Performance Appraisal: How to make it serve you better

Transcription

1 Performance Appraisal: How to make it serve you better Yusuf A. Nzibo Industrial Development Bank Nairobi, Kenya Introduction Performance appraisal has been criticized for hindering the promotion of women managers. Bennett (1986: 145) argues that though women have access to training and development schemes, few get promoted to senior jobs. "The performances of female juniors tend to be assessed essentially from masculine points of view". Furthermore, male superiors appraising women subordinates often have inappropriate masculine interpretations of female characteristics, aptitudes, and abilities for managerial work. Personality-based appraisal systems disadvantage women, minorities, and the disabled for in these appraisals, women and minorities "emerge as having less of the desired attributes such as intelligence than their male counterparts" (Attwood 1985: 109). Anti-discrimination acts have been enacted in many countries to prevent employers from using unfair appraisal systems. However, many appraisal systems continue to be prejudiced against certain groups. Computer assisted systems have not helped much to overcome the prejudices of male managers who consider the corporate world their domain. Despite advances in appraisal technology, effective performance appraisal in organizations continues to be a compelling but unrealized goal. Performance appraisal remains one of the weaker aspects of management, its "Achilles heel" (Long 1987: 1). Bennett (1986: 150) argues: Codes do not prevent biased assessors from applying inappropriate appraisal criteria. Irrelevant matters might be considered even if they are not openly discussed. A code could be adhered to rigidly, yet still allow prejudiced subjective opinions to affect outcomes, as for example when quantitative targets have not been realized and appraisers evaluate subordinates' excuses for having failed. Women, who are promoted, moreover, may find that, despite having overcome prejudice from superiors in one grade, they immediately encounter new sets of biases in colleagues and superiors at higher levels. Many appraisal packages use subjective and irrelevant criteria (Long 1987: vi). Male traits are often the standard.

2 Stereotyping of women and minorities impedes their upward mobility. The male critic, observing that few women occupy senior positions, will conclude that the conflicting demands of career and motherhood are intrinsically incompatible; that women actually choose less demanding work which does not interfere too much with family and home. Women, they argue, naturally lack commitment to managerial careers; they are less motivated towards occupational achievement, and are easily satisfied by low status jobs (Bennett 1986: 146). Other minorities also suffer this; not only are their qualifications suspect or largely ignored, Top managers are skeptical of their qualifications and stereotype them as unreliable, lazy, and unintelligent. Minorities must excel much more than others before being promoted. Excessively high standards of performance are generally demanded from minorities (Attwood, 1985: 175-6). Managers should "be encouraged to control a tendency to stereotype" to be able "to make an objective assessment of performance" (Armstrong 1984: 166). Appraising people's performances and abilities is not easy since prejudices and bias can never be completely removed. Without training and a genuine attempt to overcome prejudice, an individual's judgment can easily be distorted. This paper investigates why performance appraisals often fail. It addresses itself to such questions as: Are defects found in many performance appraisal programs inherent? Do managers understand what appraisal schemes are meant to achieve? How can we conduct successful appraisals? Should the whole exercise be abandoned? This paper argues that the success/failure of performance appraisal depend largely on the attitude of the Top Management in any organization; that many tend to misuse performance appraisal exercises; they persistently fail to train line managers to use the most appropriate and valid appraisal techniques; and reliability and validity are vexing problems for appraisal systems. Attention is often focused on the number of objectives achieved rather than their difficulty. It is our argument that despite the availability of Management By Objective (MBO) techniques, some managers prefer ambiguous measurements. Conditions Necessary for Successful Appraisal Schemes Many organizations have introduced this exercise simply because it is the trend to emulate. It is not clear whether those involved (management, staff and even trade unions) understand what performance appraisal is all about. Many managers are not aware that there is no general strategy appropriate to all organizations at all stages in their development. Managers should clearly understand that [a]nyone seeking to develop or 2

3 introduce a staff appraisal procedure must... judge what is relevant and useful to his organization at that time, and also what would be acceptable to its members (ibid ). Secondly, that it is generally unwise to attempt to carbon copy in toto systems of other organizations, however tempting this may be. Systems must be tailor-made to suit a company's own needs and aspirations. Long warns that "ready made" systems imported from other organizations rarely function satisfactorily due partly to corporate cultural differences. Organizations operate under different environmental conditions, traditions, and have different employer-employee relations. However, it is still very useful to analyze the experience of others to avoid pitfalls. To be effective, Performance Appraisal must consider performance, potential, and rewards separately. Very often these overlap or conflict with each other. The separation is also necessary for techniques, procedures and information required to achieve the objectives of each type of appraisal is different. If they are forced to be identical, "inaccurate and unfortunate decisions may result from using information which is inadequate for particular purpose being served" (Bottomley 1987: 109). Perceived weaknesses in performance appraisal continue to be unequal standards of assessment, some lack of commitment among line managers and some lack of follow-up on action, training and development plans or recommendations (Long 1987: vi). "An effective appraisal system must not only accurately measure current performance levels, but [also] contain mechanisms for reinforcing strengths, identify deficiencies and feed such information back to those being appraised in order that they may improve [their] future performance" (Long 1987: 108). The success of the scheme lies in total commitment and support of the top management; planning and careful preparation; keeping it as simple as possible and cutting down bureaucracy; training appraisers to be able to give fair and balanced judgments; making sure the scheme is successfully implemented; ensuring that promises made in appraisal interviews are realistic and will be fulfilled; the scheme is monitored closely to remove abuses and weaknesses and strengthened (Attwood 1975: 115-6). What is Performance Appraisal? To appraise performance successfully, managers must understand the technique and goals of performance appraisal. Bennett (1987: 50) defines performance appraisal as the "assessment and analysis of employees' past successes and failures, and the estimation of their suitability for promotion or training". Performance appraisal replaces casual observation and comment with formal, systematic procedures. Employees must know they 3

