Performance assessment is considered a critical facet on direction. It continues to be a topic that is of major involvement among human resource specializer for several decennaries now ( Smith, Hornsby & A ; Shirmeyer, 1996 ) . The aim of public presentation assessment is to measure single public presentation in conformity with the organisation ‘s aims. The person is being assessed if he/she contributes to the overall growing or diminution of the organisation.
Consequently, assorted signifiers, methods and attacks have been studied in order to determine which is the most effectual method of measuring single public presentation and how this public presentation contribute to the organisation. Most frequently, the methods are management-centric in that they tend to seek which is the best method for direction to implement in the organisation. The employees, who are the topic of these methods, were left out in the sense that they are non involved in the preparation of a best method other than being the topic of the procedure.
Therefore, it is non surprising that most employees dread the clip when public presentation assessment is being conducted. They tend to experience that they are being judged, instead than being a portion of the organisation wherein they should be involved in the decision-making procedure. For others, they see public presentation assessment as an chance for wage additions. These positions all point to the fact that their reactions on public presentation assessments are non being considered.
Performance assessment methods are conducted with a director ‘s point of position being taken into consideration for the most portion of the procedure. Hence, in this research, the employees ‘ reactions, positions and sentiments will be taken. What they feel and think about public presentation assessments will be gathered every bit good as their recommendations as to how a public presentation assessment should be conducted.
A survey conducted by Jone L. Pearce and Lyman W. Porter in the 1980s is one of the earlier efforts at acquiring a clear image of employees ‘ reactions on public presentation assessment. This research investigated the impacts of public presentation assessment feedback toward the attitudes of employees who underwent formal public presentation assessments. The findings of the survey showed “potentially negative effects of implicitly comparative formal public presentation assessments can happen for those executing at a satisfactory, but non outstanding, level” ( Pearce & A ; Porter, 1986, Abstract ) . The survey suggests that employees who are rated “satisfactory” or below have a more negative intension to public presentation assessment than those who are “outstanding” and higher.
This paper will look into the pertinence of the Pearce & A ; Porter survey on some employees working at the current status. Since there have been legion progresss in the instruments of public presentation assessments and there have been sweetenings in preparation raters, this present survey will try to demo if the Pearce & A ; Porter research is still valid, or how much of the old research is still applicable. The old research will function as a background of this current survey.
A random sample of employees, selected based on the result of their public presentation assessments, were taken. Rank and file employees who were given evaluations of below satisfactory, satisfactory and outstanding on trait-based, behavior-based and result-based public presentation assessments were interviewed for this research to acquire their reactions and perceptual experiences after being given such evaluations. A panel survey was conducted, characterized by colloquial and open-ended treatments and inquiries. This method was chosen to let the employees to show freely their ideas without being guided or given a list of picks.
Aims of the Research Paper
This paper aims to analyze and supply an penetration as to how the employees react on public presentation assessment. The research is conducted utilizing several employees as samples for an interview. The chief inquiries that this research attempts to reply are:
1 – What are the employees ‘ positions on public presentation assessment?
2 – What are their reactions every clip a public presentation assessment is being conducted?
3 – What are their recommended procedures to better public presentation assessment and that will reflect their true perceptual experiences?
Based on these inquiries, this research will try to set forward recommendations reflecting the employees ‘ positions on the topic.
A qualitative method of research is employed whereby some employees were interviewed by the research worker. Through this method, a more unfastened and in-depth treatment of the topic has been conducted. The interview procedure is an open-ended inquiry and reply conversation to beg the employees ‘ positions on the topic of this research. Upon garnering the information from the employees, an analysis of the information is employed utilizing assorted academic stuffs as beginning of theoretical counsel. Using the literature and the information gathered from the employees, recommendations were so given and decisions have been drawn.
The panel ‘s members are employees who were indiscriminately selected from pre-determined companies. The employees belong to the rank-and-file members of several organisations. Members of these panels were employees from several companies that underwent public presentation assessment in the past twelvemonth. The panel interview is dynamic and consisted of open-ended inquiries and group treatments. Three panels, stand foring each public presentation assessment method, were formed for this research.
