PersonnPerformance Appraisal

One important contemporary contention with respect to personnel performance appraisal is that the process will be effective only to the extent that managers and subordinates within an organization share perceptions as to (1) the purpose and function of the process, and (2) its effectiveness with respect to meeting the goals of both management and individuals (Longenecker, Liverpool, & Wilson, 1988). With this contention in mind, this research examines the attitudes of individuals within organizations towards personnel performance appraisal.

The selection of individuals within organizations for leadership positions and for other forms of organizational reward is accomplished by a variety of methods, most of which depend upon the composite results of several factorsrecom mendations of organizational superiors, educational background, past performance, and so forth. One factor which is found in

1 2most selection procedures, however, is the performance evaluation or performance appraisal (Lombardo, 1985). Thus, it is apparent that effective performance evaluation is one of the critical factors which contributes to the on

. . .
riors and subordinates discuss the 7quality of work performed by subordinates. However, simply talking to one another about the quality of work will not likely yield positive results. To assure positive outcomes, a sound criterionbased framework for such discussions must be developed, implemented, and adherred to in evaluation (Kinlaw, 1988). Gortner (1987, p. 287) pointed out that one troubling aspect of performance appraisal to employees is that, in all too many instances, employees are rated more on "their ability to get along with the supervisor" than they are on actual performance. He also pointed to another common problem in the performance evaluation of employees: "it is relatively common for a supervisor to rate every employee as superior, because the supervisor either refuses to be put on the spot or wishes to 'make all of his or her subordinates happy'" (Gortner, 1987, p. 290). Gortner (1987) also discussed validity problems with performance evaluation instruments which trouble individual employees. He noted that pressures exist for the development of evaluation instruments and processes which can be used throughout an organization, for the purpose of easing the job of comparison. The typical problem with su
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
CONCLUSION DISCUSSION, APPRAISAL CONCEPTS, Replogle Inc, Rumph Shannahan, Liverpool Wilson, instrument process, performance evaluation, Nursing Education, PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL, performance appraisal, personnel performance, Noe Kirsch, Hillegas Valentine, evaluation instrument, Coast Quarterly, evaluation instrument process, personnel performance appraisal, process instrument, personnel performance evaluation, evaluation instruments, student competency, gortner 1987, evaluation process, performance evaluation instrument, evaluation instruments processes,
Approximate Word count = 3673
Approximate Pages = 15 (250 words per page)