Supervisory Management
Literature Review
An employer evaluating their employees is a very old concept. The history of performance appraisal can be dated back to the 20th century and then to the second world war when the merit rating was used for the first time (Compare Infobase, 2007). The practice of appraisal is a very ancient art, in the scale of things historical it might well lay claim to being the world's second oldest profession (Dulewicz, V. 1989). Historically, performance appraisal has been seen as merely an event, the painful annual exercise where the manager rates the performance of her subordinates over the past 12 months.
Performance reviews get a bad rap these days. Employees dread them, vacillating between cynical eye-rolls and desperate last-minute bids to suck up to the boss before review time. Supervisors see them as an obligation to plow through before they can mark one more task off their endless to-do lists. Clinton states, “there is really no getting round the fact that whenever I evaluate one of my employees I stop and think about the ramification on my relationship with the guy and their future here at the organization”. But according to Studer, Q. (2009), performance reviews themselves are not the problem but it is the way companies handle the review process that is flawed. He contended that performance reviews are necessary, and that when they are conducted properly, persons will respond positively towards them since employees are interested in knowing how well they are performing (Studer, Q. 2009). However this statement was not supported by Dessler (2008), as he viewed it as a difficult and grueling process in that there is nothing more cruel than telling someone who is doing a mediocre job that he or she is doing well.
Performance appraisals are an indispensable part of performance measurement and may be defined as any procedure that involves setting work standards, assessing the employees’ actual performance relative to those standards and providing
An employer evaluating their employees is a very old concept. The history of performance appraisal can be dated back to the 20th century and then to the second world war when the merit rating was used for the first time (Compare Infobase, 2007). The practice of appraisal is a very ancient art, in the scale of things historical it might well lay claim to being the world's second oldest profession (Dulewicz, V. 1989). Historically, performance appraisal has been seen as merely an event, the painful annual exercise where the manager rates the performance of her subordinates over the past 12 months.
Performance reviews get a bad rap these days. Employees dread them, vacillating between cynical eye-rolls and desperate last-minute bids to suck up to the boss before review time. Supervisors see them as an obligation to plow through before they can mark one more task off their endless to-do lists. Clinton states, “there is really no getting round the fact that whenever I evaluate one of my employees I stop and think about the ramification on my relationship with the guy and their future here at the organization”. But according to Studer, Q. (2009), performance reviews themselves are not the problem but it is the way companies handle the review process that is flawed. He contended that performance reviews are necessary, and that when they are conducted properly, persons will respond positively towards them since employees are interested in knowing how well they are performing (Studer, Q. 2009). However this statement was not supported by Dessler (2008), as he viewed it as a difficult and grueling process in that there is nothing more cruel than telling someone who is doing a mediocre job that he or she is doing well.
Performance appraisals are an indispensable part of performance measurement and may be defined as any procedure that involves setting work standards, assessing the employees’ actual performance relative to those standards and providing