debate1_whitpherperformanceappraisal

7/27/2019 Debate1_whitpherperformanceappraisal

1/7

Reprinted from

NOVEMBER 1987

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

Alexandria, Virginia

training that instills a new attitude.

By NEIL A. STROUL

WhitherPerformanceAppraisal? For performance appraisals

to succeed, managers need


2/7

P erformance appraisal has been astaple in personnel managementfor over 35 years, but fewcompanies feel comfortable with theirsystems effectiveness. Climate surveysand needs analyses routinely expose theinadequacies of performance appraisalsystems, and a thriving cottage industryhelps organizations improve existingsystems or design new ones.Management and staff remain equallyindignant about the oppression of theobligatory annual review.

Performance appraisal has come under

critical scrutiny at least since 1957, whenDouglas McGregor published his classicarticle An Uneasy Look at PerformanceAppraisal (reprinted in the June 1987issue ofTraining & Development Journal).In the 30 years since, the flaws McGregoridentified persist. Management scientistscontinue to build on McGregorscriticisms and identify additionalproblems and solutions.

The split role plays an important partin any discussion of performanceappraisal systems. Employees seeperformance feedback from a manager asmeaningful when the manager adopts the

role of a counselor and sets a helpful tone.But most performance appraisal systemsalso ask managers to play the role of

judge, ev al uating the in divi dual sperformance for purposes of salaryadministration, promotability, and soforth. The two roles are inherentlyincompatible; to the extent that themanager serves as a judge, the

effectiveness of the feedback isdiminished. Performance appraisaleffectiveness rests on managers abilitiesto separate the two roles.

Another factor compromisingperformance appraisal: the individualand the organization naturally have verydifferent goals. In theory, performanceappraisal serves a dual purpose: as acontrol mechanism to monitorperformance and goal attainment and asa feedback mechanism to fosterindividual growth and development. Inpractice, however, only the first purpose

is served.Internal conflicts explain this gap

between theory and reality. For example,the organizational goal of usingperformance appraisal to developemployees through counseling, coaching,and career planning conflicts withanother avowed goal to seek informationon which to base rewards and personneldecisions. In turn, there are majorconflicts between the organizations wishto collect information to make personneldecisions and the employees wish to seekimportant rewards and to maintain self-esteem. And these employee needs

sometimes conflict with theorganizations goals for employeedevelopment. Its not hard to understandwhy performance appraisal often elicitstension, defensiveness, and avoidance for

both managers and staff.

Designing performanceappraisal systems

Two prevalent solutions try to resolvethese conflicts:s systems that recognize the competing

priorities of individuals andorganizations and attempt to alleviateconflicts through intelligent design;smanagement training that emphasizesthe importance of providing staff withongoing feedback, developinginterpersonal skills to foster effective staffrelationships, and developinginterviewing and problem-solving skillsfor effectively conducting performanceevaluations and reviews.

Most efforts at designing intelligentperformance appraisal systems separatethe managers roles of judge and

counselor by encouraging twointerviews. For the organizations need tomonitor and control performance and tomake rational personnel decisions, eachemployee participates in a performancereview. The focus is on accomplishments,goal attainment, and successes andfailures. Here the manager acts as a judge.Salary adjustments and other personneldecisions rely on the results of theperformance review.

Some other time, the manager andemployee go through a development review.Here, they focus on strengths andweaknesses, career aspirations, and a

training or development plan.But some managers dislike theperformance appraisal process so muchthat they resist doing two separateinterviews. Personnel expert DavidWight suggests a single interview thatevolves over four discreet phases.s Phase I: As a counselor, the managerreviews performance with the employeein a nonevaluative manner. The emphasisis strictly on providing feedback.s Phase II: The manager evaluatesperformance. While this phase may

Stroul is president of Management &Training Innovations, Inc., a McLean,Virginia, staff development firm.

training that instills a new attitude.

