Performance Appraisals
Performance Appraisals: The Good and the Bad
Performance appraisals have been around in some form or fashion for quite a while now. Dating mainly back until the time of the second world war, they have been a distinct and formal management procedure used to evaluate work performance. A scholar named Dulewicz (1989) said " there is a basic human tendency to make judgments about those one is working with, as well as about oneself." (Introduction to Performance Appraisal) With these natural tendencies to judge and evaluate the ones that we work with, it can also create serious motivational, ethical, and legal problems in the workplace. Without an organized, consistent appraisal system, there is little chance of ensuring that if taken to court, a judgment over the termination of a under average worker will be lawful or fair. Performance appraisal systems began first-off to be a simple method of income justification, meaning it really was put in use to decide whether or not the salary or wage of an individual employee was justified. The process definitely linked to material outcomes. A cut in pay would follow if an employee's performance was found to be less than ideal. As does everything else, appraisals have evolved greatly. They are considered a periodic interview, in which the work performance of the employee is graded, and discussed, with a view on weaknesses and strengths as well as great opportunities and skills development. There are many people who are against performance appraisals. For example, there are many people who would gladly admit their problems at work, if they knew their next pay raise was riding on an appraisal result. With something like this, management has to watch out for employees downplaying their weaknesses. In recent studies, even though flawed, employers have been greatly accepting the appraisal process more than in the past. Although performance appraisals are an incredible way to evaluate, they have to be kept
Performance appraisals have been around in some form or fashion for quite a while now. Dating mainly back until the time of the second world war, they have been a distinct and formal management procedure used to evaluate work performance. A scholar named Dulewicz (1989) said " there is a basic human tendency to make judgments about those one is working with, as well as about oneself." (Introduction to Performance Appraisal) With these natural tendencies to judge and evaluate the ones that we work with, it can also create serious motivational, ethical, and legal problems in the workplace. Without an organized, consistent appraisal system, there is little chance of ensuring that if taken to court, a judgment over the termination of a under average worker will be lawful or fair. Performance appraisal systems began first-off to be a simple method of income justification, meaning it really was put in use to decide whether or not the salary or wage of an individual employee was justified. The process definitely linked to material outcomes. A cut in pay would follow if an employee's performance was found to be less than ideal. As does everything else, appraisals have evolved greatly. They are considered a periodic interview, in which the work performance of the employee is graded, and discussed, with a view on weaknesses and strengths as well as great opportunities and skills development. There are many people who are against performance appraisals. For example, there are many people who would gladly admit their problems at work, if they knew their next pay raise was riding on an appraisal result. With something like this, management has to watch out for employees downplaying their weaknesses. In recent studies, even though flawed, employers have been greatly accepting the appraisal process more than in the past. Although performance appraisals are an incredible way to evaluate, they have to be kept