Performance Appraisal is an assessment of subordinates' job performance, which should be conducted in a fair and respectful manner. In the past, a supervisor used to make a secret report for his evaluation of employee’s performance. Now, the supervisor conducts a meeting with the subordinate to provide feedback about her/his performance and to give her/him a chance to remedy deficiencies and reinforce strengths in the future.
It is imperative to evaluate yourself first by using the SWOT analysis in a basic form, and then give the notion to your boss that you are eager to receive feedback. It is also important to ask colleagues about your evaluation. I am for an interview evaluation if the frank talk prevails.
Definitely yes. Transparency is a prerequisite for fair evaluation.
Yes interviews are more effective as they are transparent, can evaluate a person from all angles and by a panel. It is a more just judgement.
Dear Mahfuz: Yes, Performance appraisal interview system is much better than a secret report. As Patrick said it provides transparency. Also gives the opportunity for the employee to provide the supervisor any explanations of the contributions. It also provides the opportunity for the supervisor to grill the employee and provide immediate feedback where he/she needs improvement. That way it is good for both the employee and the organization.
Performance appraisal interview is bound to be more effective for the following reasons:
1. It shows a shift from unilateral assessment to discussion on performance. Thus, it involves the appraisee in the evaluation process, which makes him/her feel a sense of dignity.
2. It is symbolic of a shift from command and control management to trust and transparency approach to appraisal.
3. It involves less chances of the influence of prejudice on the part of the superior as compared to the secret report, where the superior can settle scores with the appraisee in the name of the confidential assessment of the appraisee..
4. It is a democratic process unlike the secret report, which reflects authoritarianism.
5. It leads to better inter-personal relations between the appraiser and the appraisee, builds trusts and has the potential of building a positive atmosphere in the organization.
Yes it definitely has added advantage. I agree with @ K.C. Patric Low about the no hidden agenda. Absolutely agree with @ Debi Saini view point it develops inter-personal relationship and helps building mutual trust eventually leading to positive team work. But if the appraisal review is not adequately monitored or standards are not met within the time frame, it may lead to negativity.
Scientific competence is often difficult to define when people only interact during a couple of hours (
Secret reports are now out of fashion, at least in British academia, and this may happen in many other places. Transparency is the word now.
Yes, Meena. Thanks for drawing my attention to monitoring performance. Proactive monitoring always helps in inculcating a sense of responsibility in the appraisees, though it should not be a pretext for bureaucratic type of interference in the working.
Performance appraisal interview system is much better than a secret report. However, I believe that it should be proceeded by a self-assessment report by the employee.
Of course interview is more objective,effective and democratic process to let the person defend his/her work, present his/her competencies, share his/her ideas and has the opportunity to understood and correct what he/she is criticized. A secret report do not allows any friendly and professional interactions with the adviser and the research team, and looks like a dictatorial action of the adviser, even if the adviser is a wise and a good person.
Well,how secret,authentic and honest is secret reports these days?? i will opt for performance appraisal inetrview ,you ask practical question such as..how can you solve a dilemma, dealing with experience,skills,norms,values etc..Individuals give themselves away when they struggle to answer questions bordering on routines of their job.Secret report can be an added assessment tool for just crosschecking.Perceptions differ,and if observation is the main tool in secret report ,it cannot be entirely reliable.especially in our present dispensation.When i asked a staff in Quality Assurance how they assess staff,he said they observe to see the staff availability in campus,i laughed and told him availability is not productivity as 9 to 5 may be less productive to 9 to 12.i told him to tell his department that they need a fool-proof and more authentic ,reliable method and tools for staff appraisal.
Dear Mahfuz, of course interview is optimal and better form of collecting data than secret report. By the way - are employers so positive, that employees are not aware of secret raports ? They are surely intelligent people.
Dear Mahfuz,
I think interview is good; but we must agree on what we hear on this term.
It is not to put the subject in an assignment statement without full capacity to achieve goals and not to put him (her) in a situation of failure at the end of the interview.
The hierarchical superior and the subordinate must considered achieved results together, each retaining responsability corresponding to its degree of hierarchy ; then the critics made are acceptable by the subordinate because they are fair and the manager is respected... subordinate will accept to remedy deficiencies and the performance can increase. In the same time mutual trust is reinforced and most ambitious targets can be set.
Regards.
Jean.
