文献信息
标题: Employees' Perception of Performance Appraisal System: A Case Study 作者: Boachie-Mensah, Francis O; Seidu, Peter Awini
出版物名称: International Journal of Business and Management 卷: 7；期: 2；页: 73-88；出版年份: 2015 原文
Employees' Perception of Performance Appraisal System: A Case Study
Boachie-Mensah, Francis O; Seidu, Peter Awini
Abstract
Performance appraisals are essential for effective evaluation and management of staff. Since perceptions influence people's judgement and attitudes towards particular phenomena, it could be expected that the staff of an educational institution might hold diverse opinions about the performance appraisal system in the institution. This study focused on employees' perceptions of performance appraisal biases or errors, and examined the implications for developing and implementing an effective appraisal system in a polytechnic in Takoradi, Ghana. The study also sought to identify pragmatic ways to ameliorate any appraisal biases that may be present in the institution's appraisal system. Data was collected from 140 employees of the institution, which included both academic and administrative staff who had worked in the institution for at least two consecutive years, and whose work had been appraised previously. A content validated semi-structured interview schedule was used to interview the respondents. The data collected was analysed, using descriptive statistics, in order to address the research questions. The results of the study indicate that employees of the institution perceive that the performance appraisal system of the institution is affected by subjectivity, and is influenced by some major errors. The findings have serious managerial implications for training, motivation and provision of resources for effective performance appraisal. A major limitation of the study is that, due to financial constraints, it was conducted in only one institution. Therefore, the findings may not be described as a reflection of the general state of affairs in the other educational institutions in the country. Keywords: Appraisal error, Attribution, Perception, Performance appraisal 1. Introduction
In today's competitive business world, it is understood that organizations can only compete with their rivals by innovating, and organizations can be innovative by managing their human resources well. The human resource system can become more effective by having a valid and accurate appraisal system used for rating performances of employees (Armstrong, 2003; Bohlander &Snell, 2004). Unfortunately, the number of organizations using an effective performance appraisal system (PAS) is limited (Hennessey &Bernadin, 2003).
Perceptions of employees about the targets, outcomes and uses of performance appraisal (PA) results would be beneficial depending on a number of factors. For example, employees are more likely to be receptive and supportive of a given PA programme if they perceive the process as a useful source of feedback which helps to improve their performance (Mullins, 2007). Employees are likely to embrace and contribute meaningfully to a given PA scheme if they perceive it as an opportunity for promotion, and as an avenue for personal development opportunities, a chance to be visible and demonstrate skills and abilities, and an opportunity to network with others in the organisation. On the other hand, if employees perceive PA as an unreasonable attempt by management to exercise closer supervision and control over tasks they (employees) perform, various reactions may result. PA will be effective if the appraisal process is clearly explained to, and agreed by the people involved (Anthony et al., 1999). Without adequate explanation or consultation, PA could turn counterproductive. In addition, staff motivation, attitude and behaviour development, communicating and aligning individual and organisational aims, and fostering positive relationships between management and staff are essential for successful appraisal (Armstrong, 2003).
In order to obtain accurate PA information, raters must provide objective and unbiased ratings of employees. Due to difficulty in developing an accurate performance checklist, managers' subjective opinions are frequently called for. Many organizations use some combination of subjective and objective assessment for actual PA. Yet, there are numerous problems in actual assessment of employee performance (Corbett &Kenny, 2001). The existence of such problems suggests that PAS may be fraught with biases or errors, resulting in compromised evaluations of employees' accomplishments and capabilities. And the PAS of the institution of study might not be an exception. For a PAS to be perceived as fair, it must be free of bias. It is known that appraisal errors can harm perceptions of pay system fairness by confusing the relationship between true performance differences (Miceli et al., 1991). The importance of effective PA in organizations cannot be over emphasized as appraisals help develop individuals, improve organizational performance and feed into business planning. An understanding of the phenomenon, therefore, in every sector of human endeavor is imperative. This recognition has raised interest in studying people's
perceptions of the quality of PA in organizations (educational institutions inclusive).
