Predicaments in Employee Performance Appraisal

 

Evaluation errors and biases can occur during the observation or processing stages of a judgment. These factors influence the appropriateness and accuracy of Performance appraisal. Organizations are expected to communicate performance standards or goals, discuss how these standards can be met, explain evaluation criteria, and provide timely feedback in the context of Performance appraisal (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). These elements correspond to goal setting, Cederblom, (1982), and job-relatedness of the performance-evaluation criteria is used (Cederblom, 1982). As a result, the existence of a culture-based integrated evaluation system, as well as organizational strategies, policies, and goals, is unavoidable.

Bias in performance evaluation is problematic because it tends to make appropriate personnel decisions, such as promotions, difficult (Moers, 2005).

The following are several difficulties with a performance assessment that managers regularly find.

The Halo Effect and Horn Effect - The halo effect is defined as "the impact of a rater's overall impression on ratings of specific rater qualities." In other words, the rater gives good grades to subordinates despite their poor performance. For instance, if an employee has few absences, her or his superior may give her or him a high rating due to dependability. This is because managers are not always able to evaluate the employee's other characteristics separately. If he/she likes the subordinate, they will often overlook poor performance (Lefkowitz, 2010).

The halo effect is the inverse of the horn effect. It means that the appraiser may give a low grade even if the ratee's performance is commendable. In other words, some appraisers tend to view all behaviors or actions of a subordinate negatively because the superior dislikes a specific behavior or action of the subordinate (Naseer & Ahmad, 2016).

 

Leniency Error- Leniency errors occur when a manager is more lenient than his or her peers when rating employees, or when one employee is more lenient than another. As a result, employee ratings are inflated and do not accurately reflect employee performance over the course of the year (Appelbaum, et al., 2011).

 

The Central Tendency - Employee ratings tend to be toward the middle of the scale, regardless of actual performance (Brewer & Wilson, 1995).According to avidmehr & Ebrahimpour, (2015) this error may exist in graphical evaluation scales as well. It is a way of rating people that is neither high nor low. When a manager is uncomfortable with conflict and wants to avoid dealing with behavioral issues, he may choose the middle path. This gives the impression that there are not exceptionally good or exceptionally poor performers on the dimensions being evaluated. To avoid this problem, supervisors should use rankings because rankings prevent them from putting too many people in the center.

The Recency Effect -Performance appraisals should ideally be based on data collected about a subordinate's performance over the course of an evaluation period (typically six months to a year). However, as is often the case, the supervisor is more likely to value recent performance over previous performance behaviors. This is referred to as the recency of events error. Failure to include all performance behaviors in a subordinate's performance appraisal can lead to biased ratings (Lunenburg, 2012).

Conclusion

The systematic observation and evaluation of employees' performance is known as performance appraisal. The judgmental approach, absolute standards approach, and results-oriented approach are three of the most used performance appraisal methods. Performance evaluations should ideally be completely accurate and objective (Lunenburg, 2012).

However, the performance appraisal process is far from accurate and objective, sometimes resulting in rating errors. Common rating errors include strictness or leniency, central tendency, halo effect, and recency of events. It is imperative that managers avoid conflicts of interest when evaluating an employee, as an employee's promotion and salary increment depend on the performance appraisal.

References

 

• Appelbaum, S. H., Roy, M. & Gilliland , T., 2011. Globalization of performance appraisals: theory and applications. Management Decision.. Management Decision, 49(4), pp. 570-585.

• Brewer, N. & Wilson, C., 1995. Psychology and Policing. 1st ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Cederblom, D., 1982. The Performance Appraisal Interview: A Review, Implications, and Suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 7(2), pp. 219-227.

• Folger, R. & Cropanzano, R., 1998. Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management. 1st ed. California: SAGE Publications.

• Javidmehr, M. & Ebrahimpour, M., 2015. Performance appraisal bias and errors: The influences and consequences. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 4(1), pp. 286-302.

• Lefkowitz, J., 2010. The role of interpersonal affective regard in supervisory performance ratings: A literature review and proposed causal model. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 73(2000), pp. 67-85.

• Lunenburg, F. C., 2012. Performance Appraisal: Methods and Rating Errors. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY ACADEMIC INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY, 14(1), pp. 1-9.

• Moers, F., 2005. Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: The impact of diversity and subjectivity. Accounting, Organizations, & Society, 30(1), pp. 67-80.

• Naseer, H. & Ahmad, M., 2016. Politics of performance appraisal effects: a study of aviation industry of Islamabad.. International Journal of Management and Business Research, 6(1), pp. 73-84.