4 are being assessed and told of the assessment criteria used. This enables employees to receive feedback on their performance, identify training needs and make further plans for development (Livy 1988: 176). Thus the most important reasons for conducting performance appraisal are to: a. Improve current performance of employees; b. Set and review performance objectives; c. Identify training and development needs; d. Identify future potential for promotion; e. Give employees feedback on their performance; f. Counsel employees on career opportunities; and g. Help managers develop a greater understanding of subordinates' problems, improve communication, and clarify and set realistic targets. h. The success of the scheme depends on good training of the line manager conducting the appraisals for they; i. Have a direct responsibility for employee performance, and j. Relate between employees and an organization's central department. The line manager feeds back information to both parties. He lets the subordinate know how he/she is getting on. He also supplies the central organization with qualitative manpower information to be used for career and succession planning (Livy 1988: 178). Appraisals should be categorized into three types: a. Performance reviews, b. Potential reviews, and c. Reward reviews Experts have criticized organizations that design all-embracing monolithic systems that expect line managers to give rewards, improve performance, increase motivation and identify potential through a single procedure. This is more than what is expected of a highly trained specialist (Randall et al. 1984). To ensure success, Livy (1986: 176) argues that, initial consideration should be given to: clarification of objectives, establishment of performance criteria, and performance planning. The success of performance appraisal also depends on the total commitment of both the management and workers. Managers, supervisors, staff and union officials must clearly understand why this exercise is being conducted. Consultation with unions is needed to prevent misunderstandings, resentment and resistance. 4

5 The Three Categories of Performance Appraisal Performance Review These analyze periodically an employee's past activities with a view to improving his future performance. A manager looks at a worker's personal strength and weaknesses. He then tries to find ways of developing a subordinate's strength and maximizing that attribute. The aim is to find out the weaknesses of an employee and to analyses the barriers that have prevented him from performing better. Factors that could hinder the improvement of future performance are also identified. To ensure its success, Bennett argues that performance reviews should be governed by certain guidelines: Identical criteria should apply to the assessment of each employee in a particular grade. Managers should avoid favoritism, bias and stereotyping (the creation of mental images of certain categories of people and then expecting all members of these categories to be exactly the same). All relevant information should be available, and all of it considered. Thus, comprehensive and accurate records must be kept. Negative as well as positive features of an employee's performance should be taken into account. Information must be interpreted objectively. Unfortunately, managers sometimes interpret data in ways that lead them to predetermined conclusions, seeing only what they want to see, hearing only what they want to hear. Equally, people often underestimate the difficulty of things they personally find easy, and they sometimes notice and magnify in others their own personal faults. Appraisals should involve more than one assessor. Different managers can evaluate the same employee in completely different ways. Joint assessment encourages consistency in review procedures. Three Methods of Conducting Performance Reviews Performance reviews are conducted through: free report, checklist, and analysis of critical incidents. Free Report. A manager makes a general overall assessment of a worker's overall performance without going into detail over specific issues. This method is 5

6 appropriate in organizations with few workers and who are well known to management. The instructor can provide general guidelines or alternatively, the manager imposes an outline structure such as an essay. Many managers find it difficult to write down their true feelings despite promises of confidentiality. In countries like the United States, the Freedom of Information Act allows workers free access to their files. As such to avoid confrontation, reports tend to be superfluous. Troublesome workers end up being graded above average. Secondly, since this method is largely subjective, favored workers get favorable reports. The report may contain many subjective statements based on criteria devised by the personnel department, and may not be understood by both the appraiser and the appraisee. In the free essay format the appraiser is given full discretion to infer what performance data is included or omitted. Even when some guidelines are given, the results can vary in length and content, making comparisons between individual performers virtually impossible. The performance profile will also depend as much on the appraiser's writing skills as on the individual performance. It has been suggested that narrative reports often tell as much about the appraiser as the appraised (Long 1987: 22). Checklist Here a predetermined list that might include such items as punctuality, reliability, enthusiasm, productivity, speed of work, accuracy of work, and so on is provided (Bennett 1987: 53). The tendency here is for managers to grade everyone as average. Analysis of Critical Incidents The manager records examples of exceptionally good or bad performance during the assessment period and interviews subordinates. The causes of poor or good performance are discussed with subordinates to spot weaknesses. This method tends to ignore a worker's overall average performance as it over emphasizes recent events. If the workers are not briefed properly, they can easily conclude that management is spying on them. Appraisal Interviews Though appraisal interviews are very helpful in keeping an organization's staff motivated and committed, they seldom do. Many just baffle, frustrate and alienate employees (Tietjen 1987: 3). Often the interviewers are untrained or overburdened, and management itself is not enthusiastic. Well-conducted appraisals interviews help motivate employees by showing an organization's concern for them. Managers will also discern insights 6

