For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEMS.
Term Paper ID:28856
Essay Subject:
Impact on motivation. Value of worker involvement in program modification of companies. Theories & practice. Case studies & examples.... More...
16 Pages / 3600 Words
22 sources, 52 Citations,
APA Format
$64.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Impact on motivation. Value of worker involvement in program modification of companies. Theories & practice. Case studies & examples.
Paper Introduction:
Employee Performance Appraisal System Development:
The Value of Employee Involvement in Program Modification
Introduction
Performance management and appraisal systems for workers have been the focus of extensive empirical research in recent years, with an emphasis emerging on the active role that employees themselves can and should take in both designing and modifying such programs (Kirkpatrick, 1984). For many workers, the performance appraisal is both feared and resented; workers often feel, with some legitimacy, that the performance appraisal process itself is biased against their needs or concerns (Wing, 2000). Managers sometimes fear employee reactions to ratings and raise or bonus determinations, and express doubt at to the efficacy of an
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
The personal objectives the employee seeks in his or her work. The issue is positioned within the larger field of motivation,regarded as a critical element of organizational theory. Roberts, G.E. Rating factors should be as concrete as possible. Consequently, managers would be well advised to reviewthe basic framework proposed by Likert and to give consideration tocreating enhanced opportunities for employees to be directly involved indecisionmaking and goal setting. These are: 1. Roberts, G.E., and Reed, T. 7. Current PA systems rob workers of pride in their workmanship.Deming strongly believed that the underlying purpose of the PA should be toencourage workers to develop skills, attitudes, and behaviors that improvetheir performance (Ghorpade, et al, 1995). Painless performance appraisals. Group &Organization Management, 22 (2), 236 - 263. Response: We can make performanceappraisals work. Beehr(1977) found that the instrument was more than capable of measuring theleadership character of an organization. If the goal of a PAsystem is to move beyond critical evaluation of workers' productivity andperformance, and to foster more generally positive linkages betweenorganization and employees, this group of stakeholders should clearly havea very real voice in system modification or development. However, they limited participation to the actual PA meeting orprocess and did not include participation in the design or modification ofan existing PA system. Ghorpade, J., Chen, M.M., and Caggiano, J. Romano (1997) believes that management should exhibit a passion forwork if it wishes to create that same desire in employees. Roberts, G.E. He believes that while most systems tend to rely heavily if notexclusively on supervisory input when considering a PA system modification,some firms are beginning to recognize that this reliance is antithetical to"best practices." Best practices today include soliciting information fromvaried stakeholders - employees as well as supervisors and managers orexecutives, customers and clients, and even suppliers - and selectingknowledgeable and motivated sources for information. . Ghorpade, J. Coggburn, J.D. PA is an activity whose conduct is likely to generate consequences for both the individual and the organization, both ofwhom have a vested interest in the outcome of the process. References Allan, P. (1992). 5. 2. Nation'sBusiness, 83(1), 41-43. Work group performancemanagement and feedback: An integrated system for a manufacturingdepartment. Consequently, his "prescription"for modification of an existing PA system was that it should be broughtabout with the active involvement of all those who are affected by theactivity. Overtime, however, scholars in the field and PA professionals alike have cometo the realization that employees represent a largely untapped source ofvaluable input into each of these aspects of PA system management. Organizations which reach the level of System 4 employ aparticipative group style of management in which extensive use of employeeparticipation is proactively encouraged by leaders and managers. (1977). The instrument was usedto determine whether or not empowering employees for meaningfulparticipation in decisionmaking and goal setting was effective. (1994). In this context, Michael Barrier (1995) has suggested that motivationis most successful when it incorporates employee feedback and also includesrewards and other elements that employees themselves value. Appraisals should be free of bias. Bettenhausen, K.L., and Fedor, D.B. For