Introduction
Assessment Index
External Links
There is nothing new about appraisal systems the Institute of Personnel Management first surveyed appraisal systems in 1973. Unfortunately we don't seem to have made much progress. Performance appraisal as practiced by many organisations today is seen by subordinates as a demoralising, bureaucratic process which gives nothing but negative feedback. Managers see it as an unnecessary task imposed by 'personnel' to make a job for themselves. Even worse the geeks have now got hold of the process, adding a significant element of frustration by running appraisal systems on company intranets.
Our View
-
The only purpose of performance appraisal is to assist line managers manage the improved performance of subordinates.
-
The reasons for third party involvement (e.g. Human Resources) are to keep a check the process is happening regularly and to assist line managers follow up training and development actions.
-
The process should be kept as simple as possible. It is worth keeping a brief written record but that is for the sole use of the two parties directly involved.
-
The essence of the process is the manager making available uninterrupted time for the subordinate to discuss how they feel they are doing and what can be done to assist them improve in their current role.
-
The frequency of such interviews will vary according to the speed jobs are changing and the competence of the individual. An experienced individual in a relatively static job may benefit from a review every two years wheras an inexperienced person in a fast changing environment may benefit from monthly meetings.
-
Where performance-based reward is an integral part of the compensation package its important to give line managers sufficient flexibility to manage the pay outcomes with having to distort the appraisal process.
-
Apart from increased ease of communication (in theory) its difficult to see what advantages intranet-based systems can add to the process.
360° Feedback
A systematic process by which managers receive feedback from subordinates, peers and superiors. Often linked to a team assessment methodology such as defined by Belbin. There are a number of proprietary systems available see the SHL website for a good example. Some caution must be used applying any such methodologies which all over-simplify the complexity of inter-personal relationships. However the main problem is the complexity they introduce into what should be a simple straightforward process. They are often introduced with great enthusiasm (and at great cost) but the pressure of modern organisations means they soon fall by the wayside.