By NEIL A. STROUL

Whither

PerformanceAppraisal? For performance appraisalsto succeed, managers need


3/7

repeat pointsfrom Phase I, the purposeand tone are different because themanager must judge performance-asconcretely as possible.sPhase III: The manager provides theemployee with an overall rating and linksthis evaluation to any salary adjustments.While the managers intent is not to

justify or defend, he or she should explain

how the rating was calculated.s Phase IV: The manager links currentperformance to future options, discussesthe various incentives, and initiatesplanning for the next review.

To successfully employ this model, themanager must develop the sensitivity andinterpersonal competence to cope withemotional issues that may arise. While thefour-phase approach recognizes themanagers judge-counselor conflict, itimplicitly reinforces the managershierarchical position and offers noconcrete suggestions for establishing acollaborative dialogue.

Several measures can foster

collaboration. For instance, managersmight use two separate appraisal forms:one for evaluation, which becomes partof the personnel record, and one fordevelopment, which does not. Theappraisal process can also rely on acombination of management-by-objectives and behavioral measures toassess performance or employ separateassessments of performance andpotential. Another unique approachcombines managers assessments ofemployees and employees assessmentsof managers. Other systems incorporateemployee self-appraisals or use different

formats for different employees.Other flexible systems use different

performance appraisals for differentpopulations. In 1985 Personnel

Administrator high-lighted a performanceappraisal system developed by JohnOliver that classifies all jobs into fourmajor categories: hierarchical positions,professional positions, entrepreneurial ortask positions, and socio-technical orgroup-job designs. The particulars ofperformance appraisal- standards, forms,and procedures-vary for each group.

For example, in hierarchical positions,jobs are narrowly defined, discretion is

minimal, and authority and direction arevested in the supervisor. Thereforeperformance appraisal is essentially acontrol mechanism to be implementedusing a top-down approach. Supervisorsset the standards and all communicationchannels through them.

Performance appraisal for professionalpositions largely involves compliancewith the goals, duties, ethics, andstandards of conduct as proclaimed byprofessional associations. As a result,standards reflect an integration of

position-specific accountabilities and

professional practices. Training andcareer development seeks to improveprofessional competence.

Task positions, such as entrepreneurialor sales jobs have rewards andpunishments built into the work itself.Rewards are based on successfulcompletion of the goal or task.Performance appraisals thus function asgoal-setting sessions designed to bolsterachievement and motivation. An MBOapproach using joint goal-setting workseffectively.

Group-job designs are characterized byemployees organized in teams whereeach team member has comparableresponsibilities. A democratic processinvolving all team members sets thestandards. Since sharing ofresponsibilities is common, there should

be several standards, but realistically noone should be expected to excel in all ofthem. Performance appraisal weighsstandards involving establishing effectiveworking relationships, group problem-solving, and so forth.

Figure 1 shows 21 questions that JohnOliver, in a 1985 Personnel Journal article,says designers of performance appraisal

systems must answer in order to develop

effective forms and procedures. MarshallSashkin, in a 1981 Organizational Dynamicsarticle, identified 10 heuristics or rules ofthumb for assessing the effectiveness ofa performance appraisal system. Figure2 lists them.

The works of Oliver and Sashkin bothsuggest that performance appraisalstroubled history stems from severalproblems: vague and conflicting goals,managers competing roles,inappropriate procedures for targetpopulations, inadequate supportsystems, insufficient time to appraiseperformance properly, and failure toreward managers for appraisingperformance or developing staff.

Performance appraisalsposition

The positioning of performanceappraisal within the organization alsocontributes to performance appraisalsprecarious situation.

When performance appraisaloriginally gained widespread acceptance,it made sense in the context of prevailingmanagement philosophies and market

Figure 1-Oliver s 21 questions to ask

1. Who sets the performance standards?2. What form should the standards take?3. How do we decide what is reasonable but challenging?4. How many standards are needed to measure overall

performance?