There, however, seems to be a paucity of credible data on the quality of PA in Ghana's educational sector. The Ghanaian situation is relatively unexamined in genre academic literature. This makes it difficult to fashion an appropriate management intervention to address any existing problem, because the exact dimensions of the challenge and its causes are not known. It is against this backdrop that this study was undertaken. It sought to assess the level of perceived PA biases in the educational sector in Ghana by analysing employees' perceptions of PA in one of the ten polytechnics in the country. The study sought to examine PA from the perspective of employees' perceptions of errors with the view to gathering and analysing information that could assist in development of innovative approaches to achieve both individual and corporate goals. Findings of the study would help fill the gap in extant literature. The findings would also provide useful insights and guidelines for enhancing the quality of PA in organizations. 2. Literature Review
2.1 The process and purpose of performance appraisal
Studies show that there are many approaches for evaluating employee behaviour and performance with respect to job tasks and/or organisational culture. As a result, various applications of PA have left many managers in a state of confusion and frustration with the employee evaluation process (Gurbuz &Dikmenli, 2007). This situation seems to negatively impact the popularity of appraisal systems in many organizations. Most people support the concept and purpose of PA, in spite of their concerns about the process and application of appraisal outcomes by managers (Grote, 1996). The biggest complaint from managers is that they are not given sufficient guidelines to assess people; and the biggest complaint from employees is that the process is not equitable and fair. PA concentrates much in assessing past behaviours of employees, a situation some managers exploit to victimise unfavoured employees (Bersin, 2008). Timing of appraisal; Selection of appraisers and Providing feedback (Scullen et al., 2003). Early PA processes were fairly simple, and involved ranking and comparing individuals with other people (Milkovich &Boudreau 1997). However, these early person-based appraisal systems were fraught with problems. As a result, a transition to job-related performance assessments continues to occur. Thus, PA is being modified from being person-focused to behaviour-oriented, with emphasis on those tasks or behaviours associated with the performance of a particular job (Wellbourne etb al., 1998).
Regarding the purpose of PA, Cleveland et al. (1989) describe four types of uses of performance appraisal: between person, within person, system maintenance and
documentation. Between person uses are what have been referred to as administrative purposes, consisting of recognition of individuals' performance to make decisions regarding salary administration, promotions, retention, termination, layoffs and so forth. Within person uses are those identified in Management by Objectives (MBO), such as feedback on performance strengths and weaknesses to identify training needs and determine assignments and transfers. PA also helps in organisational goals, which are referred to as system maintenance uses. Finally, documentation purposes are to meet the legal requirements by documenting HR decisions and conducting validation research on the PA tools. Some organizations are attempting to meet all of these goals simultaneously while they continue to use tools that were designed for one type of purpose (Wiese &Buckley, 1998). Jawahar and Williams's (1997) findings suggest that ratings collected for administrative purposes are more lenient than ratings for research or developmental purposes. Although rating scale formats, training and other technical qualities of PA influence the quality of ratings, the quality of PA is also strongly affected by the administrative context in which they are used (Murphy &Cleveland, 1995). Effective managers recognise PAS as a tool for managing, rather than a tool for measuring subordinates. Such managers use PA to motivate, direct and develop subordinates, and to maximise access to important resources in the organisation to improve productivity. 2.2 Rater issues
Researchers have shown considerable interest in variables related to the individual doing the appraisal (Lefkowitz, 2000; Levy &Williams, 2004; Robbins &DeNisi, 1998). One of the most studied rater variables is rater affect (Levy &Williams, 2004). A general definition of affect involves liking or positive regard for one's subordinate (Lefkowitz, 2000). Forgas and George's (2001) study suggests that affective states impact on judgements and behaviours and, in particular, affect or mood plays a large role when tasks require a degree of cognitive processing. In PA, raters in good mood tend to recall more positive information from memory and appraise performance positively (Sinclair, 1988). Affective regard is related to frequently higher
appraisal
ratings,
less
inclination
to
punish
subordinates,
better
supervisor-subordinate relationships, greater halo, and less accuracy (.Lefkowitz, 2000). Antonioni and Park (2001) found that affect was more strongly related to rating leniency in upward and peer ratings than it was in traditional top-down ratings. This effect was stronger when raters had observational time with their subordinates.