management, itserves as a means of obtaining valuable and desirable input from theemployees upon whose shoulders performance and productivity rests. It also demonstrated that whenemployees feel that their participation in making decisions, setting goalsand objectives, and evaluating programs and policies are valued, thoseemployees tend to be more highly self-motivating than workers who do notenjoy such empowerment. Likert's concepts serve to identify the interaction between theseelements in an organization (Pavett and Morris, 1995) while Likert is bestremembered for his development of a scaled system of measuring attitudes orinterests, his theory of management systems strongly suggests that aparticipative managerial system will be accompanied by productivity (Pavettand Morris, 1995). Some experts believe that motivation works best if it comesfrom within or is intrinsic and not from outside or extrinsic factors(Romano, 1997). They believe that animportant first step is to evaluate an existing system and then move tosystem redesign. Specifically, says Wing (2 ), managers andemployees need to work together to clarify five areas integral to the PAprocess. The skills and knowledge the employee will need to develop to achieve the objectives. Interestingly, this researcher does notrecommend directly that employees be part of a design modification team,but does indicate that they must clearly understand and identify with thesystem that is produced. Mad about your work: Can management fuel a fervorfor work in employees? Performance appraisals (PAs) are inevitable in all organizations, regardless of their focus, and are increasingly essential from a legal standpoint to defend theorganization's negative actions against individuals. . Finally, Deming argued that employees and other customers ofthe PA system are an ideal source of information about how the establishedsystem works and what needs to be done to improve it (Ghorpade, et al,1995). Journal of AppliedPsychology, 62(1), 12 -123. Jr. 5. 4. Performance appraisalparticipation, goal setting and feedback: The influence of supervisorystyle. When a PA system is greatlyfeared or disliked by employees, it is probable that they have beenrelegated to a passive role as virtual recipients of commentary fromraters; when employees accept or "buy into" a PA system, it is equallylikely that they have had a hand in modifying its elements and the purposeof the PA system is expanded to include an assessment of the organization'sown goals, objectives, and productivity. Linkages between performance appraisal systemeffectiveness. Participation in modifying the PA process should serve asan excellent source of motivation, given that it would more intimately tieemployees to the very system by means of which their own efforts arerewarded. Ghorpade, Chen, and Caggiano (1995) have suggested that there arefour inescapable realities that confront participants in the performanceappraisal. The resources and support the employee will need from the organization. Top management should clearly support the system. However, a genuine invitationto participate in the PA process is a far cry from an invitation to workwith supervisors and Human Resources staff (or external consultants) todesign or modify an existing system. Roberts, G.E. Training and Development Journal, 38 (8), 38 - 41. Employees and their peers, supervisors, and consumersare each affected by the PA system and have a contribution to make to itsmodification. (2 ). When employees werebeing examined in the literature, it was with respect to their role asrelatively passive participants in (or recipients of) the PA process.Absent from the literature was any in-depth analysis of how employees couldcontribute to the evaluation, design or modification of the PA system. 3)." To achieve a desirable and high level of acceptance when a PAsystem is being modified or designed, employee involvement is clearlycalled for. American Reviewof Public Administration, 26(3), 361-386. However, other important elements of motivation mustalso be present. Thisparticular approach to PA may provide employees with a somewhat greatersense of ownership in the program, but it generally fails to provide thekind of ownership or in depth commitment to PA that a more active role insystem or practice modification would engender. The survey instrument developed by Likert assesses thedegree of participatory management in leadership, motivation,communication, decisionmaking, goal setting, and control. This will motivate employees to becomepersonally as well as professionally invested in their organization, andthe PA modification is one area in which employees can make a valuable andself-motivating contribution. In this general context, Roberts (1992) arguedthat a "good" PA system will directly involve the ratee in the processthrough a genuine invitation to participate. 13. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18 (1), 68- 79. 9. Lawler (1994), a major scholar in organizational behaviorand theory, has argued that for decades performance appraisal has beencriticized, debated, and alternatively praised management practices.Individual performance appraisals have the capacity to help a supervisordefine the work of an employee, measure subordinates' performance, andreward the employee in a manner that is both meaningful and motivational.These practices also help organizations, departments, managers and workersalike set goals and objectives, identify skill or knowledge deficits andstrengths, and can also help to integrate a worker more fully into anorganizational culture. Thomas and Bretz (1994) recommended that employees should beinvolved directly in the design, evaluation and the modification of PAsystems to ensure ego involvement as well as a sense of commitment to theprocess. (1997). The appraisal system should be tailored to the specific needs of the organization. (1996). (1994). Such a strategy ensures clarity and will helpto empower and motivate employees to achieve excellence in their work. Personnel Psychology, 31 (4), 9 3 - 919. Burke, Weitzel, and Weir (1978), in an early analysis of thecharacteristics of effective employee PA systems and processes, argued thatemployees bring to the PA meeting a set of cognitive, psychological,behavioral and attitudinal traits that shape their response to theinterview. Competentsupervision, good working conditions, good relationships with one'scolleagues, and the perception of a fair salary are key elements inmotivating workers. 12. The Academy of Management Executive,9 (1), 32 - 41. Review of Business, 16 (2), 3 - 9. A study by Beehr (1977) based on Likert's Profile ofOrganizational Characteristics was undertaken with a sample of 592 salariedemployees at a Canadian continuous process plant. Revamp ineffective performancemanagement. (1998). These are: 1. They also have argued that managers and employees alike tend todislike most PA system because they, as a group, lack a meaningful sense ofownership. Integral to this listing of key characteristics of an effective PAsystem is item 8, "the system should be acceptable to users (Allan, 1994,p. Likert classifies each organization or organizational unit into oneof four "systems" that describe the general level of employeeparticipation. . Beehr, T.A. O'Neal, S. Lawler (1994) believes that thereare any number of alternatives to traditional performance appraisals thatshould be considered when an organization is seeking modification of anexisting (and demonstrably deficient) PA system or practice. 6. They are frequently not trained to use thesystem, and their input is devalued. Some research, including that by Coggburn (1998) and Bettenhauasenand Fedor (1997), has focused on ways in which employees can beinstrumental in rating both their peers and their supervisors. Journal of Management, 18 (2), 321 - 363. Foremployees, it provides a sense of program ownership. They found that a participatory and goaloriented PA system is a remedy for the deficiencies of a traditional PAsystem. The organizational objectives the employee is supposed to achieve. Performance management: The nextgeneration. Kirkpatrick, D.L. The system should be economical. In this PA strategy, top-down and bottom-up feedbackdirectly involves employees in the PA design and modification process. The most readily apparent trend in terms of employeeinvolvement that emerges from a review of relevant literature is toincrease the immediate feedback provided by employees to raters (whetherraters are managers, supervisors, Human Resources staff members, orexternal consultants) to assist employees in gaining a sense of ownershipof PA practices. (1995). 3. III. Human Relations, 48(1 ), 1173-1192. 11. The emphasis placed onemployee feedback by researchers such as Roberts (1992, 1996, 1998) andAllan (1994) would suggest a much more complete role for workers in thisarea.Conclusions In essence, as Ghorpade, et al (1995), have suggested, the employeeis a valuable source of information, experience, and expertise that is moreoften than not overlooked when PA systems or practices are being modifiedor even developed. Procedures and administration should be uniform. Perspectives on enduring and emerging issuesin performance appraisal. A key elementof successful leadership is to delegate responsibility for which employeeswould feel motivated to perform their functions to the best of theirabilities. In this regard, Allan (1994) commented that when the needs ofemployees and management alike are considered, several guidelines foreffective PA design and modification can be identified. Two ways to evaluate your performanceappraisal system. Wing, K.T. Likert's survey and his system were examined in a study conducted atGeneral Motors in 1964 (Pavett and Morris, 1995). At the same time, Lawler (1994) states that there are some very realproblems with most contemporary PA systems and practices. 