Performance Appraisal Interview

An appraisal is one of the most commonly used methods of formal assessment and is used to evaluate and assess the performance of an employee against agreed targets and objectives, with the aim of improving employee performance. Where an employee has been able to achieve their targets, the appraisal can be used to recognise successes. This often helps to increase an employee’s confidence and motivation and can lead to better organisational performance. Many organisations will use the outcomes of an appraisal to identify potential candidates for promotions or even an increase in pay. At the same time, an appraisal meeting may include discussions on underperformance, identifying why this has occurred and how this can be avoided in the future.

Performance appraisal is a method which is increasingly used to evaluate employees to determine the degree to which they are performing effectively and encourage them to direct their energies towards organizational performance. Although the appraisal is being practiced, there are criticisms made against the system which generally arise from within the Orthodox and radical management frame work.

What are performance appraisals? Simply put, they are the evaluation of goals that are pre-determined and set by both the employee and organization (Harvard Business Press, 2009). They are used to measure an employee’s performance and team performance.

Beginning the interview and skills/techniques used (empathy, rapport building, listening skills, closed-ended questions and open-ended questions, signs of client engagement)

The measurement of employee’s performance is only internal. A good performance appraisal should have multiple raters, both internal and external.

When the interview is in progress, interviewers should thank the participant for agreeing in the interview and introduce the topic firstly. Then, explain the process and requirement of the interview. Thirdly, confirm the respondent’s

The purpose of a performance appraisal is to be used to improve employee performance. It should be used as a guide for recognizing outstanding behavior that is in line with departmental policies and work objectives, but should also be used as a tool for feedback to improve observed employee deficiencies. Performance appraisals should never be a surprise when it is presented to the employee. It is important for subordinates to understand what they are being evaluated on and what it takes to be successful.

Ratings against a standard do not preclude comparisons. While employees may typically compare themselves to others, there is little to be gained by having the organization promote such comparisons. They are likely to create envy, vanity and dysfunctional competition. In this case, boss lets Sandy to compare with Charlie. It may

For one there is a serious problem with the general reliability of the method, and of course the raters are under the influence of the several different, well documented cognitive biases (Murphy, 2008). Oddly this subjective method is often used even in situations where there are more objective criterions, like sales or turnover, available (Vinchur et al., 1998). Its weaknesses aside, supervisory ratings of individuals can indeed be meaningful under certain conditions, and there are situations where no other measures are available. Researchers has suggested that the method can be improved by using a carefully conducted job-analysis as a foundation for the construction of the rating scales, and training for the observers conducting the ratings (Borman & Smith, 2012).

There are numerous types of rater errors. If I had to choose four, I would choose leniency, severity, central tendency and first impression. The reason for my choices are that at least once in my working career, I have dealt with managers and supervisors that were guilty of at least one of the errors. Leniency errors are when management assigns each employee under their supervision high ratings or inflate the ratings. Leniency has been labeled as one of the most troublesome of rating errors (Kane, Bernardin, Villanova, & Peyrefitte, 1995). One reason could be because it places every employee on the same pedestal as far as ratings goes. Severity errors are when managers or supervisors assign low ratings to all the employees, which is the opposite

The earliest appraisal systems, despite focusing on just one measure; quantity output, could perhaps be viewed as the most objective of all. Employees on a production line could be accurately rated on 'piece rate' or have their simple repetitive movements timed. As managers recognised the quality of work produced also affected an individual's impact on the organisation, and work output gradually shifted from directly-measurable physical activity to more complex tasks requiring the application of greater skill, knowledge and ability, more elaborate performance standards became necessary. Early performance management was highly subjective, allowing rating officials far too much personal latitude. It often included a supervisor's assessment of personality and character traits such as loyalty, honesty, attitude, initiative, cooperation, resourcefulness and ambition (Pratt 2001).

Performance evaluations should focus on the individual’s job performance and not the individual. The four managers all have the same goal when it comes to their perspectives on performance appraisals and that is, they want to do what is best for their subordinates to motivate them to perform in their department’s best interest. Tom has a top priority to provide true and accurate feedback so employees know exactly where they stand. While I agree that evaluations definitely need to have a base of accuracy, I like Max’s view that most of good management is psychology. To know to act to do what is in the individual’s and department’s best interest, a manager needs to understanding people’s strengths and faults, and know how to motivate and reward employees. If that means a little fine-tuning, then so be it. Lynne, on the other hand, contaminated one of her workers evaluations by considering the individuals personal issues and inflated her rating to encourage and support her. Personally I don’t think it should have been a consideration in the evaluation however, supporting and encouraging the employee in other ways may be a more

The newly designed system follows 4 point scale instead of 13 point scale which made the manager task easier in evaluation.

On the other hand, poor performance, or mediocre performance may lead to negative appraisals and consequences, including job termination or withholding of bonuses, awards, and promotions. Performance appraisals are a systemic means of ensuring quality of work performance, and thus achieving the strategic objectives and advancing the goals of the organization. These performance appraisals, in order to be effective, must be applied in a uniform, objective, fair and consistent manner over time. In addition, the expectations of the performance appraisal must be clearly understood and agreed upon by the supervisor and the employee. Objectivity and fairness in the appraisal system build trust in the organization as well as high morale among employees.

Firstly, the old system was prone to central tendency error. It had 13 rating levels and lacked a described evaluation criteria. As one can understand, if the rating scale is large and the different levels are not sufficiently explained, the evaluators will be more likely to evaluate less accurately. In the case, one can read that managers gave almost to everyone a B or a C,