The literature is abounding with extended research on public presentation assessment. These surveies offer assorted signifiers, attacks or methods of employee assessments, demoing the importance of public presentation assessments in an organisation. Performance assessment, harmonizing to Glen ( 1990 ) , is “an ongoing procedure of identifying, measurement, and developing human public presentation in organizations” ( par. 4 ) . It starts from the enlisting phase up to the hiring of the employee and during his/her employment in the company. Performance appraisal is an indispensable constituent in recruiting and hiring forces and in staffing, wherein it serves to formalize pre-employment trials and made the footing for reassigning, disregarding, advancing employees ( Thomas & A ; Bretz, 1994 ) . Most, if non all, organisations conduct public presentation assessments to mensurate the employee ‘s, director ‘s and organisation ‘s work public presentation.
A figure of methods and attacks in measuring the public presentation of employees have been put frontward by the research workers in this field. Diane Arthur ( 2008 ) , states that public presentation assessments should get down with designation of the aims of the appraisal, acknowledging the benefits to the organisation and the persons, and determining the cardinal standards for the employee assessment. Meanwhile, Denisi ( 1996 ) recommends a cognitive attack to public presentation assessment. The author suggests that the assessment procedure should get down with job-relevant behaviour or public presentation by the rate and so the undermentioned processs should be undertaken ( ibid, p. 28 ) :
- The behaviour is observed by the rater ;
- The rater forms a cognitive representation of the behaviour ;
- This representation is stored in memory ;
- Stored representation is retrieved from memory when needed ;
- Retrieved information is integrated, along with other information, to organize a determination about the rate ; and
- A formal rating is assigned to the rate utilizing the appropriate evaluation instrument.
This attack requires important sum of information about the ratee in order to organize a cognitive representation of the ratee ‘s public presentation. The information is critical in that it will be used as a footing of the rater in giving a evaluation to the employee.
Among the methods of public presentation assessment today, the three most normally used methods are the trait-based system, the behavior-based system and the result-based system. The trait-based system, as the term implies, is a public presentation assessment system that measures the personal features of an employee. The traits that are measured or appraised include the employee ‘s decision-making capablenesss, communicating accomplishments, degree of inaugural and sometimes including trueness to the organisation. Trait-based public presentation system Judgess an person ‘s personal features that are deemed necessary for the occupation ( Bowman, 1999 ) . However, this method is criticized because it is assumed to be inherently subjective. As Bowman suggested, there is no job with placing a individual ‘s trait in relation to his/her occupation ; the job is valid measuring. The writer stated that when trait-based system is used with accurate occupation descriptions and trained judges, the system is really believable. However, when the traits rated are job-related, the consequences are frequently non connected or non really related with work public presentation. The measuring of traits is more frequently prejudice and likely to be subjective.
Another signifier of public presentation measuring is the behavior-based system. This system measures the employee ‘s behaviours such as finishing company studies right and on clip, attending, how an employee interacts with clients and how an employee responds to teamwork. In differentiation with the trait-base system wherein the employee ‘s personality is measured, the behavior-based system measures what the single really does. This method enjoys a high grade of acceptableness between the rater and the rate because they feel it to be just, extremely dependable and valid, promotes good treatments and tends to bring forth immediate public presentation betterment ( Grote, 1996 ) . However, on the downside, behavior-based method is besides inclined to be nonreversible since it is being assumed that employees are competent, the rater might enter merely the errors of the employee ( Bowman, 1999 ) . Hence, its “micro-management” characteristic may look merely at one facet of the employee ‘s behaviour instead than on the whole facet of his behaviour.
A 3rd method that is presently being used most houses is the results-based public presentation system. Unlike the two old methods, the results-based system is anchored on the employee ‘s result. It is frequently called direction by aims ( MBO ) . MBO was foremost espoused by direction guru Peter Drucker. In his 1954 book The Practice of Management, Drucker states that, “Objectives are needed in every country where public presentation and consequences straight and vitally impact the endurance and prosperity of the business” ( p. 63 ) . Therefore, mensurating an person ‘s public presentation is based on the consequences or result of his/her occupations and if the consequences are in line with the organisation ‘s aims. This method is extremely praised for its effectivity and efficiency. The result-based system provides a mensurable aim upon which the result of the employee ‘s work can be measured. However, it besides has some serious lacks such as it is time-consuming since it normally takes old ages before the result can be measured, there can be conflicting positions on the organisation ‘s aims and the method tends to do the employee focal point on a narrowly-defined work standard and may non be antiphonal to teamwork ( Bowman, 1999 ) .
Another method of public presentation assessment is the interview assessment. Under this method, the director meets with the employee on a face-to-face interview. The interviewer asks the interviewee on assorted affairs associating to the latter ‘s public presentation. However, some unfavorable judgments have been put on the interview assessment. Kikoski ( 1999 ) states that the assessment interview is the “Achilles ‘ heel” of the full public presentation assessment procedure due to the directors ‘ uncomfortableness and trouble in nearing the interview and in carry oning it. The writer states that despite the advancement and the figure of surveies conducted on public presentation assessment, the interview assessment procedure is still avoided by the directors. This is because of the deficiency of effectual communicating procedure between the employees and the directors.
While all the organisations agree to a systematic public presentation assessment method, there is still some signifier of reluctance in the execution of this public presentation direction system. Despite the copiousness of research and surveies on public presentation assessment, directors and, most particularly, employees tend to give negative perceptual experiences on this. Most of the negative feelings are due to the fright of low evaluations, the subjectiveness of the assessment method and the sensed prejudice upon the rater. Hence, several more methods and options were raised in order to get the better of the troubles in carry oning public presentation assessment.
Among the current tendency in public presentation assessment is the execution of a 360-degree feedback system. This system aims to garner more information about the person to be appraised and involves more individuals in mensurating the person ‘s public presentation. As explained by Pollack & A ; Pollack ( 1996 ) , the 360-degree feedback system is composed of the ratee ‘s equals, who will supply feedback sing his accomplishments such as working with others, decision-making and proficient capableness. The person ‘s subsidiaries will besides be involved in giving feedback sing his/her leading, communicating and deputation accomplishments. And eventually, the clients ‘ feedbacks are besides gathered to mensurate the person ‘s input on quality of work and service. Jackson & A ; Greller ( 1998 ) added that for the 360-degree feedback system to work, it must besides do alteration in the organisation. Unlike the traditional signifiers of public presentation assessment wherein merely the directors make suggestions for future actions, the 360-degree feedback method allows the subsidiaries to suggest stairss that can be undertaken by the directors and the full organisation. Hence, organisational betterments can be carried out since the positions of all the members of the organisation are taken into consideration, and even the clients are allowed some engagement in the public presentation assessments.
Apart from the 360-degree feedback system, another tendency that is fast-rising in popularity among the directors is the entire quality direction ( TQM ) . TQM is foremost developed by W. Edwards Deming after the World War II. The TQM procedure calls for the abolishment of the public presentation assessment system. Harmonizing to Deming ( 1986 ) , quality should get down right from the start of the production procedure. Tata, Prasad & A ; Thorn ( 1999 ) defined the TQM as, “an integrative direction construct for continuously bettering the quality of goods and services delivered through the engagement of all degrees and maps of the organization” ( par. 11 ) . In the TQM procedure, accent should be given to ( 1 ) engagement in teamwork, non single public presentation, ( 23 ) incessant betterment of work procedures, instead than conformance with them, ( 3 ) continuous, non once-a-year, rating and feedback ; and ( 4 ) a displacement to a more classless collaborative and participative paradigm wherein face-to-face communicating is critical, instead than hierarchal, bid and control paradigm ( Kikoski, 1999 ) . In other words, the TQM method advocates that the workers and directors should work to make a choice merchandise or service thereby extinguishing the demand for a hierarchical/bureaucratic public presentation assessment method.
Although legion surveies have been conducted in the field of public presentation assessment, the literature has little insight about the employee ‘s reactions to the methods and attacks being put frontward. Most of the old surveies are conducted with the director ‘s position at the head. The old surveies focused on bettering the truth of public presentation evaluations through improved instrument evaluations and more effectual rater preparation, while small has been conducted on the impact of public presentation assessment methods on employees ‘ perceptual experiences and attitudes ( Pearce & A ; Porter, 1986 ) . The perceptual experience that employees view public presentation assessment in more negative intensions and germinate in narrow constructs that these ratings are deficient to supply salary additions ( Ralston & A ; Rolli O, 1996 ) are prevailing.
Findingss and Analysis
The result of the panel survey showed different consequences. Responses of each of the panel members on every inquiry have somewhat different replies. These responses were categorized into three facets viz. , the impact of trait-based, behavior-based and result-based public presentation assessment methods. At the terminal of the panel treatment, recommendations were so formulated based on the interviewees ‘ responses.
Impact Trait-Based Performance Appraisal
The panel members, as stated above, produced different responses when asked on the consequence of public presentation assessments on their attitude towards their occupations. These differences range from their truenesss to their companies to the consequence of public presentation assessment feedback to their communications accomplishments. The differences in employee reactions show that each employee has their ain perceptual experiences and attitudes on public presentation assessments.
One of the panel members, who received a below satisfactory evaluation after a trait-based public presentation assessment was conducted, stated that her attitude toward her occupation changed since so. Her degree of enterprise has deteriorated as a consequence of holding been rated as a hapless performing artist. She said that the public presentation assessment was unjust since personal features are non related to her occupation. One of her colleagues, who is besides a member of the panel, agreed with her. Although he was rated satisfactorily, he however said that public presentation assessment should non be based on one ‘s personal traits as this is non related to their work. However, another member of the panel, who is besides subjected to a trait-based public presentation assessment but is non a colleague of the first two panellists, commented that while personal traits are non related to their work, an person ‘s character would hold an consequence toward his/her work or relationship with supervisors. This 3rd member got an outstanding evaluation in the public presentation assessment.
It can be discerned from the above that consistent with the Pearce & A ; Porter survey, a individual who gets a satisfactory or below satisfactory evaluation tends to discredit the public presentation assessment method. The first two panellists who are colleagues experienced a bead on their attitude toward public presentation assessment because the appraisal was used to measure salary additions. However, the 3rd panellist was evaluated non for salary addition.
It is besides worthy to observe that the first panellist said that anterior to the public presentation assessment, she worked diligently. However, she admitted that she is non in good footings with her supervisor. Hence, she believes that this was the ground she received a hapless public presentation evaluation. Meanwhile, the 2nd panellist said he is non cognizant that he is in good or bad footings with his supervisor. He said that he merely travel to work and execute his occupation and does non socialise with his foremans frequently. The 3rd panellist admitted that she has a good relationship with her supervisor, both personally and professionally. While these factors may hold contributed on their evaluations, the focal point of the survey nevertheless is the impact of public presentation assessment to the employees and their reactions to it. The findings of the research suggests that public presentation assessment negatively affects the employee ‘s attitude if the single perceives that he/she does non merit the evaluation given by the rater, most particularly if the public presentation assessment will be used as a footing for wage additions.
Impact of Behavior-Based Performance Appraisal
The consequence of the panel interview for those who underwent a behavior-based public presentation assessment is different with that of the trait-based method. The panel members are all in understanding with the consequence of their public presentation assessments. Two of the panel members received mean evaluations while the 3rd member received an above-average evaluation. All of the panel members said that the public presentation assessment was nonsubjective and therefore reflects their true behaviours inside the workplace. The consequence for this method is someway non consistent with the findings of the Pearce & A ; Porter survey.
The first panellist said that he received merely an norm evaluation because he frequently comes to work tardily, but grounds that upon being at the workplace he performs his occupation good. He said he actively participates in group activities and helps his colleagues. The 2nd panellist, meanwhile, said that he received mean evaluation because sometimes he fails to run into his gross revenues mark while at other times he surpasses his mark. The 3rd panellist said that he got an above-average evaluation because she is punctilious with respect to her occupation assignments. She said that she will non go forth the workplace until all of her undertakings were done, and if there is still clip left to save, she does what she can complete for tomorrow ‘s occupation.
The result for the 2nd panel showed positive response to behavior-based system of public presentation assessment. However, the public presentation assessments conducted on the three employees were non used for pay addition intents. When asked if the appraisal had been for the intent of wage addition, the panel members had different reactions. The first member said he is all right with his consequence if it means he will non acquire a wage addition. The 2nd panellist suggested that had it been for the intent of pay accommodation, he would non be contented with the consequence of his public presentation assessment. The 3rd panellist said she is contented with her consequence since she would surely have a wage addition had it been for the intent of salary accommodations.
Impact of Result-Based Performance Appraisal
The findings for the 3rd panel showed another different reaction from the employees. The employees ‘ reactions show that result-based public presentation assessment is non an effectual measuring of the public presentation of the employees. All the three members of the panel agreed that result-based public presentation assessment is someway narrow since it does non give considerations to other factors or fortunes. Two members of the panel received satisfactory evaluations from their employers, while the 3rd employer received extremely satisfactory evaluations.
