Peformance appraisal has
come under much more intense scrutiny during the past decade.
Perhaps the most critical assessment occurred with the publication
of, Abolishing Performance Appraisals: Why They Backfire
and What to Do Instead -- by Tom Coen, Mary Jenkins and
Peter Block. Those authors asserted that performance appraisal
systems generally were destructive of organizational effectiveness.
Peter Glendinning approaches the same subject
in this particular article. His method was to send a questionnaire
by e-mail to 639 human resource departments throughout New England.
He received 64 responses from a diverse industrial spectrum.
The questionnaire sought the opinions of HR managers with respect
to the utility of performance appraisal systems.
In the article Glendinning stresses that
although "everybody loves to hate" performance management,
the vast majority of the human resource experts feel that it
is necessary. Many of the responses suggested that an organization
without a performance management system implies that a business
has no vision for its future. Glendinning also examines both
strategic and tactic requirements of a successful system. The
first of the strategic issues is the use of a properly trained
line manager to help prevent bias in the evaluation process.
The second issue is that the performance management must be supported
by the "three-legged stool" consisting of line managers,
employees, and senior mangaement all of whom "buy into"
the program. The final strategic issue is that a performance
management system must constantly evolve and be monitored for
continuous improvement.
The author also lists four very crucial
tactical considerations. Performance management systems should:
- Be pro-active and focus on future goal-setting.
- Provide for "360 feedback",
whereby the employees may evaluate management.
- Allow for self-appraisal of employees.
- Identify three evaluation levels of performance:
e.g., "outstanding", "fully competent", and
"unsatisfactory".
Although the responses to the questionnaire
suggest wide agreement on the benefits of a performance management
system, there were two issues on which HR managers exhibited
substantial disagreement. The first was the response to the statement
that such a system, "(A)ssists in planning for future human
resource needs". Fifty-one percent agreed, and forty-nine
percent disagreed. A similar result occurred with respect to
the issue, "(G)ives the firm a competitive advantage."
In this case fifty-nine percent agreed, and forty-one percent
disagreed.
A very interesting portion of the article
were quotes from the free narrative section allowing respondents
to give their own advice on the issues the questionnaire raised.
For example, one human resource official wrote, " Avoid
Boy/Girl Scout characterizations, such as "thoughtful",
"reverent", etc, and go for observable actions and
results."
The author also includes an excellent review
of the literature (41 articles) on the subject of performance
management. By itself this literature review provides important
insights to the reader. In this context Glendinning addressed
legal implications of a performance management system. Specifically,
he argues, a well-constructed performance management system can
assist in the defense of a legal action taken against a company
by an employee.