What Are The Advantages And Disadvantages Of Implementing Such A System

Performance appraisal is an important issue in human resource management and has a significant effect in the performance of an organisation. It is the system of evaluating the performance of employees regarding the accomplishment of their responsibilities and determining their potential to grow and develop. Bias in the evaluation process can affect the accuracy and appropriateness of the performance appraisal. Bias is a serious issue because it affects the ability to make appropriate decisions about the promotion of employees. A performance appraisal system that works to the disadvantage of members of a group can also pose legal issues.

In this phase the raters are educated on the reasons a performance management system is being put in place and provided information on the appraisal form and the actual performance management system. They are also trained on how to identify and rank job activities, how to observe, document, and measure performance, conduct a performance review, and most importantly minimize rater errors. The focus on rater error training is essential as it points out and identifies biases and lack of knowledge or program understands that leads to rating employees incorrectly. There are several types of errors that can occur and in the preparation phase employees are educated on how to prevent making these errors. The final step that occurs prior to implementing the performance management system is pilot test; this is imperative to do in order to identify errors, issues, and any improvements that needs to be made before implementing the system to the entire organization which can save the company money in finding issues

One stage in the management of performance system is when managers evaluate employees’ performances and provide them with feedbacks. One of the purposes of this stage is to identify employees’ strengths and weaknesses. As a result, managers should be able to identify performance and training gaps.

Development of a performance appraisal system that is effective in a human service organization is of benefit for the organization and the employees. For a performance appraisal system to be effective, the system has to be strategic, designed to fit the specific needs of the organization, non-discriminatory, non-bias, with correct implementation and administration. Many different components, must to be incorporated to make this type of system beneficial for all who use it, and all who are evaluated by the system.

This paper will discuss will discuss rating system that judge employees on job performance. The rating systems that will discuss in this paper are the following: forced-ranking, absolute-rating and relative-rating system. The author will discuss weather forced ranking is a good performance management system, the different between the absolute-rating and relative-rating systems, an what would the author rely on as a rating system and can a absolute-rating system be devise that would guarantee differentiation among workers,

In this method, an employee’s quality and quantity of work is assessed in a graphic scale indicating different degrees of a particular trait. The factors taken into consideration include both the personal characteristics and characteristics related to the on the job performance of the employees. For example a trait like Job Knowledge may be judged on the range of average, above average, outstanding or unsatisfactory.

Organizations need to know who their best performers are.Within the context of formal performance appraisal requirements, rating means evaluating employee or group performance against the elements and standards in an employee 's performance plan and assigning a summary rating of record. The rating of record is assigned according to procedures included in the organization 's appraisal program. It is based on work performed during an entire appraisal period. The rating of record has a bearing on various other personnel actions, such as granting within-grade pay increases and determining additional retention service credit in a reduction in force.Note: Although group performance may have an impact on an employee 's summary rating, a rating of record is assigned only to an individual, not to a group.

However, I don’t feel that this evaluation method helps develop employees to perform the best they can considering that it leaves little or no room for questioning and negotiation to understand the challenges of the employees. This system focuses on a single aspect of the performance, and that is sales and ignores others such as attitude and customer service as well as dedication.

These tools show the flow of information to measure performance standards. These tools are: the regular review of processes and products, surveys with employees to determine how satisfied they are with the company, diagnostic surveys that attempt to improve processes and results of redesign, performance and personel reports, job description review, job procedure review, work distribution and flow charts, time and work studies, work sampling and observation, daily logs of employee activities. The use of these tools helps managers collaborate and create solutions.

As a means of measuring the quality of the workforce, motivate them to stay in line with the department’s goals. Additionally, an employer will reprimand those who challenge or stray into areas that are counterproductive, do not align with the department’s goals and values, and are illegal. The employer can measure its workforce through performance appraisals, various levels of corrective action when dictated, and member recognition systems. Without these types of measurements, employees will fill unappreciated, unaccounted for, and most importantly, they will provide self-direction in the absence of their employer and can become counterproductive.

How much effort would the average employee put in at work if they quality and quantity of work produced, did not have any effect on their annual performance report? Most workers would do the minimum, because there are no incentives to exceed the standard. How can the senior leaders effectively differentiate between employees, to ensure that the correct individuals are being promoted when all the employees receive the highest ratings on their annual performance reports? This is one of the problems with the current performance reports in the United States Air Force today. This paper will begin with a brief background on the current performance report issues, the new performance report, and the effect on the individual perceptions. The paper will continue with how the group is using communication to influence, and finally, how a change in culture is needed for the new system to work.

Attacks flood the four SIP attributes simultaneously and thus do not change the relative proportions of the attributes. The Hellinger distance is used to measure the distance between two

Performance evaluations are a very important part of a business organization and places promotion and retain ability in the hands of the worker. According to Robbins and Judge,” Evaluations provide input into important decisions such as promotions, transfers, and terminations. Evaluations also identify training and development issues.”(pg.595 2009). There are several different theories and ways to conduct performance evaluations such as behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS), critical incidents, graphic rating scales, Forced comparison, group order rankings and individual ranking. Each of these systems can be used on their own for ranking employee performance but some organizations use a combination of systems.

Forced ranking also known as the ‘stacking system’ is a performance rating system that has arguable attracted more attention over the years than any other (Smither & London 2009). While this practice has been widely used by well-known companies such as GE, Sun-Micro Systems and Hewlett-Packard (Grote 2005, cited in Smither & London 2009) it has also been the subject of significant controversy given its rejection by companies such as Xerox and PepsiCo (Olson & Davis 2003). Forced ranking is a performance rating approach synonymous with relative rating (Smither & London 2009). This implies that rather than being appraised independently against a uniform set of performance standards employees are ranked relative to peer performance and slotted into a normal distribution bell curve or a quartile distinction (Grote 2005). This would for example identify employees in the top and bottom 25 per cent (Grote 2005) and enable managers to identify the worst and best performing employees in an organisation. The use of forced ranking as a best practice people management scheme will be evaluated in the sections

Performance measuring is vital part which assessing value of employee and management. Performance can be measure through employee’s overall impact cost efficiency and effectives. (Anon., 2017)