Perhaps, one way it is good if people take in +ve sense even for their -ve (negative) points. Some may offend. I feel that in case you work sincerely and honestly, it is immaterial whether appraisal is sealed or open. I do not bother at all whatever the style they follow, but the report should be done genuinely not be biased.
I do believe it will more fairness and effective for assessing the performances.
The performance appraisal is the process by which a manager or consultant (1) examines and evaluates an employee's work behavior by comparing it with present standards, (2) documents the results of the comparison, and (3) uses the results to provide feedback to the employee to show where improvements are needed and why.
Performance appraisals are employed to determine who needs what training, and who will be promoted, demoted, retained, or even fired.
A performance appraisal interview is the first stage of the performance appraisal process and involves the employee and his or her manager sitting face to face to discuss threadbare all aspects of the employee’s performance and thrash out any differences in perception or evaluation. The performance appraisal interview provides the employee with a chance to defend himself or herself against poor evaluation by the manager and also gives the manager a chance to explain what he or she thinks about the employee’s performance.
In a nutshell, the performance appraisal interview precedes the normalization process and is subsequent to the employee filling up the evaluation form and the manager likewise doing so. The interview is the stage where both sides debate and argue the employees’ side of the story as well as the manager’s perception.
Though management theorists like to propound the benefits of objective evaluation, it is a fact in contemporary organizations that an element of personal bias enters the evaluation. This is evident from the studies and surveys done by many consultants that point to the employee’s dissatisfaction with the performance appraisal process as one of the main reasons for leaving the company. To curb the incidence of biases and heuristics playing a role in the appraisal, human resources managers typically conduct orientations and trainings to both the Managers and the Employees to sensitize them to these dangers that are sometimes inherent in the process.
On the other hand, the employees’ should approach the process without unrealistic expectations and expect the Manager to agree to whatever they write on the performance evaluation form. Hence, there is a need for both sides in the interview process to approach the same with an open mind and be as objective as possible. However, this is easier said than done and hence organizations expend resources on making the process as transparent and objective as possible.
The performance appraisal interview must be taken seriously and both the employee and the manager must set aside time to go through the process. The manager cannot arbitrarily change the time or the venue and must not approach the interview in a haphazard manner. Further, the manager must make the time to go through the employees’ self-evaluation and rate the same objectively.
Though there is no right way to conduct the performance appraisal interview, a rule of thumb would be set aside a few days to conduct all the interviews with members of his or her team and ensure follow-ups to the process. The follow-up is needed when the employee is not satisfied with the interview discussion and hence requests for additional time to debate the rating. In some cases, a top manager may need to step in to ensure that the process is concluded to the satisfaction of the employee and the manager.
No, I don't think that. I think, it is easier to answer a secret report compare to Performance appraisal interview. In case of interview, some information may be hide by the responsible due to feel shy , fear or environmental conditions but in case of secret report they don't feel that..
A secret report prepared by a Manager cannot be seen by the employees, and for this reason cannot be challenged by them
I believe a personal interview with the subordinate creates more civility and transparency between a boss and subordinate, but it also depends on the nature of the organization. An organization where discipline is more important than efficiency, performance appraisal should be frequent and open ended. But overall, there no alternative than openness, honesty and clarity in performance evaluation and an interview is a must, I believe.
An employee can not emprove his performance when he is never given any structured feedback. Therefore the interview is preferable if you are going to implement a PE.
Yes,people who hate ones gut could report bad.it is better to combine the two
Performance appraisal reports are usually shared between the subordinate, the manager, and the HR representative. Moreover, doing things systematically based on a transparent policy is fair to all. The 360 degree feedback approach is usually used which includes the integration of all stakeholders who are providing feedback about the employee including customers, suppliers, peers, etc...
Debi Saini provided very good points in the start of the discussion and I support such points because these points reflect a sound and fair approach.
Organizations carryout Performance Appraisal for identifying annually whether the employee needs to rewarded or punished for the activities carried out... This at times is an emotional trauma to both Superior and Subordinate... even though any PAS is implemented as management by Objectives (MBO), there needs to some coordination to lean back for consensus...which is where an OD expert finds place to justify the process implementation...Bringing clarity on Perceived, expected and Accepted Goal shall iron out differences which the reality proves and provides as possible..Position Role Analysis includes KRA review on annual basis and identifies a continuous search for removing Non- Value Added (NVA) activities, there by providing scope for pruning an organization for effective functioning year on year https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262418631_Position_Role_Analysis_Questionnaire?ev=prf_pub
Data Occupation (Position-Role) Questionnaire
Dear Krishnan, having a sound organizational culture where transparency is practiced makes it easy to communicate both negative and positive outcomes of appraisals. However, the spirit of the exercise should always be "Improvement" and not "Control".