3. StrategicFinance, 82(2), 62-67.----------------------- 18 Markowich, M.M. Kirkpatrick (1984) suggested that surveying managers who appraiseperformance can be useful in developing information needed for a successfulmodification of the system. Romano, G. Creating quality-driven performance appraisal systems. 3. The question that therefore remains to be answered iswhether or not this is a sufficient step. A case study in performance appraisal systemdevelopment: Lessons from a municipal police department. Roberts (1998) infersthat an effective PA system is one that is tailored to accurately reflectthe "real world" demands of a job - and by extension, employees may be farmore cognizant of those demands (and their practicality) than supervisorsor professional raters. Romano (1997) identifies these elements as theopportunity for achievement, recognition tied to specific achievements, theperceived value of the work itself, responsibility, and personal growth andadvancement. Using this basic study,numerous other surveys of organizations have been undertaken which stronglysupport the notion that System 4 organizations are better able to motivateworkers to immersion in the organizational culture than System 1 through 3organizations. Given that Allan (1994) recognizes that what works well forone organization may not work equally well for another, employeeparticipation is of heightened significance. The system should be used for monitoring and evaluation. Inspiration from above and from within are regarded asrelated elements of motivation. Employee Performance Appraisal System Development: The Value of Employee Involvement in Program ModificationIntroduction Performance management and appraisal systems for workers have beenthe focus of extensive empirical research in recent years, with an emphasisemerging on the active role that employees themselves can and should takein both designing and modifying such programs (Kirkpatrick, 1984). The system's results should be used in decisions. (1992). Ratings should be documented. Managing five paradoxes of 36 -degree feedback.The Academy of Management Executive, 14 (1), 14 -163. Roberts and Reed (1996) examined the relationship of employee PAparticipation, goal-setting, feedback, and employee acceptance on keyappraisal related outcomes. (1984). Edwards Deming argued that the performanceappraisal systems of American industry were a root cause of its underlyingquality problems (Ghorpade, et al, 1995). Finally, PA tends to become entangled in the politics of an organization and many PA systems have the potential to admit biases that discriminate against selected workers (Ghorpade, et al, 1995). Thomas, S.L., and Bretz, R.D. Lawler, E.E. The system should be acceptable to users. Roberts (1998) accordingly recommends obtaining multiple sources ofPA input. Pavett, C., Morris, T. (1995). 2. What was then missing, as the research reported by Burke, et al(1978), revealed, was any recognition of the importance (some would saynecessity) of including workers in PA system modification. The rewards the employee can expect for different levels of performance.This brief listing demonstrates the significance of employee input into thePA modification process. When the issue of "employee feedback" in the context of PA isdiscussed, the literature often tends to position this feedback as aresponse to the PA process and not in the context of a contributoryingredient of system design and modification (Jones, Buerkle, & Matt,1993). (1998). Current PA practices can foster discouragement among workers, who may cease trying to excel. Employees have, for the most part,been construed as relatively passive participants in the process; feedback,or immediate commentary on the PA meeting, appears to be the primary sourceof employee participation in this process identified in the literature(Roberts, 1992, 1998). Both theory andpractice, in the form of case studies or examples, will be discussed tohighlight the necessity of employee involvement in modifying PA systems.Discussion Bretz, Milkovich, and Read (1992) examined the bulk of literatureregarding performance appraisal and management as of the early 199 s, andconcluded that at that time, most of the empirical research being conductedwas on such issues as rater behavior and attitude, gender differentials inPA strategies, psychometric issues, rating errors and accuracy, and typesof PA systems that were (and were not) efficacious. Rensis Likert, the developer of the Profile ofOrganizational Characteristics and System 4 Theory, argued that motivationis a dimension of leadership behavior which speaks to informed decision-making and which directs workers toward goal acceptance and participationin the decisionmaking process (Beehr, 1977). Public Personnel Management, 27(3), 3 1-32 . Characteristics ofeffective employee performance review and development interviews:Replication and extension. 