Question

HRMG-Compensation-In your own words, "What is your expert opinion on the Evaluating Performance Appraisal Formats and Select the Right Raters such as supervisors, subordinates, and/or peers?" -250 words or more, please.

Answer 1

In my personal opinion, the art of performance appraisal is directed toward two fundamental goals:-

1. The organization needs to create a measure that accurately assesses the level of an individual's job performance.

2. Also, the organization needs to create an evaluation system that will advance one or more operational functions in an organization.

In my industry experience all performance appraisal systems encompass both goals, they are reflected differently in two major research orientations:-

1. The one that grows out of the measurement tradition different from human resources management.

2. The second field that focuses on the organizational purposes of performance appraisal.

In my experience and opinion, most organizations have a formal performance appraisal system in which employee job performance is rated on a regular basis, usually once a year. A fairly performing good performance appraisal system can greatly benefit an organization. This helps build direct employee behavior toward organizational goals by letting employees know what is expected out of them, and it yields information for making employment growth decisions, such as those regarding pay raises, promotions, and discharges.

The organization must also have to choose who will rate employee performances. Is it supervisors, peers, and the employees themselves?. In most of the instances, I have experiences with the organizations, performance appraisals are the responsibility of the immediate supervisor of an employee. In my experience the supervisor's rate performance because they are usually the ones most familiar with the employee's work. Additionally, appraisals serve as management tools for supervisors, giving them the means to direct and monitor employee behavior. If supervisors are not allowed to make the performance appraisals, their authority and control over their subordinates could be diminished.

Normally it is perceived that while supervisory ratings can be quite valuable, some organizations have added peer appraisals to replace or supplement those given by the supervisor. Peers and supervisors view an individual's performance from different perspectives as they perceive it while working together. Supervisors usually possess greater information about job requirements and performance outcomes of the employees under his/her control. While on the other hand, peers often see a different, more realistic view of the employee's job performance because people often behave differently when the boss is present. Sometimes, using peer ratings to supplement supervisory ratings may also help to develop a consensus about an individual's performance. This may also help eliminate biases and lead to greater employee acceptance of appraisal systems. Sometimes, the potential problems may limit the usefulness of peer ratings, however, especially if they are used in lieu of supervisory ratings. The organizations must consider the nature of their current reward system for their employees. Sometimes, it is observed that if the system is highly competitive, peers may perceive a conflict of interest. It is also very imperative that the high ratings given to a peer may be perceived as harming an individual's own chances for advancement. Second, friendships may influence peer ratings. A peer may fear that low ratings given to a colleague will harm their friendship or hurt the cohesiveness of the workgroups. While on the other hand, some peer ratings may be influenced by a personal dislike for the employee being rated.

Some organizations use self-ratings to supplement supervisory ratings. The self-ratings are generally more favorable than those made by supervisors and peers and therefore may not be effective as an evaluative tool. However, self-ratings may be used for employee development. Sometimes, their use may uncover areas of subordinate-supervisor disagreement, encourage employees to reflect on their strengths and weaknesses, lead to more constructive appraisal interviews, and make employees more receptive to suggestions.