The purpose of the performance appraisal, its implementation, and its meaning in the organisational context.
Fairly appraised.?
This essay attempts to look at the purpose of the performance appraisal, its implementation, and its meaning in the organisational context. Some common methods of appraisal are examined and their implications for appraisee perceived fairness discussed. Labour process theory's conception of appraisal as an artefact of management control is included for the doubt it casts over the any appraisal ever being truly fair. More recent appraisal formats such as peer-appraisal and 360-degree appraisal provide a partial response to the charge of management hegemony. Ultimately framed within wage effort bargain they however cannot transcend the control of management. Appraisal may be, in some instances, perceived as fair. It is argued that perceived fairness depends on employees' acceptance of management's prerogative to manage them.
Fairness is a relative concept much like goodness. One can only know something is good by knowing and comparing something that is bad. For the employee, appraisal can be fair if they compare it with something less fair. Equally, appraisal can be unfair if it is compared to something more fair. Consistency over time and population in appraisal practice is thus necessary for the appraisal procedure to be perceived as fair.
The purposes of performance appraisal include: determining merit pay, collecting information about employee competence, communicating organisational objectives, setting individual goals, determining promotion prospects, justifying dismissal of under-performers, and motivating employees among many others
The general classification is of 'judge and counsellor' (Sisson & Storey, 1999) and broadly speaking this can be said to be relevant.
The appraisals' purpose is to judge contribution to the organisation and counsel greater contribution to the organisation. Whilst it has been held that the roles of judgement and counsel conflict, in the above conception we can see that judgment breeds counsel and counsel breeds judgement.
To explain this point it is useful to consider the management by objectives (MBO) basis of performance appraisal. In an MBO system, the employee is judged in comparison with performance targets agreed during the previous appraisal. Essentially, counselling aspects become the basis on which to assess future performance. The employee and manager, given the shortcomings over the past period, 'agree' on targets on which to subsequently evaluate the employee. A major reported advantage of this kind of appraisal is the role of employee voice in agreeing on developmental and performance objectives. Perceived fairness under such a method is expected by some writers to be high. Such a perspective is however somewhat naïve, the true role of employee voice in the appraisal process is likely to be limited as they will be aware of management expectations of continuous improvement. In support of such a proposition the County Natwest study reported in Bach (2000) showed that branch managers felt objectives were communicated from head office and that the appraisal process served only a legitimising role.
This essay attempts to look at the purpose of the performance appraisal, its implementation, and its meaning in the organisational context. Some common methods of appraisal are examined and their implications for appraisee perceived fairness discussed. Labour process theory's conception of appraisal as an artefact of management control is included for the doubt it casts over the any appraisal ever being truly fair. More recent appraisal formats such as peer-appraisal and 360-degree appraisal provide a partial response to the charge of management hegemony. Ultimately framed within wage effort bargain they however cannot transcend the control of management. Appraisal may be, in some instances, perceived as fair. It is argued that perceived fairness depends on employees' acceptance of management's prerogative to manage them.
Fairness is a relative concept much like goodness. One can only know something is good by knowing and comparing something that is bad. For the employee, appraisal can be fair if they compare it with something less fair. Equally, appraisal can be unfair if it is compared to something more fair. Consistency over time and population in appraisal practice is thus necessary for the appraisal procedure to be perceived as fair.
The purposes of performance appraisal include: determining merit pay, collecting information about employee competence, communicating organisational objectives, setting individual goals, determining promotion prospects, justifying dismissal of under-performers, and motivating employees among many others
The general classification is of 'judge and counsellor' (Sisson & Storey, 1999) and broadly speaking this can be said to be relevant.
The appraisals' purpose is to judge contribution to the organisation and counsel greater contribution to the organisation. Whilst it has been held that the roles of judgement and counsel conflict, in the above conception we can see that judgment breeds counsel and counsel breeds judgement.
To explain this point it is useful to consider the management by objectives (MBO) basis of performance appraisal. In an MBO system, the employee is judged in comparison with performance targets agreed during the previous appraisal. Essentially, counselling aspects become the basis on which to assess future performance. The employee and manager, given the shortcomings over the past period, 'agree' on targets on which to subsequently evaluate the employee. A major reported advantage of this kind of appraisal is the role of employee voice in agreeing on developmental and performance objectives. Perceived fairness under such a method is expected by some writers to be high. Such a perspective is however somewhat naïve, the true role of employee voice in the appraisal process is likely to be limited as they will be aware of management expectations of continuous improvement. In support of such a proposition the County Natwest study reported in Bach (2000) showed that branch managers felt objectives were communicated from head office and that the appraisal process served only a legitimising role.