1 . Group & Organization Management, 18 (3), 269 - 292. Itpromotes constructive information sharing and also leads to a reduction infear and uncertainty that is associated with the appraisal process. Some time ago, F. A key role ofleaders therefore, is to determine what employees value and how employeesmotivate themselves. 4. Inclusion of all the "customers" who are defined as thoseaffected by the working of the system was regarded by Deming as a basictenet of quality. (2 ). Similar comments have been advanced by Wing (2 ) who believes thatwhen Human Resource departments periodically redesign the appraisal form,they rarely address the dynamic of the appraisal practice itself.Employees are the best source of information capable of assistingappraisers and PA system developers in reducing fear and uncertaintyassociated with the process. O'Neal and Palladino (1992) commented that attempts to carry outeffective performance management often fail due to poor planning, lack ofexpertise, and insufficient administrative support for basic business goalssuch as quality, customer satisfaction, and increased productivity. Debates over howleaders and managers motivate employees - or how employees become self-motivating - have been raging in the scholarly literature for decades.Romano (1997) has stated that employee motivation is one of the mostimportant factors contributing to an organization's success. (1994). Using team-based as opposed to individual appraisals is one alternative, as is havingemployees themselves work with Human Resources and other staff to structurethe PA system and its meetings. (1994). The overallmanagement system or management style is based upon the degree ofparticipation across these six areas. Employees are, for themost part, motivated to "do well" in a PA; they are motivated byanticipated increases in monetary compensation, the desire for non-monetaryrewards and advancement, and their own intrinsic goals and objectivesrelated to work and a career. (1995). (1992). Designing and implementing an effective performanceappraisal. The system should be easy to operate. Current PA systems and practices can promote workerbehavior that compromises quality. PA is a complex activity that confronts even experienced appraisers with interrelations that frustrate clean, accurate and merit-based ratings, and which is becoming increasingly moredemanding over time. 2. This suggests (as does much of the literature) thatPA participation by workers tends to be conceptualized in terms of eitherfeedback or active involvement in PA only during its administration and notin any of its design, planning, or modification stages. Employees have the opportunity to identify theirown needs and interests and to become fully informed with respect to theorganization's expectations. Thisresearcher recommends that the appraisal itself, as well as its designand/or modification, should be a joint planning activity that involvesmanagement and employees and creates a partnership between the two groups. (1997). They are also an excellent and knowledgeablesource of information about their own work roles and tasks, the skillsneeded for task completion and enhanced productivity, and the strategies ofan effective performance appraisal or performance management plan that arelinked directly to the nature of their work roles. Markowich (1994) believes that the way most contemporary PA systemsare structured, it is almost impossible for the system not to offendsomeone. The changing face of leadership. Current PA systems are unfair because they hold workers responsible for errors that may be the result of system or organizational flaws. The system should provide a review or appeals process. Roberts (1996) examined the steps taken by a municipal policedepartment to involve employees in modifying an existing PA system and tocombine both the academic and practitioner perspectives in the design ofsuch a system. When this is the case, organizations that are of necessityconstrained to regularly evaluate the performance and productivity of theiremployees lose valuable input that could heighten the overall effectivenessof the PA system. Advanced Management Journal, 59(2), 28-36. Barrier, M. Association Management, 49(12), 28-34. Compensation and Benefits Review, 26(3), 25-28. Jones, Buerkle, and Matt (1993) commented that feedbackwhich goes beyond a simple response to the PA meeting - or which moves theemployee from merely commenting on his or her reaction to a rater'sfindings and recommendations - is highly useful in determining the basicformat of a PA and the critical issues that should be addressed in such aformat. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 12(3), 19-33. Personnel Journal, 71(2), 93-1 1. 4. Ghorpade (2 ) has described a performance feedback method known asthe 36 -degree feedback strategy, used by companies such as AT&T, Exxon,General Electric, Amoco, IBM, and a total of 22 of Fortune's 32 mostadmired companies. Thoughmuch more is known at the present time - some 22 years after the study byBurke, et al (1978) - about what works well in the PA system, Roberts(1998) commented that there are still many unresolved issues.Significantly, Roberts (1998) believes that employees continue to report adesire for more frequent and well-targeted feedback on their performance,and to express a desire to be more directly involved in shaping the PAprocess itself. In suchorganizations, employees are empowered by managers and leaders to becomeintrinsically or self-motivating (Pavett and Morris, 1995). Burke, R.J., Weitzel, W., and Weir, T. Management styles within amultinational corporation. Edward E. (1978). The currentstate of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions,and implications. Managerial bias, poor or inadequate rating scales, and otherdeficits in such systems lead to employee antagonism and fear. (1996). Subordinate appraisals of managers: Lessonsfrom a state agency. S.A.M. Peer and upwardappraisals: A comparison of their benefits and problems. Compensation and Benefits Review, 26(3), 16-2 . Review of Public Personnel Administration, 16(4), 29-6 . While these "realities" of PA are significant in the design of aneffective PA system and related processes and in ensuring the employees arefull contributors to the PA, the purpose of the present report is toexamine one aspect of this larger issue. Theseauthors conducted a case study of a professional services company toillustrate how such a system can be implemented. and Palladino, M. Likert's theory measures thenature and extent of participation in decisionmaking, and suggests thatmanagement systems or management styles are best defined in terms ofparticipation. (1993). Of special noteis the potential of PA to create (or exacerbate) conflict between managersor supervisors and their subordinates. Their reactions to the system are, inmost organizations, seldom solicited or acted upon. These are: . Specifically, this report will, bydrawing upon the literature, identify why, theoretically, employees shouldbe integral participants in modifying an existing PA system to better meetthe needs of the organization and its varied stakeholders. Research and practice inperformance appraisal: Evaluating employee performance in America'slargest companies. Raters should be trained and qualified. In their study, teams of employees at the supervisory andmanagerial level were developed to revise processes, policies, and forms.Absent from the effort were employees who were not supervisors.Nevertheless, O'Neal and Palladino (1992) contend that this approach to PAmodification, coupled with feedback from affected employees and cleardissemination of PA rules and formats, can lead to a reduction in the feargenerated by such programs. He offered three criticisms ofPA systems: 1. 8. Most employees and, interestingly, most managers as well, arenot directly involved in the design or the administration (including themodification) of such systems. It is somewhat distressingthat while the literature on PA is both broad and deep, there is a relativescarcity of both theoretical and empirical research which describes andanalyzes the ways in which the active involvement of employees in modifyingan existing PA system could be accomplished. Bretz, R.D., Milkovich, G.T., and Read, J.W. Jones, S.D., Buerkle, M., and Matt, G. Inthis study, Roberts (1996) found that officers' resentment of PA declinedin direct proportion to their perception of being valued participants inthe modification process. Formany workers, the performance appraisal is both feared and resented;workers often feel, with some legitimacy, that the performance appraisalprocess itself is biased against their needs or concerns (Wing, 2 ).Managers sometimes fear employee reactions to ratings and raise or bonusdeterminations, and express doubt at to the efficacy of an existingappraisal system and the ability of the system to fully capture informationand commentary relevant to all facets of an employee's performance,attitude, skills, and competencies (Wing, 2 ). Hierarchical cluster analysis of the Profile ofOrganizational Characteristics. Of special importance in this instance was the inclusion ofpolice officers in order to identify and evaluate the critical dimensionsof police officer performance based upon a comprehensive job analysis andgain officers' input to develop clear behavioral performance feedback.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject