Chapter 3 Performance Appraisal and Career Development

Chapter Overview
Part 1 of this chapter describes and explains the appraisal system as involving two potentially conflicting functions: performance evaluation and personal development. It is argued that, increasingly, these two functions have become closely intertwined both at the level of policy and procedure and in terms of employee perception of appraisal goals. Research has focused primarily on technical and measurement issues (that is, the psychometrics of performance ratings) and on developing rating formats that promote accuracy. More contemporary interests include exploring the impact of motivational factors on appraisal, on the part of both appraiser and the appraised. Some have argued that there will always be a tension between accuracy and acceptability goals. Effectiveness research unfortunately shows that few people experience their appraisal systems as acceptable, suggesting that they do not necessarily culminate in the expected motivational benefit. Research on multi-source feedback systems confirms that negative feedback or feedback discrepant from self-perception does not necessarily increase self-awareness or provide the impetus for behaviour change. On the contrary, reactions to feedback are often defensive and may demotivate rather than promote performance. One of the problems in moving on from this position is the absence of any coherent theoretical basis for developmental appraisal. Attempts to conceptualize the ratings feedbackperformance association have harnessed the idea of self-awareness (and self-insight) as the key organizing construct. There are no guidelines for conducting the appraisal interview, though insights could be usefully drawn from the literature on helping relationships and behaviour change. It is surprising that the developmental function of appraisal (where development is now a key performance criterion in itself), has not been integrated with career management policy and practice. The notion of self development however provides a conceptual, empirical and pragmatic bridge across the two otherwise distinct human resource domains. Part 2 of this chapter highlights that both the objective and subjective face of the career concept is essential to its analysis. It demonstrates how the subjective face of careers is becoming more relevant in the face of less opportunity for careers in the objective and upward sense. Objective notions of career still tend to predominate in peoples perceptions of what constitutes success, but changes are evident insofar as more protean alternatives are being contemplated and pursued, open to everyone, not just managers. The workplace is increasingly being recognized as a place of diversity, an opportunity for growth and development amidst a climate of continual change. Life-span and life-space considerations of career for both men and women alike are also coming to the fore as a means of understanding the career concept in the context of many different interfaces (organization and individual, workplace and family). The 21st-century organization is more fluid and flexible, allowing more opportunity for individuals to pursue careers of their own making. On the other hand, careers must be understood to be constrained by what is on offer by organizations and by society as a whole. Increased autonomy and personal responsibility for career development is coupled with increased complexity and fewer certainties. Thus people

are both sculptors of their own career and sculpted by the organizations in which they are members. In the words of Evetts (1995: 154) careers are normative in that they are constraining and limit choices of action. But careers are also cognitive in that they are understood, experienced and used. It is said by postmodern thinkers that the career concept is a retrospective one, used by people in making sense of their past and their future in relation to the present. On this note, it is clear that the concept of career is not the property of any one epistemological, theoretical or disciplinary view. Whilst there is no absence of theory on careers, this literature has not been exploited for career management in organizational contexts. Contemporary accent on individual rather than organizational responsibility for careers and on the skills of self-management has spawned a research agenda that has begun to explore the subjective basis for career success. The concept of self is central to these considerations. It is generally agreed that organizations can and should facilitate career self-management, and correspondingly many companies are now realizing that development is a core business asset to be strategically managed.

Appendix 5 Criterion Development for Appraisal Purposes

Borman (1991) says that too much focus has been on the development of valid and reliable predictors, rather than construct-valid criterion measures. A criterion should reflect those behaviours and outcomes at work that competent observers can agree constitute necessary standards of excellence to be achieved. A set of performance criteria should cover all important performance requirements of the job (that is, they should have content validity). See Chapter 1 for distinctions between different types of validity. It is generally agreed that a logical analysis of the relevance of a criterion to the conceptual criterion (judged relevance) is the only means of establishing criterion validation. Unfortunately, in the performance domain, the conceptual criterion is itself unclear, meaning that there is often no logical basis against which to make a relevance judgement. The default option is to tie the criterion to job analysis. This has meant that performance criteria tend to be almost entirely context-dependent, measured using whatever is available (Guion, 1991; see below).

Objective performance criteria Turnover

Most researchers use turnover intention as a surrogate turnover variable, but some have queried the assumption that turnover is bad. High-performing employees may hop companies to develop their career portfolio and conversely, a cohesive team with low turnover may not perform well.

Absenteeism
Three problems plague absenteeism measures: (1) criterion contamination absence can be voluntary or involuntary; (2) instability organizational factors can influence absence rates differently for different employees; and (3) skewing of distributions, there are often many employees with no or only a few absences across the year. Event history models may improve the prediction of voluntary absences and

absence taking process.

Production rates/sales
Most production rate/sales criteria reflect production systems and teams rather than particular individuals, and, moreover, quota systems (where a certain productivity level is expected) or just-in-time policies mean that production criteria can be highly unreliable measures. Also production rates may vary widely by week, month or year and sales figures may be adjusted for factors like market potential remain problematic because of difficulties establishing the appropriate norm basis.

Work samples
Work samples can provide criterion as well as predictor scores and provide high-fidelity opportunities for in situ performance assessment. However, developing tests is highly labour intensive, and assess can do rather than typical performance. Civilian air pilots for British Airways have to pass stringent and often traumatic performance tests in high-fidelity aircraft simulators every six months to keep their pilot wings but this does not assess everyday performance.

Tracking performance
In situ tracking can be carried out using high-technology equipment, as in the typical call-centre (for example, efficiency and accuracy of keyboard operators, number of calls made or attempted), but is obtrusive and potentially unethical.

Appendix 6 Conducting a Performance Appraisal Interview (PAI)

Conducting an Effective PAI
Participation refers to an employees sense of significance (their thoughts and opinions are welcomed) and contribution (feel able to make constructive suggestions). Essentially the aim is to collect data from the employee (for example, self-assessment, perceived problems and suggestions for improvement) to facilitate employee ownership and acceptance of the appraisal process. Support positive motivational techniques (for example, praising the employee, ending on a positive note, treating the employee with respect) will foster trust, thus increasing the likelihood an employee will supply valid information. Goal setting the value of setting specific and realistic goals (for example, increase your output by 5 percent by the end of December) rather than global and diffuse ones (for example, do your best or try harder) is well-established (Chapter 4). Goals that are accepted by employees are most likely to be effective; hence the onus is on the supervisor/manager to facilitate this. Discussing problems Wexley (1986) advocates a problem-solving approach to the PAI, to be used as a forum to discuss problems interfering with current job performance, including inadequate resources, inadequate training or support. The supervisor/manager might venture a question such as, Is there anything I could do differently to help solve these problems to legitimize a discussion about supervisory/management style (p.170). Limited criticism criticism fosters defensive reactions and little incentive to improve. Threats to self-esteem can be minimized if feedback is specific and behaviourally oriented. If criticism is addressed to personal attributes (you are just bone-idle) as opposed to observable behaviours (your productivity level has fallen substantially over the last few months), the employee becomes more defensive and less motivated to improve. Effective feedback is frequent, offered immediately after the desired behaviour has occurred, and is sensitively given in a counselling manner (demonstrating empathy, consideration and personal respect). It is specific (refers to specific instances rather than generalized gripes), detailed (this is what happened exactly and these were the consequences) and concrete (that is, oriented to behaviour or behavioural issues as opposed to abstract traits) and it involves the employee (Chapter 2). Role-splitting separating the role of the supervisor/manager as helper from that of judge means that administrative decisions based on appraisal information are fed back in a completely different forum from that in which development is discussed. The development appraisal is an off-shoot of the management-by-objectives (MBO) approach to performance management, originating from the work of Peter Drucker (1954). In this system, objectives are agreed and formulated at the beginning of the appraisal review period, and the employee is supported with the necessary assistance and training to facilitate the achievement of objectives. The achievement of these objectives is reviewed annually (or six monthly) and then new objectives are set. To implement the MBO approach a consultative management style is advised rather than an autocratic one, since this can engender resentment and fear-based compliance rather than commitment to bettering performance in line with organizational objectives. The advantage of MBO is that employees are clear on what is expected of them and both management and employee can then plan. But the disadvantage is that objective-setting in and of itself is narrowly focused and may exclude other aspects of the job equally important for performance. Moreover,

an employee can become so preoccupied with accomplishing established objectives to the exclusion of anything else that the achievement of objectives can become an all-or-none issue for them. The implication of this is too much focus on end points and not enough attention to performance processes and means. However, MBO is said to be particularly useful for higher-level and professional employees The appraisal styles described below vary in the extent of control each party in the equation is afforded within the PAI. At one end of the continuum, the tell approach affords little or no control on the part of the employee whilst at the other, the ask and listen approach affords them total control. The tell and listen and ask and tell sit fairly much in the centre of the continuum to signal the fact that each part has about the same amount of control as the other in how the dialogue ensues, although one is manager-led and the other is employee-led. The more control (or perceived control) the employee has over the appraisal process, the more committed they are likely to be to both the process and its outcomes. The implications of this for the PAI are that if the employee can be made to feel that they are involved in the appraisal process, and to perceive that they have some control over both the appraisal process and its outcomes, the more committed they will be to the entire appraisal enterprise (see Chapter 6 for more on the counselling style and Chapter 6 Activities below).

Post-Appraisal Interview Styles (Source: Maier, 1958). Tell and sell

In this approach, the supervisor/manager takes the role of judge. The aim is to evaluate and to persuade employees to pursue an improvement plan. It assumes that employees wish their strengths and weaknesses pointed out to them and that they can change their behaviour is they wish. Moreover, the approach pre-supposes that the manager is qualified to evaluate the employee. The success of the tell and sell approach, depends on the persuasion skills of the manager, which in turn rests on the kind of relationship he/she has with the employee (for example, respect) and the managers power to control performance incentives. However, it is particularly prone to lapsing into a cycle of defensiveness and resentment.

Tell and listen

In this approach the supervisor/manager also takes the role of judge, except here employees are afforded the opportunity to respond to the evaluation. The aim is to permit the employee to drain off any emotions evoked by the evaluation. The supervisor/manager listens and plays back to the employee what he/she is hearing. The consequence of this is reduced employee defensiveness, but with little if any scope for anything else.

Problem solving
This approach casts the supervisor/manager into the role of helper. The influence of the manager is limited to stimulating the thinking of the employee rather than offering solutions, and presupposes that he or she is willing to consider all possibilities for improvement identified by the employee. Seemingly impractical or inappropriate ideas are explored further with questions and together the supervisor/manager and employee set improvement goals that are mutually acceptable.

Mixed model
This approach integrates the telling approaches into a problem-solving approach. The discussion starts by being open ended and problems are openly explored. The employee also leads discussion on solutions, although it is here where the supervisor/manager takes on a stronger more challenging yet still constructive role. Agreement on problems and their solutions is sought, and the interview is completed by the manager who then provides a formal evaluation. Important issues not so far raised are dealt with and any areas of disagreement are resolved.