My take is based on having delivered hundreds of employee evaluations to my employees over the years. I started with very elaborate forms and practices but they all seemed a bit contrived. Over time I found the true value of this evaluation was to focus an employees time and attention on what they needed to do to become better. But more important it allowed me to develop a deeper relationship with people. I firmly believe that all employees want only three things.
They want to know that what they are doing is important.
they want to know that they ae good at what they do.
And they want to know that the boss appreciates their hard work.
If your evaluation reinforces these three it will be successful. If it doesn't it will be a waste of time.
I spell this all out in my book, The Bosshole Effect, and you can get a free download from my publications page.
Performance appraisal can say everything and superiors need to evaluate on that basis and give a feedback to improve subordinates in between from time to time to improve quality and output and maintain team spirit and enthusiasm + hard works tendency
Far more important than a formal interview, I believe, is casual "real time" feedback that enables an employee to learn how they are doing and how they might improve. This means, of course, that a manager must dedicate some observation time to finding out how their direct reports are performing.
PA interview is transparent and there is an involved interaction between Superior (Assessor) and Subordinate (Assessee).... this opens up the communication and facilitates better performance
performance interview maybe conducted with direct superior, and other top people. in performance appraisal, appraisee will have chance to meet his or her superiors. Supeiors' expectaion is disclosed at the interview. subordinate expresses his views. Subordinate has chances to know about how far he has to improve in future years.
In secret report, employee get it and keep it with him. If there are any clarification from his with respect to his duties and responsibilities there are no chances to clarify. Thus, performance appraisal shouldbe conducted. At the end of the interview, employee's progress report should be discussed.
Gregory, you touched base with very fundamental requirements that help build a culture of trust and a culture of appreciation away from the classical control.
The secret reporting is not advisable for it has high chances for manipulation and prejudices. It is always better to engage the employees in the assessment process. Self assessment, peer assessment and the team leader assessments together present a wholistic perspective and much closer to the reality.
All the cited reasons for the appraisal interview match perfectly. Yes!
Dear Jayachandran, I agree with you that the secret reporting is not advisable for it has high chances for manipulation and prejudices.
Touching back on Gregory points. Building an organizational culture that appreciates its constituencies is difficult especially now-a-days where organizations are practicing more control than improvement, where organizations sacrifice talent versus costs, etc...
During early 1990's i was working as an engineer for the Railways, which was a Central Government job.... we had Confidential reports filled by our superiors as an Annual Evaluation of performance....
The best part of it was, they forget the mistakes we had in the past .....
The worst part was, they used to remember all the fresh mistakes committed in the recent past.....
In both the cases, the good effort was not even noticed.... except when your are in good books, taking care of other than 'work related assistance' to them...
Confidence in collaborators may be investment and transparency of evaluation meaning of respect and confidence.
As Kamal said that Transparency of evaluation is a prerequisite for fairness. Thank you Kamal, it is nicely said.
One of the primary reasons that writings about performance appraisals are such eye-glazers is that the advice proffered is so often either stale or wrong. Triteness abounds in performance appraisal literature. “Listen to what the individual has to say,” is perpetual advice appraisers are given, but nobody tells them exactly what it is they should listen for. “Typist” is offered up as a job example — but the content of a typist’s job rarely bears any relation to the real jobs a manager has to assess.
The banal acronym SMART is ceaselessly served up, each time by an author who assumes that the counsel to create objectives that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Time-bound is fresh and enlightening. “No surprises in the appraisal interview!” managers are continually admonished — but often the trigger of a performance appraisal deadline crystallizes a manager’s vague concerns about a subordinate’s shortcomings and forces a conversation that otherwise would not have occurred.
Perhaps the worst advice appraisers are urged to swallow is: Be objective! Keep your judgments and personal feelings out of the assessment process.
The flaw in the objectivity admonition is the bogus notion that objective means quantifiable, and that if it can’t be counted then it isn’t objective and therefore shouldn’t be used. That’s nonsense. The talent of a pianist is not measured by the number of notes she plays. The quality of a priest is not a function of the number of confessions heard.
