By: Juan Skavani Mahaganti
-------------------------------------------------
Journal Details:
-------------------------------------------------
Performance Appraisal: Two Steps Forward, One Step Beck?
-------------------------------------------------
Alan R. Nankervis and Pricilla Leece
-------------------------------------------------
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 1997; 35; 80
Summary of the Journal
The Journal is a report of data gathered by the survey conducted in 1995, describing the practice of performance appraisal in Australian industry. The survey was distributed to 1500 human resource management specialist randomly, from totally 614 companies of various industry background and sizes. “The surprisingly high response rate to this survey suggest that performance appraisal is a popular current employment issue” (page 82), despite numbers of critics to performance appraisal practice and adoption of TQM that focuses on teams performance (rather than individual, that assessed by performance appraisal). Writer of the journal also use previous survey conducted by CCH/AGSM of September 1995 and the Nankervis and Penrose 1989, as comparative.
In brief, statistics revealed by the journal can be presented in table below: Nankervis and Leece, 1997 | CCH/AGSM, 1995 | Nankervis and Penrose, 1989 | * 614 responds received, response rate of 41% * 85% organizations use formal PA schemes * Surprisingly, only 36.5% of respondents use some form of TQM system * Interestingly, 33 respondents report using both PA and TQM systems, incorporating individual and team evaluations * 94% use appraisal result for evaluation of current employees’ performance * 85% use PA to determine training and development needs for the present job * 67% use PA to plan future work, 64% utilize it to motivate employees in their current job * PA schemes designed by HR specialists (44% of respondents), or in combination with other parties