A second broad area related to raters is the motivation of the rater. Traditionally, researchers seemed to assume that raters were motivated to rate accurately, and that the problems with
the appraisal process involved cognitive processing errors and complexities (Levy &Williams, 2004). This position has, however, been questioned, leading to attempts to identify and understand other elements of raters' motivation and how such motivation affects the appraisal process. The issues involved include individual differences and the rating purpose on rating leniency. Most practitioners report overwhelming leniency on the part of their raters, and this rating elevation has been found in empirical papers as well as surveys of organizations (Murphy &Cleveland, 1995; Villanova et al., 1993; Bernadin et al., 2000). The role of attribution in the PA process has also attracted recent research attention on how the attribution that raters make of ratees' behaviours affect their motivation to rate or their actual rating (Struthers et al., 1998). Raters consider ratees' behaviours and their reputations when drawing attributional inferences and deciding on appropriate rewards (Johnson et al., 2002). This implies that attributional processing is an important element of the rating process, and these attributions, in part, determine raters' reactions and ratings. Another aspect of rater motivation has to do with rater accountability (Frink &Ferris, 1998). Klimoski and Inks (1990) posit that raters distort appraisal ratings more when they are to be held accountable to the ratee for those ratings. They emphasise that accountability can result in distortions of performance ratings. This view is confirmed by other research findings (Mero et al., 2003; Shore &Tashchian, 2002). There have also been calls from practitioners to use accountability as a means of improving the accuracy of appraisal ratings, increasing acceptance of the appraisal system, and making the HR system more efficient (Digh, 1998). 2.3 Ratee issues
A second major focus of PA research relates to the role of PA in ratee motivation and ratee reactions to PA processes. The research focusing on motivation is generally categorised as being about either (1) the links between performance ratings and rewards or (2) those elements of the PA process which increase ratees' motivation, such as participation (Levy &Williams, 2004; Goss, 2001; Campbell et al., 1998). One theme of some recent work is that although merit pay systems sound like a good idea, there is very little evidence indicating that they are at all successful (Goss, 2001). In spite of its intuitive appeal and theoretical support, merit pay plans seldom reach their objectives (Campbell et al., 1998). Mani (2002) argues that while pay is an important motivator along with recognition, work enjoyment, and self-motivation, very few organizations actually link the PAS to pay or compensation in any clear, tangible way. Starcher (1996) contends that how well employees perform is much more a function of the situational constraints they experience than their own skills or motivation. But Levy and Williams (1998) argue that these situational constraints are not so important to exclude social or motivational factors that have been quite clearly linked to
employee satisfaction and productivity over the years. 译文
员工对绩效考核系统的感知:一个案例研究
门萨；弗朗西斯；彼得
摘要：作为有效的评估和管理的人员的工具，绩效考核与评估是必不可少。人们的感知会影响到他们的判断和态度，可以预期到，教育机构的员工可能会对组织内的绩效考核系统持有不同意见。这项研究主要集中在员工对绩效考核存在偏差或错误的感知方面，以及为加纳的塔科腊迪理工学院研究开发并实施一个有效的评价体系。本研究还试图改善绩效考核评价方面的偏见，这可能会出现在任何机构的评估系统中，因此，研究很有必要。收集到的数据来自于学院的140名员工，其中，包括学术和行政人员都曾在该机构工作了至少连续两年。采用半结构化面试方法来采访受访者。为了解决研究问题，对收集到的数据进行描述性统计分析。研究结果表明，员工认为该机构的绩效考核系统受到主观性的影响，并存在一些重大错误。研究的一个主要的限制是，由于研究资金方面的约束，只选择了一个组织进行研究的。因此，这一发现可能不反映其他教育机构的总体状况。
关键词:评价误差；归因；感知；绩效评价 1 引言
在如今竞争日益激烈的商业世界，据悉，组织只有通过创新才能与竞争对手竞争，尤其是组织人力资源方面的创新。通过一个有效和准确的评价体系，人力资源系统可以更有效的对员工的绩效进行评价(阿姆斯特朗2003; 柏兰德2004)。不幸的是，许多组织对绩效考核系统的使用是有限的(亨利和&柏兰德2003)。
目标的员工对绩效考核结果的认知，取决于很多因素。例如，员工更容易接受和支持给定的绩效考核计划，他们的感知过程可以作为一个有用的反馈，帮助改善他们的绩效(马林斯2007)。员工可能会接受并向给定的绩效考核方案提供支持，如果他们认为绩效考核可以作为一个晋升的机会和作为个人发展机会的路径之一，这是一个很好的机会来展示他们的技能和能力。另一方面，如果员工认为绩效考核计划不合理，组织只是想以此来试图监督和控制他们(员工)，那么就可能会导致不好的后果。，如果绩效考核过程是清晰透明的，并同意由员工参与，那么绩效考核将是有效的(安东尼1999)。没有足够的透明度，绩效考核计划可能会适得其反。此外，对于成功的绩效评价来说，员工的动机、态度和行发展、个人与组织的目标调整、培养管理和员工之间的积极关系都是必不可少的。(阿姆斯特朗,2003)。
为了获得准确的绩效考核信息，必须提供客观、公正的员工信用评级体系。由于制定一个