The document discusses employee performance appraisals and alternatives. It notes that performance appraisals originated from management-by-objective philosophies in the 1950s where employees were rated on meeting numerical targets. By the 1980s, the efficacy of these appraisal systems was questioned as they failed to motivate employees and data was often manipulated. While intended to evaluate poor performers, appraisals insulted all employees. Leading authors have condemned performance appraisals and suggested alternatives like developing win-win agreements between managers and employees or having unstructured conversations to understand employees' work. Alternatives also include focusing less on individuals and more on improving the overall organization system to better motivate employees.

1. Employee performance appraisal sample
Candidates that hold PHR or SPHR certifications have proven the highest level of HR
achievement in their field. There is a common HR body of knowledge that is
developed by the Society of Human Resources and is tested on the exam. If you plan
on sitting for the Professional in Human Resources examination you should have at
least 2 to 4 years of professional work experience. Candidates sitting for the Senior
Professional in Human Resources exam are required to have a minimum of 6 to 8
years of professional Human Resources experience in which the majority of their
working time is spend on HR functions. The topic of management and employee
performance appraisals is often tested on the exam and you should be aware of the
topic and its function in HR. Instead of performance appraisal, organizations can seek
improvement from a much broader spectrum. Performance appraisal is a by-product
of a management philosophy that emerged in the late 1950s: Management-By-
Objective (MBO). This variation of a machine model was based on the idea of
assigning employees numerical targets that matched overriding objectives determined
by the organization. Individual performance was measured by the employee's success
in meeting these various targets, most of which were quantitatively measured. An
annual review rated employees on their success or failure in meeting a number of
these precisely defined targets.
By the 1980s, the efficacy of MBO and performance appraisals was in question.
Many organizations recognized that the MOB-driven appraisal had failed to deliver its
promised success, despite years of trying to improve the process. The MBO appraisal
failed as a motivator because people were resistant to and dissatisfied with the process
and because both supervisors and employees commonly manipulated the data and the
supposed objective evidence to ensure desired ratings and compensation outcomes By
the 1990s, organizations had dropped the MBO, but didn't drop the performance
appraisals. Believing that appraisal was useful or necessary, organizations continued
the annual ritual, in most cases because they didn't know what to do instead.
Performance appraisals send messages of distrust, and they suppress the human spirit.
Instead of motivating people, they reduce employees to dependent, de-motivated
people, who are treated as though they need to be prodded and psyched to put forth
their best efforts.
While performance appraisals may have been intended to weed out poor performers,
they actually insulted everyone across the board. More than a dozen leading business
authors, scholars and consultants have condemned and discouraged the use of
performance appraisals, including Peter Block, Philip Crosby, Steven Covey, and the
late W. Edwards Deming. Covey calls performance appraisals the bloodletting of
today's management. Instead, he urges managers to develop win-win agreements with
their employees over performance issues. An unintended consequence of Covey's
suggestion is that some employers have simply applied his suggestion to the
performance model, placing elaborate performance agreement documents in the
personnel file, rather than encouraging, on a personal level, the development of win-
win understandings based on trust and communication within a relational context, as
Covey counsels.

2. Deming encouraged all managers to have a spontaneous, unplanned and unhurried
three-to-four-hour conversation with each of their employees at least once a year, with
the primary goal of listening. These conversations would not be for criticism or
performance feedback but to take a broader view of the work and for help and
understanding on the part of everybody.
Alternatives to performance appraisal will include these ideas:
An organization, because it is a system, can't be significantly improved by focusing
on individuals. Choices of commitment and responsibility must be left to individuals
if they are to be meaningful and effective. Less structure and control over the
individual employee often will result in greater motivation and productivity.
Employees can't be motivated to perform their best, but conditions of openness and
trust can unleash intrinsic motivation, spirit and heart-felt commitment to
organizational goals. Improving the overall system of the organization yields better
results than trying to get employees to improve their individual performance.
Organizations can survive and grow only if they are freely evolving systems, where
variation, differentiation and diversity are valued as pathways to innovation and
improvement.
http://performanceappraisalebooks.info/ : Over 200 ebooks, templates, forms for
performance appraisal.