CAT / FIA FBT Syllabus D. Leading And Managing Individuals And Teams - Effective Appraisal - Notes ^{6 / 7}

THE BARRIERS OF EFFECTIVE APPRAISAL AND HOW THESE MAY BE OVERCOME

There have been studies on the effects of appraisal, which show some negative effects:

criticism had a negative effect on goal achievement
subordinates generally react defensively to criticism during appraisal interviews
inferior performance resulted from defensive reactions to criticism
repeated criticism had the worst effect on subsequent performance of individuals who had little self confidence.

J Lockett suggests that appraisal barriers can be identified as follows:

appraisal as confrontation	ldiffering views regarding performance. lfeedback is subjective – the manager is biased, allowing personality differences to get in the way of actual performance. lfeedback is badly delivered. lassessment is based on yesterday’s performance not on the whole year. ldisagreement over prospects and solutions.
appraisal as judgement	lappraisal is seen as a one sided process – the manager is judge, jury and counsel for the prosecution. lappraisal is imposed.
appraisal as chat	llack of will from either party. lan unproductive conversation. lno outcomes set.
appraisal as bureaucracy	la traditional ceremony. lno purpose or worth.
appraisal as an annual event	la traditional ceremony. lno purpose or worth.
appraisal as unfinished business	lfrustration at limited appraisal time. lno belief that issues will be followed up.

Overcoming the barriers to effective appraisal

One of the barriers to effective appraisal was the view of employees that the annual appraisal was not treated as something important, and that nothing was done after an appraisal interview had finished.

There must be a system of follow up and feedback.
There may be agreement between the interviewer and the employee in the appraisal interview about further training that the employee needs, or ways in which the employee can be developed.
These agreements should be recorded as part of the official record of the appraisal interview.
The action plan that has been agreed with the employee should be reported to senior management and the HR department.
The interviewer is normally the manager of the employee.
He or she should follow up the appraisal report and should arrange the training or development that has been agreed.
At the next appraisal interview, the interviewer and the employee should discuss whether the agreed training or development was provided, and what has been its effect.

The appraisal system itself should be assessed and the claims made by Lockett will need to be addressed to ensure:

Relevance – does the system have a useful purpose and is it relevant to the needs of both the organisation and the individual?
Fairness – is there reasonable objectivity and standardisation of criteria throughout the organisation?
Serious intent – is the management committed to the system or has it been thrust on them by the HR department? Do the appraisers have training in interviewing and assessment techniques? Is there a demonstrable link between performance and reward?
Cooperation – is the appraisal a participative, problem solving activity with the appraisee given time and encouragement to prepare for it to be able to make a constructive contribution? What type of conclusion emerges from the process?
Efficiency – is it costly and difficult to administer and does it seem too time consuming compared with the value of its outcome?

Another way of ensuring effective appraisals is to apply the 4Fs:

Firm – managers should be willing to discuss negative as well as favourable aspects of performance.
Factual – subjective aspects should be avoided.
Fair – all employees should be treated the same.
Frequent – appraisals should be held on a regular basis rather than when a problem arises.

Approaches to Performance Appraisal

Tell and Sell -
This emphasises the manager’s role as judge, telling the employee the outcome of the appraisal and where they need to improve.
This approach may be effective with inexperienced employees, but is unlikely to be well received by someone who feels they have the capacity to judge their own performance.
It is highly controlling and it is mostly a one-way communication system.
Tell and Listen -
The appraiser still takes on the role of judge, passing on the results of an appraisal which has already been completed, but then elicits the appraisee’s reactions.
This may enable the appraisee to influence the results, by offering evidence or explanations which were previously unknown to the appraiser.
Certainly this approach is more likely to involve the appraisee in decisions about how development needs might be addressed, such as whether they would prefer to attend a training course or receive such on the job coaching.
Nevertheless, identification of the development need in the first place remains with the appraiser.
Most of the control therefore remains with the appraiser, but the appraisee is allowed their say within the limits that the appraiser allows.
Problem solving approach -
described as a very different kind of interview.
The emphasis is not on the judgments of the appraiser but the growth and development of the appraisee.
The appraiser’s role is to elicit their self-reflection, so that the appraisee is able to identify their own strengths and development needs, and how these needs might be met.
The term ‘problem solving’ may be off-putting to the employee – the appraisal may reveal a high level of performance with few problems at all! ‘Non-directive interviewing’ is a possible alternative, and is more likely to provide a focus on future development.
360 degree approach -
founded on the idea that any employee’s performance is seen by many others–their manager, peers, direct reports, customers, etc.
Nevertheless, none of these people see anyone else’s performance all the time.
360- degree appraisals improve on any evaluation done by one person by combining ratings from many people who see different parts of an employee’s performance.