for evaluating performance. But our most important andvaluable ratee — our executives, raters, and knowledge ratee — generally perform jobs that requiresubjective skills such as analysis, problem solving, creativity, and judgment. Even when thereappear to be ‘bottom line’ results such as profits or sales, the performance picture will always beincomplete without subjective evaluations.104. Appraisal is not about a single event, such as completing a standard review form, but rathera process that is ongoing. Appraisal activities, as an ongoing process, should connect the process toorganizational functioning and focus on ratee and rater improvement, not simply wage adjustmentand/or disciplinary action.105. An approach is the Conventional Rating Scale. These scales use words or phrases todescribe the degree to which certain behaviours or characteristics are displayed. Categories forbehaviourally anchored scales can be created from job descriptions. If there are no appropriatebehaviours or characteristics within job descriptions, raters should work with ratee and rater todetermine what behaviours and characteristics would be most useful in an appraisal setting.
43106. Another approach is the Behaviourally Anchored Scale. In this approach, broad categoriesof practice are identified, ideally through collaborations between raters and staff. Specific jobbehaviours are then linked to the categories. Measures of ratee behaviour are rated on a scale inrelation to specific behaviour items, such as ‘understands department functions.’ Job-dimensionsusually yield similar broad categories, such as planning, setting priorities, and responsiveness tosupervision. Categories such as these may be useful in framing evaluation criteria in this approachto appraisal.107. Another means of approaching behaviour-based appraisal is the Behavioural FrequencyScale. Here, desired behaviours are described and the ratee is evaluated on how often thosebehaviours occur.108. The Weighted Checklist is another appreciable way of approaching behaviour-basedappraisal. This method provides a list of performance related statements that are weighted. Ratee’sare judged on a scale indicating the degree to which the statement accurately describes performance.109. A final approach to behaviour-based appraisal is the forced-choice method. Here, a list ofperformance related statements about job performance are evaluated on how well they discriminateamong ratee and rater and how important they are to unit or institutional performance.Discrimination and desirability statements are placed on a grid in clusters that differ ondiscrimination but are closely related in desirability. Discrimination and desirability are multipliedto yield a total scale score.110. There are both advantages and disadvantages to the above approaches. On the positive side,they produce short and long-term results in the context of original performance and organizationalobjectives, are generally perceived as fair, tend to generate high levels of commitment to theorganization, and they encourage a high level of participation and are thus defensible. On thenegative side, they can be overly results oriented and they may be inflexible.111. What raters need from appraisals ?Raters need (and the law encourages) comparativeperformance data for making comparative decisions — decisions that affect both the person selectedand the ones not selected. With the exception of a ‘termination for cause’, it is hard to imagine a
44personnel decision that is not comparative. With comparative decisions, if one ratee is promoted,others are not; if one receives a favorable job assignment, others do not. In the case of decisionswith negative consequences, such as downsizing, some are let go, others are retained.112. Whenever ratee’s believe the outcome of a decision has negatively affected their careers, ortheir opportunities, or their chances for advancement, they can claim unfair treatment. Theorganization can only defend itself from such a claim if they can show that the person selected wasnot just qualified, but better qualified than the others not selected.113. If raters determine that the advantages outweigh disadvantages, it can then be recommendedthat the results-focused approaches be incorporated. There are two general techniques of enactingresults-focused approaches: Management by Objectives (MBO) and Accountabilities withMeasures. To avoid, or to deal with, the feeling that they are being judged by unfairly highstandards, ratee’s in some organizations are being asked to set (or help set) their own performancegoals.114. Accountabilities and Measures approaches involve the rater and ratee agreeing onaccountability and performance factors and including them in the job description. Performance isthen forecast for each factor to enable quantifiable measures for each factor. An Accountabilitiesand Measures form can be created, with performance factor categories.INTEGRATING THE STAFFING MODEL115. Staffing should be viewed as a process and not creation of ubiquitous standards. Theoverriding purpose is to help ratee’s and raters to improve and, thus improve organizationaleffectiveness. Appraisal therefore addresses institutional needs as well as ratee needs, abilities,motivation, and expectancies. Staffing is obviously closely associated with organization structureand climate, as well as ratee-systems like career development, succession planning, self-help andcoaching, training, compensation and other functions. These provide the convergent influences thatlead to the retention of ratees by their employer-organization.