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 a vested interest in the outcome of the
. PA is a complex activity that confronts even experienced
appraisers with interrelations that frustrate clean, accurate
and merit-based ratings, and which is becoming increasingly more demanding over time.
. Finally, PA tends to become entangled in the politics of
an organization and many PA systems have the potential to
admit biases that discriminate against selected workers
While these "realitie...