Employee Performance Appraisal System Development

The Value of Employee Involvement in Program Modification

Performance management and appraisal systems for workers have been the focus of extensive empirical research in recent years, with an emphasis emerging on the active role that employees themselves can and should take in both designing and modifying such programs (Kirkpatrick, 1984). For many workers, the performance appraisal is both feared and resented; workers often feel, with some legitimacy, that the performance appraisal process itself is biased against their needs or concerns (Wing, 2000). Managers sometimes fear employee reactions to ratings and raise or bonus determinations, and express doubt at to the efficacy of an existing appraisal system and the ability of the system to fully capture information and commentary relevant to all facets of an employee's performance, attitude, skills, and competencies (Wing, 2000).

Ghorpade, Chen, and Caggiano (1995) have suggested that there are four inescapable realities that confront participants in the performance appraisal. These are:

. Performance appraisals (PAs) are inevitable in all

organizations, regardless of their focus, and are

increasingly essential from a legal standpoint to defend the organization's negative actions against individuals.

. PA is an activity whose conduct is likely to generate

consequences for both the individual and the organization, both of whom have

. . .
the most part, motivated to "do well" in a PA; they are motivated by anticipated increases in monetary compensation, the desire for non-monetary rewards and advancement, and their own intrinsic goals and objectives related to work and a career. They are also an excellent and knowledgeable source of information about their own work roles and tasks, the skills needed for task completion and enhanced productivity, and the strategies of an effective performance appraisal or performance management plan that are linked directly to the nature of their work roles. Roberts (1998) infers that an effective PA system is one that is tailored to accurately reflect the "real world" demands of a job - and by extension, employees may be far more cognizant of those demands (and their practicality) than supervisors or professional raters. Markowich (1994) believes that the way most contemporary PA systems are structured, it is almost impossible for the system not to offend someone. Managerial bias, poor or inadequate rating scales, and other deficits in such systems lead to employee antagonism and fear. This researcher recommends that the appraisal itself, as well as its design and/or modification, should be a joint planning activity that invo
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Significantly Roberts, Human Resources, Specifically Wing, Organizational Characteristics, O'Neal Palladino, Bettenhauasen Fedor, Pavett Morris, Edward Lawler, Characteristics System, Current PA, pa system, performance appraisal, pa systems, et al, design modification, appraisal system, performance management, pa process, existing pa system, pavett morris, al 1995, et al 1995, pavett morris 1995, ghorpade et al, performance appraisal system,
Approximate Word count = 4187
Approximate Pages = 17 (250 words per page)