Why Performance Appraisals Don't Work
Posted in Job Performance
Employers don't enjoy doing performance appraisals as much as you, the average employee, think. Why? It's because the performance appraisal task, as traditionally practiced, is essentially and intrinsically flawed.
Performance appraisals don't sit well with today's work environments. Today's work environments are forward-thinking, value-based, mission-oriented and value-driven, making performance appraisals seem rather outdated.
Performance appraisals as done traditionally
The old way of doing performance appraisals goes like this: the manager fills out a document supplied by the HR department. He/she fills these forms with his/her opinions about a staff member's performance. In some organizations, the staff member is required to fill-out a self-assessment form to share with his/her immediate superior.
Performance appraisals show what the immediate superior can remember. Those are usually the most recent events, and unfortunately sometimes, employee blunders.
Nearly all the time, the performance appraisal is based on opinions as real performance gauge takes a lot of time and follow-up to be done accurately. Appraisal documents also ask supervisors to measure employee performance by answering concepts and words such as 'excellent performance', 'exhibits enthusiasm', 'achievement oriented'.
Supervisors and managers do not like doing performance appraisals. The task makes them uncomfortable because it requires them to play judge. In fact, it takes months before they can submit performance appraisals to the HR department.
We all know that pay raises are tied to performance appraisals. And the fact that supervisors and managers avoid doing it for as long as possible makes it look to the employee like his manager doesn't care about him enough to facilitate his raise. The result is that the employee only gets unmotivated.
Performance appraisals are painful for all involved
Why is the traditional performance appraisal process so unattractive to all parties?
Because the manager is uncomfortable playing the judge. The employee may be required to give specific examples to support his/her 'appraisal', especially when the staff member asks. The employee does not have the skill to give feedback and thus, may elicit a defensive response from his/her employee. Sometimes too, managers give inaccurate feedbacks which defeat the very purpose of the process.
On the other hand, the staff member whose performance is being appraised can get defensive. When his performance gets ratings that are below the level at which he believes his contribution is, the supervisor is seen as punitive.
The discrepancy on employee performance and contribution ratings can cause conflicts that can go on for months. Most managers avoid these conflicts that can affect the harmony in the workplace.
Finally, since salary increases are tied to an employee's numerical rating, managers know that they will undermine their staff member's increase if they give the staff's performance a mark that is less that 'outstanding'.
To avoid problems that may come out of performance appraisals, managers sometimes give almost all of their employees a "one" rating. Managers may feel that this is the safest route to take, but actually has an impact on the company, in that it fails to weed out the bad apples from the group.
