Today lets run through the whole life cycle of performance appraisal and then analyze, where the approach is wrong - no not wrong but rather I would say outdated or can be updated or at least is debatable.
As the common knowledge goes (mind I am not discussing any specific Performance Management Methodology) the Performance Appraisal Cycle starts as soon as the incumbent or the appraise in this case gets on board.
Step 1. The appraise is given a proper induction/orientation where he/she is being made acquainted to the organization, its goals, its business, culture, the policies, the members, along with their job responsibility and what the new environment expects from them. (suggestions are invited)
Step 2. The next step involves the goal setting for the appraise for next set time period. (suggestions are invited as this has always been a debatable step for me regarding - when the appraise should undergo this exercise after his/her joining and what and the goals that are measurable and justified can be set?)
Step 3. The next step involves the Performance Assessment of the appraise in question. Here different methodologies of Performance Appraisal comes into play (360 degree etc). The Performance Assessment is done on the basis of different scale based rating on the Performance of the appraise by himself and by different levels of appraisers.(again suggestions are invited as this is also the most controversial and debatable step and the most important of all.)
Step 4. Again Step 2 of goal setting is repeated for the next time period in question.(Now again will this step be effected by the Performance Assessment step and why?)
Step 5. In the next step all the ratings are collated and checked for discrepancies, if any then being resolved and the final ratings are available on the overall performance and it is again normalized to give us a full and final Performance Assessment Rating (again here the technical specification are involved here where the Human Error/Human bias are negated to give out a Fair rating. Many researches and statistical methods are in place to do this but I see a very few people actually apply this so again this can be debated into as which is the best methodology and what all Human Errors can occur while rating the appraise)
Step 6. This step gives meanings or say gives the actual result if viewed from the appraise point of view where the overall Performance Assessment Ratings are linked up with the rewards & recognition program and turns the rating digits to currency or and a higher responsibility.
Step 7. This step involves around the aftermath of the whole exercise where the appraiser receives feedback on the whole exercise and faces good or bad consequences. (To me this is also a very important step where the most hazardous word of modern Human Resource - Attrition comes into play)
WISE COMMENTS ARE INVITED FROM ALL WHO HAVE BEEN EITHER AN APPRAISER OR AN APPRAISE
We will elaborate all the steps in performance appraisal one by one in the subsequent posts.
ReplyDeleteFew important area where performance management usually go wrong and which should be taken of to amke the appriasal process robust are as follows.
ReplyDelete1. As far as possible the measurmeent criteria should be clearly defined so that the entire process can be done in an objective manner and the appraisee feels that he has been rightly evaluated against his achievments during the year. If not done properly then the entire process becomes farce and runs the way the boss wants it to run.
2. Timely review is an important area which is a problem in most of the apprisal process. In fact mid term review is an opportunity to set things right if they are not. It is an opportunity to communicate to the appriasee How he is doign vis a vis set goals.Also
3. The mid term reviews should be used to identify the developmental needs of the subordinates and the final apprisal should be used for Rewards and recognitions. However under any circumstances the development need shoudd not be clubbed with the reward part otherwise it get neglected.