The issue isn’t quantifiability, its verifiability. Numbers just happen to be easy to verify. While quantifiable, numerical, countable measures would be nice to have for every objective, the search for meaningful quantitative measures is often fruitless.
When I was designing the performance appraisal system for the National Security Agency two years ago, we confronted this issue of “objectivity” directly. NSA hires more linguists and translators than any other organization in America, public or private. How do you evaluate the performance of a translator? Do you measure the number of words translated? Better not. What NSA really wants from its translators is the ability to capture nuance, and no quantifiable measure of that capability exists. But it certainly can be described and evaluated: a skilled native speaker can easily sort translations into separate piles of those that read like machine generated transliterations and those that capture the soul of an author’s words. NSA also employs thousands of programmers. Should the quality of their performance be assessed by the number of lines of code they write? Caution: danger ahead! What the agency needs from its programmers is the ability to write elegant and parsimonious code. There’s no quantifiable measure, but a practiced systems analyst will know it when she sees it.
A glance in the dictionary reveals what “objective” really means: “1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. (See synonyms at fair.) 2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.” And what’s the true meaning of subjectivity? “Taking place within a person's mind, unaffected by the external world. Moodily introspective. Existing only in the mind; illusory.”
Writing a person’s performance appraisal requires the manager to be fair, objective and unprejudiced. But the fair and objective requirement does not mean that the manager is restricted only to quantitative, numerical resources in completing the assessment. The manager’s feelings, opinions and judgments are precisely what is demanded by the appraisal process.
Managers are paid to make judgments even when — or particularly when — all of the facts are not available. In every other area of managerial activity, the ability to act appropriately on the basis of limited and occasionally conflicting data is celebrated and rewarded. Only in the case of performance appraisal are we uncomfortable about the fact that nonquantitative, experiencebased information is used.
Actually, people don’t want “objective” information. What they want is their boss’s opinion, plain and unvarnished. In the appraisal setting each appraisee is asking: “How am I doing, boss?
Tell me the truth. What does my future look like here? My family’s happiness depends on your perception of my contribution and potential — skip all the ‘objective’ stuff and tell me what you really think.” Managers need training less in how to create and deliver an objective appraisal and more in how to summon the courage to tell it like it is; to talk straight from the heart. Giving someone a performance appraisal is like being in the Olympics of management. This is not dayto- day stuff. Very few people ever get to do it; fewer still do it well. Training is critical.
Joshua, well put. I second your point in that even if we use a perfectly well designed "objective" instrument, the interpretation and the communication is highly subjective and is sensitive to how much training the manager had in delivering outcomes of an appraisal exercise where improvement is the essence and not control and punishment.
Self Evaluation followed by Agreed Upon Rating by Managers is the best practice.
Dear Rojan, Self evaluation followed by Agreed Upon Rating by Managers is the best practice is fine., but there are also peer review which can be followed by raing by managers.
Lo observable es objetivo y cuantificable, pero son los sentimientos, los afectos y las emociones de los evaluadores los que conducen al error. La cuestión está en determinar en cada organización factores (componentes, dimensiones) que permitan identificar patrones de comportamiento de desempeño que ayuden a cuantificar e interpretar objetivamente. De hecho, para que esos patrones de comportamiento (instrumentadas) sean valederas demandará de un análisis factorial que de confiabilidad al instrumento antes de ser usada en una evaluación.
@Mahfuz, totally agreed, it will add tremendous value, but the dynamics will be critical, time requirement, competition and all these things. For simplicity sake, which matters a lot in big organizations, I will go for self rating with agreed upon rating with managers. The performance appraisal should be about self reflecting and rating, and manager's rating is about organizational expectation; these will work best!
@ Alejandro Loli
You are right that in both PAS & secret report the "feelings, affections and emotions of the evaluators that lead to error".
The performance appraisal interview will be less influenced by bias and emotional effects.
Sure the interview process brings the "Face-to-Face" communication, wherein many of those 'Hardened difference" gets thrashed; However, this is a inter personal relationship exercise, when properly utilized opens more the "I Know' and "You KNOW" window and improves transact-ability of Knowledge / Skills / behavior towards attaining goal..
Es cierto, el "facilismo" conduce a muchos errores. La simpatía y la antipatía tiene mucha influencia en las decisiones. Así se puede perder muchos talentos, y quedarse con gente que inspira simpatía pero con escasas competencias, cuando éste es la ventaja competitiva más importante en estos tiempos y la retención de su potencial humano es prioritario.