5. How much weight should each criterion (standard) carry in theoverall performance judgement?

6. How are the standards communicated?7. Are there hidden irrational criteria that take precedence over the

valid rational criteria? If so, how can this problem be solved?8. What measures will be used?9. What is the measurement level of these measures (quantitative or

qualitative)?10. Who provides the performance measure?11. Are the performance measures objective enough or too subjective

to be acceptable?12. When and how will measurements be made?13. How often will measures be compared to the standard?14. Will the frequency have a positive or adverse affect on satisfaction

or productivity?15. How often will the staff member be rated?16. How often will the rating be communicated to the staff member?17. Who will rate the staff member s performance?18. Who will communicate the rating to the staff member?19. How can the staff member improve performance?20. How can the organization aid in improving the staff member s

performance?21. How can the organization ensure that objective performance

ratings are used in decision making instead of subjective, informal,irrational, or irrelevant ratings?


4/7

conditions. Demographics supported awork force of fairly uniform composition.The United States was the dominantcommercial force in the world, resourceswere abundant, inflation was minimal,and markets could be divided into twocategories: those already entered andthose yet to be entered. Americanindustry was built upon manufacturing,technology produced improvementsrather than revolutions, and the general

state of the economy was robust. Steady,if unspectacular growth made stabilitycommonplace. Organizational efforts toexert control surprised few employees,although they could have resisted. By andlarge, a work force characterized byshared values and goals felt thatperformance appraisal was a necessaryevil, even if it was unavoidably stifling.In this context performance appraisal

beca me en tren ch ed as a co ntro lmechanism.

Individuals who had worked their way

up the organizational ladder filled theranks of middle management. Based ontheir experience with other managers,they intuitively identified preferredmanagement behaviors, adopting themas their own. Where training wasavailable, they acquired additionalconcepts and techniques. But by and largecorporate culture transmitted values,expectations, and beliefs throughsuccessive generations of managers.

So it is today with performanceappraisal. Because management practicesare linked to the past through corporateculture, most managers still define theirroles in the traditional terms of planningand controlling. As a result, performanceappraisal has become institutionalized asa control mechanism rather than as a toolfor development-even though eachgeneration found it unpleasant.Managers sometimes discussperformance appraisal as a developmenttool, but this function rarely gets the

emphasis accorded controlling aspects.Its a shame too, because changing

peoples mindsets-not revisingevaluation forms-is the key to successfulperformance appraisal. Performanceappraisal as a developmental toolrequires managers to adopt a different,nontraditional role. Training managers inperformance appraisal in an a dditive

fashion-where all managers receivestand-alone performance appraisalt r a i n i n g that teaches the intricaciesof the system-is insufficient.

Repositioning the managersrole

Instead, basic supervisory andmanagement training must establishmanagers roles as developers of people.Training and cultural norms must defineand reinforce managers responsibility to

bring out the best in the people whoreport to them.Most management models emphasize themanagers role in managingperformance. Situational leadership, forexample, asks managers to assessemployees maturity levels-theirwillingness and ability to meet various

job demand s. Dependin g up on theindividuals maturity level, which in turndepends on the results expected, themanager selects a management style.While situational leadership yieldsseveral effective management principles,it is essentially a status quo managementmodel with a primary focus of helpingthe manager control performance. For

performance appraisal, this type oftraining is not enough.s Effective management training helpsmanagers answer these questions:s Do I want to be a manager? How do Ifeel about guiding or directing otherswork? How do I feel about monitoring,problem solving, arbitrating, and the like?What am I willing to do to be an effectivemanager?s What am I doing to earn my staffsrespect? Do they perceive me as a capabletechnician and manager? Does my staff

believe that I appreciate and look out fortheir best interests?

s Do I really understand what is goingon here? Are goals clear, job descriptionsarticulated, standards in place? Am Isufficiently informed that I can makeknowledgeable assessments about thesuccess and failure of my staff membersgoal attainments?sWhat am I doing to keep abreast of mystaffs performance? Am I aware ofavailable resources, the obstacles anddifficulties they encounter, their skilldeficiencies and strengths? Do I knowwhat factors affect performance? Do I

Figure 2-Sashkin s 10 heuristics

1. Are managers rewarded for developing subordinates?In manyorganizations, developing subordinates is either not rewarded orinadvertently punished.