7 into their subordinates' performance, potentials, and training needs. This will help clarify and remove misunderstandings and harness people's energies for the organization. It will benefit from closer working relationships and priorities that have been well identified. Interviews should be properly planned if results are to be fruitful. Managers should be well prepared and know their subject matter. The subordinate should also be given sufficient time to prepare. The job description should form the basis of discussion for this will help highlight the key areas of responsibility of the person to be appraised. Open-ended questioning technique should be used in order to maximize the information gathered from an employee. The interviewer should summarize a worker's views before making comments. This helps in avoiding any misunderstanding that could arise. When discussing action plans it is useful to get the subordinate to volunteer what he thinks they need to do and then get joint agreement on these points. In this way any discussed plans will be more realistic and likely to be carried out. In conducting performance appraisal interviews three things are necessary: a. Assessment of the situation. b. Analysis of an employee s problems, and c. Improvement of staff performance. The final report should consist of a written plan. It is necessary to ensure that subordinates are not bullied to get their full cooperation, and the assessment criteria are clearly outlined to them. Psychological games should be avoided in order to make the appraisal exercise effective. It is important that subordinates are given the right to challenge the accuracy or relevance of the assessment criteria, as well as the fairness of initial targets and even the objectivity of the assessors themselves. This and the other suggested in-built checks should give performance appraisal the credibility it currently lacks. Potential Review This has two functions: (a) to predict a person's capability of taking on more demanding work, and (b) to determine the speed of which a subordinate should advance minor functions. Potential reviews are necessary, argues Bennett (1987: 57), for four reasons. They: a. Inform workers of their future prospects, b. Enable organizations to draft a management succession scheme, c. Update training and recruitment programs, d. Advise employees of what they must do to enhance their 7

8 career prospects. The weakness of potential appraisal is that superiors tend to assess subordinates on the basis of their current jobs rather than on their potential for higher-level work. Thus workers get easily promoted to job positions that they are incapable of managing. It is therefore important that interviews are conducted qualified managers or specialists. Further difficulties arise in defining suitable criteria for assessing potential. These criteria should relate to the job specifications of the positions to which those under review hope to succeed. The range and quality of information obtained about an employee's capabilities and inclinations for work determines the effectiveness of any potential review (Slater 1986: 25). Information is collected through a combination of sources: self- assessment reports, immediate managers' reports, and observation by senior managers, and consultants. Self-reports are subjective and may under- or overestimate performance. Line Managers often confuse interest with ability (ibid: 26) as few have the necessary experience required to assess potential. Senior managers' reports may be casual or intuitive. Specialists' packages often discriminate against women and minorities. A good example is intelligence-quotient tests that tend to be culturally biased. A bad potential-review can damage a person psychologically and lower their lower morale. Therefore, some specialists advocate secret potentialreviews. The current trend favors an open system since employees dislike secrecy and would appraise their peers anyway. Reward Reviews Reward reviews are meetings called by top management to discuss employees' performance, salary and bonuses. These reviews are held at different times from others in order not to confuse their purposes. A weakness of these reviews is the falsification of assessments by managers wanting to carry favor with subordinates. They result in workers worry more about their pay raises rather than improving their performance (Armstrong 1987: 172). Conclusion Performance appraisals can succeed if properly conducted. They must be job-related, reliable, valid, standardized, practical, and tailor-made to suit the needs of an organization. Organizations must understand that systems copied from others rarely succeed. Total commitment and support by management and workers is necessary prerequisite. Checks are necessary to curb prejudice and abuse no matter how good an exercise 8

9 is. Properly trained managers should be able to appraise performance successfully if prejudices are to be overcome. References Armstrong, Michael (1987). A Handbook of Personnel Management Practice. Second Edition. London: Kogan Page. Attwood, Margaret (1985). Introduction To Personnel Management. London: Pan Books. Bailey, Diane and CHILTON, John (1988) "Appraisal as a Positive Force." Business Education. February. Bennett, Roger (1986). How Performance Appraisals Hurt Women Managers. Women in Management. August. Bennett, Roger (1987). Management. London: Pitman. Bottomley, Michael (1987). Personnel Management. London: Pitman. Livy, Bryan (1988). Corporate Personnel Management. London: Pitman. Long, Phil (1987). Performance Appraisal Revisited: Third IPM Survey. London: Institute of Personnel Management Publications. Randall G., Packard P. and Slater J. (1984). Staff Appraisal: A First Step To Effective Leadership. London: Institute of Personnel Management. Tietjen, Tina (1987). How am I doing? The Appraisal Interview. London: Video Arts. Torrington, Derek and Chapman, John (1983). Personnel Management. London: Prentice-Hall International. 9