My dear Alejandro,
In general, I understand the meaning of some words of your comment, and I believe your comment is interesting.
Here is the google translation of Alejandros answer:
True, the "facile" leads to many errors. Sympathy and antipathy has much influence on decisions. So you can lose many talents, and stay with people who inspire sympathy but with limited powers when it is the most important competitive advantage in these times and retain their human potential is a priority.
We must not forget the operational burden or complexity added by the system in real organization. When I was consulting that was one prime concern.
My dear friend Hanno,
Thank you so much for the translation. I really appreciate it.
@ Alejandro Loli
It is well said when the Superior- subordinate (S-S) evaluation on performance when diluted leads to subjective evaluations thereby affecting talents, promote dependability and reduces competitive potential.
The performance appraisal interview between supervisor and subordinate should take enough time. I must not be loger or shorter than what is required.
Lamento mucho, la traducción no es buena, distorsiona mucho el mensaje en los comentarios
Dear Hanno, I need your help.
I would like to thank you in advance for your kindness in google translation of Alejandros answer.
Dear Mahfuz, here it is:
I am very sorry, the translation is not good, much distorts the message in the comments
Dear Mahfuz, you can try the following URL. It´s amazingly easy.
Lieber Mahfuz, versuche es mal mit diesem Text.
https://translate.google.com/
Thank you my friend Hanno, for the link. It is really interesting and easy to use.
Yes, because the transperancy i.e. face to face communication for feedback with S-S about the PA. It motivate the employee to self evaluvation. It will be automatically rectify their deficiencies for future.
The supervisor is better to conducts a meeting with the subordinate to provide feedback and improve performance.
Certainly, my dear Kamal. Direct communication and face-to-face feedback is an excellent approach.
I fully agree with Debi about the issue of dealing with performance appraisal based on trust. Although I have second thoughts when I think about how many companies really offer an environment of trust to its employees. As precious as trust is, as difficult for trust to be offered by the grand majority of companies especially in out region.
The outcomes are so clear when dealing with trust but the price is for top management to let go of their egos, something that is considered a major challenge now-a-days.
The trust between supervisor and employee is very important for the succes of the performance appraisal system.
I am strongly agree with the answer of Prof. Debi S. Saini.
Performance appraisals are important because:
1) Employees are often more engaged in their jobs—and, therefore, perform better—when they understand what is expected, how to achieve performance goals, and how their performance is tied to the success of the business.
2) Clear expectations and performance standards, along with achievable goals, will help increase retention and improve morale.
3) They provide a framework in which employers can apply uniform performance standards,
4) They allow employers to align the employee’s goals with the organization’s business objectives.
5) They serve as a medium in which employees can receive and give honest feedback
6) They allow employees to see that their employer and supervisor care about their development.
http://www.blr.com/hrtips/performance-appraisals
Nadie esta en contra de la evaluación del desempeño, me parece importante y necesario. El tema esta en la calidad del instrumento de medición y el halo que acompaña a las formas y técnicas que se usan.
Si debe ser secreto o transparente también está superado, Debe ser transparente, es más, se debe hacer saber y discutir con el interesado para para que conozca sus fallas y sus aciertos para enmendar y mejorar, de caso contrario no tiene ningún sentido evaluar.
Disculpen, pero la traducción es pésima, varias palabras y frases dicen todo lo contrario sobre el sentido de mi opinión
More so in organizations it has become a ritual to follow PAS only during the Appraisal year end, the hiccups are
In my organization, in the last two years, we have changed for the Corporate employees, with a 'Half yearly review and revisit of goals', so that we don not loose more time to balance with the real market demands.
Dear Kamal,
here is the translation (Google translator):
"Nobody is against the performance evaluation, it seems important and necessary. The issue was the quality of the instrument and the accompanying halo forms and techniques used.
If it must be secret or transparent is also exceeded, should be clear, moreover, must be made to know and to discuss with interested to know your failures and successes to amend and improve, otherwise, it makes no sense to evaluate."
And the second one:
"Sorry, but the translation is terrible, say several words and phrases on the opposite direction of my opinion"
Dear Hanno,
Thank you very much for the translation; it is excellent and professional as long as I understand the meaning.
A secret report for performance appraisal is less effective because it is a police or cop mentality and attitude.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Physiology
- Physiological Processes
- Stress