2. Do managers receive skill trainingand assistance in using the

system and, specifically, in being helpers or counselors?Often,managers are only given the actual appraisal form and cursoryinstructions for completing the forms. Managers need training inrating performance objectively and in problem-solving and helpingskills.

3. Are job descriptions or specific job-goal documents based onbehavioral or job-relevant standards?Recent legal rulings suggestthat performance appraisals are comparable to selection tests, andtherefore must be demonstrable related to job content.

4. Are employees actively involved in the appraisal process?Generally, systems that incorporate end-user input function moreeffectively.

5. Does mutual goal setting take place?Research evidencesuggests that joint goal setting is related to performance

improvement and improved organizational climate.6. Do appraisal sessions have a problem solving focus?A problem

solving focus is essential for performance improvement.7. Is the judge role clearly separated from the helper-counselor role?

This is a key issue that is often thwarted because of difficulty inimplementation.

8. Does the paperwork and technical assistance required by theappraisal system place an unreasonable work load on themanager?This is often overlooked but is a key determinant ofsuccess or failure.

9. Are peer comparisons a central feature of the appraisal process?Peer comparison is a popular notion that can often lead todevastating results.

10. Is information needed for administrative action accessible and

effectively used?This is another feature too often overlooked indesigning a successful performance appraisal system.


5/7

collect information through firsthandexperience?s Can I provide constructive feedbackand jointly seek solutions to performanceproblems? Do I have hidden agendas? DoI really want to help? Is my goal to bringout the best in my staff?s To bring out the best in each staffmember, what must I do?

Redefining managers rolesTo bring out the best in staff, managers

need a broad frame of reference in whichthey manage performance anddevelopment. Managers must shift theirperspective and define their role in a newway, namely managing each employeeslearning curve. This frame of referencegoes by the name ofAdaptive Managing.Figure 3 graphically displays the variousresponsibilities implicit in adaptivemanaging.

When managers focus on eachemployees learning curve, they focus on

both performance and development. Thisemphasis on learning clearly indicatesthat when employee performance meetsexpectations, managers must do morethan merely maintain it throughmonitoring and control. Managers usedifferent strategies depending onwhether the employee performs below,at, or above expected levels. In adaptivemanaging, achieving results becomes a

basel ine at the point where employeeperformance meets expectations. At thatpoint managers must encourage andfoster growth to help employees reachtheir potential.

Adaptive managing thus requires adual-time orientation that looks at thepresent and the future. Managers have toestimate the developmental level for eachstaff member by determining the extentto which staff members currently meetexpectations and to what extent theyrerealizing their potential. The assessmentprocess, shown in Figure 4, uses a seriesof questions and answers to helpmanagers do this.

Traditional top-down, control-motivated performance appraisal may beappropriate to resolve a performancedeficiency, but lasting performance

improvement happens only if managerscan enlist employee support and input inthe problem-solving process. Theadaptive managing model provides astructure and process for obtaining suchsupport and input.

In the adaptive managing model,managers counsel employees to resolveperformance problems. In coaching, theemployees performance is acceptable,

but indicators suggest that the person hasthe potential to accomplish more. Themanager must develop a strategy to help

this person grow and reach a level ofperformance that regularly exceedsexpectations. In developing, theemployees performance consistently

exceeds expectations, and the managermust devise a strategy to incorporate intothe employees position greater challengeor prepare her or him for a new positioninvolving greater challenge andresponsibility.

When counseling employees whoperform below expectations, managers

both initiate and drive the intervention.Thats not the case when employeesalready perform acceptably. A managercan only rightfully demand that anemployee perform acceptably.Consequently, the manager may initiatecoaching or development, but the staff

member must drive it. In other words,while counseling is collaborative, themanager is in control. In coaching anddeveloping the employee, as the drivingforce, must share control.