The first panellist, who received a satisfactory evaluation, said that he should hold received a higher evaluation if other fortunes have been taken into consideration such as his resourcefulness despite his deficiency of instruction. He said he did non finish secondary school but his public presentation lucifers that of his co-employees who are presently analyzing in college. The 2nd panellist said that he should non have a satisfactory evaluation merely since he is besides making some other work aside from his duty as a teller. He said his consequence in executing other undertakings such as helping the clients when dine-in individuals are non around besides deserves recognition. The 3rd panellist agreed with the other two members of the panel. He said that while he received an above-average evaluation, he could hold received an outstanding evaluation had his attempt at assisting his colleagues been considered. He added that while it is non portion of his duty to assist the bellman, he extended his aid to them however. He admitted that his error was that he did non describe this to his supervisor.
Based on these reactions, the employees perceive that result-based public presentation assessment is narrow in description and measures merely the result of the work performed as portion of one ‘s duty ; it excluded the employee ‘s public presentation beyond his occupation description. The technical-mechanical mentality of result-based public presentation assessment is excessively restrictive and can non manage alteration. Hence, even if the employee received a extremely satisfactory evaluation, he is non contented with the consequence because he feels that the measuring lacks standards or footing. It is to be noted every bit good the public presentation assessments conducted on the three panellists were for wage additions.
Discussion and Recommendations
The result of the research conducted on the three panels show that employees react otherwise with each public presentation assessment method. The findings show that behavior-based public presentation assessment method seems to be the most nonsubjective, and therefore, the most acceptable method for the employees. However, it besides shows that the standard of wage addition plays a important function in the employee reactions on public presentation appraisals. It can be seen from the above that when the employee assessment is used as a footing for salary accommodations, the employee ‘s reactions were different. They think that their evaluations were non plenty or that the method lacks some standards to warrant that their evaluations are non acceptable.
Meanwhile, it can besides be seen that the three public presentation assessment methods step merely the result of the public presentation of the employees. As such, the employees view them as missing virtue. It is hence of import that public presentation assessments should besides turn to the causes behind the result of an employee ‘s public presentation. It is evident from the above, for illustration in the 3rd panel, that employees are seeking a more nonsubjective measuring for their public presentation. The employees ‘ perceptual experience that the result-based public presentation assessment does non give considerations to other fortunes that affect employee public presentation shows that this system did non turn to the causes of an employees ‘ hapless or outstanding public presentation.
The employees besides see that the public presentation assessments are conducted based on the director ‘s position or perceptual experience on the employees. As can be inferred from the above, the public presentation assessments were conducted based on the direction ‘s perceptual experiences on the employees. The trait-based, behavior-based and results-based methods reflect merely the direction ‘s position of what the organisation should be. The public presentation assessments are conducted based on the director ‘s or supervisor ‘s evaluations on the employees, small is given recognition to the employees ‘ evaluation from his/her equals.
The findings of this research besides deviated from the result of the Pearce & A ; Porter survey. The Pearce & A ; Porter research was replicated merely in the first panel while the other panels did non retroflex the earlier survey. This can be attributed to the fact that the survey is composed merely of rank and file employees while the Pearce & A ; Porter research consisted of directors and subsidiaries.
The current research besides has several other restrictions. First, the research was focused merely on three public presentation assessment methods and the range of the research is based on the perceptual experiences of the panellists, which are few in Numberss. Second, the perceptual experiences of the panellists may non be representative as to all rank and file employees given the specific fortunes outlined by the employees. For illustration, in the first panel treatment, two of the panellists belong to the same company. Another restriction is that bulk of the respondents were “ satisfactory ” performing artists, merely 1 has received a below norm evaluation and merely one is an outstanding employee.
Performance assessment methods hence need to be adjusted. While there have already been betterments in the measuring methods and evaluation instruments, the findings in this paper showed that these are still perceived by the employees, peculiarly rank and file employees, as missing some virtue. As the findings in this paper shows, the employees feel that the current public presentation assessment methods do non mensurate the causes of bad or good public presentation. Hence, farther research should be done on this facet.
Most of the public presentation assessment methods are besides “management-centric“ in that the direction ‘s positions of the organisation are given more weight in the appraisal methods than the employees. Hence, employees are interested merely in the result of the public presentation assessment if it involves wage additions. In fact, they fear public presentation assessment even more if this involves salary accommodations. This aspect therefore demands to be taken into history.