The repositioning of performanceappraisal thus hinges on redefining themanagers role. Managers must not onlyadopt a new frame of reference-managinglearning; they must also share control.Managers will only agree to thisredefinition if it will help them meet theirobjectives. Training is an important

vehicle for obtaining managerial support.

Trainings role

The ultimate success or failure of aperformance appraisal system rests onthe training effort that supports it. Tosuccessfully support performanceappraisal, training must fulfill thefollowing three functions:s reposition the managers role andemphasize staff development as anessential responsibility;s help managers develop skills andstrategies to enact their new role;s give managers the technology theyneed to apply in their staff developmentactivities. Managers must be able to applytraining concepts and tools as necessary

without depending on the trainingfunction.Performance appraisal training

typicalIy takes the form of stand-aloneseminars or workshops. In addition toreviewing forms and procedures, contentgenerally includes providing staff withongoing feedback and deciding whenand how it should be delivered. Theseseminars also focus on building soundinterviewing and problem-solving skillsand developing interpersonalcompetence that fosters effective staff

Figure 3-Adaptive managing

Copyright 1985, Management & Training Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved.


6/7

relationships.This approach may work when an

organization installs a new performanceappraisal system with an existing workforce. But after the first wave this type oftraining tends to reinforce performanceappraisal as a control mechanism.Performance appraisal becomes just atool, much like a microcomputer, becausethis training emphasizes techniquesinstead of fundamental role changes. Theperformance appraisal system itself,rather than the manager, becomes the

agent for developing staff. Forms, ratingscales, appraisal schedules, anddocumentation take precedence over thestaff members growth. Relationshipvariables like rapport, trust, and goodwillfade into the background.

Training must emphasize performanceappraisal as a natural outgrowth of themanagers role.Staff development-

bringing out the best in people-mustreceive as much emphasis as controlling,monitoring, and delegating. The trainingmust help managers acquire the skillsnecessary to successfully enact the role.Because successful staff development

requires the manager to collaborateinstead of rely on hierarchical authority,training must help managers confidentlyshare power. Managers must understandthat sharing power neither erodesauthority nor compromises results. Theadaptive managing model is particularlyuseful inthis context, because it clearlydemonstrates that only staff memberswho achieve acceptable results are readyfor coaching and development.

The collaboration between managersand employees in coaching and

developing sometimes seems one-sided.The manager merely supports; actualgrowth depends on the employeescommitment. As a coach and developer,the manager must work from thesidelines; in fact, too much input andactivity from the manager potentiallycould have an adverse effect. A key goalin coaching and development must be tohelp the employee assume greaterchallenges and responsibility, a goalincompatible with excessive dependenceupon the manager.

Some managers are less than eager toassume the role of coach and developer

becaus e th ey feel they don t havecoaching and development skills.Performance appraisal training can instillnecessary confidence by teachingfeedback, interpersonaleffectiveness,interviewing, and problem-solvingtechniques.

Training can also contribute tomanagers becoming developers bymaking training technology user-friendlyso they can use it to develop their ownstaffs. Case studies, skills inventories,

basic work redesign techniques, and

cross-training principles all representtraining activities that managers can use.Performance appraisal training shouldteach these techniques. Trainers can alsoprepare a handbook reviewingorganizational policies concerning jobrotation, tuition reimbursements, andinternal and external training resources.

When performance appraisal trainingteaches managers how to reach theirstaffs, it reinforces the notion that staffdevelopment is an essential managerialfunction.

Figure 4The assessment process


7/7

Copyright by the American Society

for Training and Development

For information and price lists onadditional copies of this reprint, write:

Customer Support Dept., ASTD1640 King St., P.O. Box 1443Alexandria, VA 22313-2043, or call703/683-8100

debate1_whitpherperformanceappraisal

Documents