Suchergebnisse

Argues that the conventional validation paradigm, which uses
subjective performance or appraisal ratings as criteria, may be of
doubtful validity. Discusses research into performance appraisal which
documents four sets of problems which may reduce the usefulness of
performance ratings as criteria. These problems include biases,
politicking, impression management and undeserved reputation. Describes
the inaccuracies to which these problems give rise and concludes that
instead of selecting the right people for management, selection methods
validated against appraisal will simply perpetuate an unsatisfactory
status quo.

Orientation: Employees are a source of competitive advantage for organisations and human resource management seek to promote employee efficiency. One of the tools organisations utilise to achieve this goal is performance appraisals. Research purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the weaknesses in performance appraisal and to determine whether it is politicised in the North West Department of Health and Social Development in South Africa. Motivation for study: Many organisations either ignore the existence of politics in the appraisal process or assume that its impact can be minimised if they refine their appraisal instruments. Executives admit that, in appraising others, they often intentionally avoid meeting the goal of accuracy in favour of achieving goals that have more to do with exercising discretion and maintaining departmental effectiveness. Ironically, these same executives lament that the appraisals they receive often do not accurately represent their abilities and performance (Gioia & Longenecker, 1994). Research approach, design and method: Self-administered questionnaires were used as a means of collecting data and analysis was done through the use of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Main findings: The results of the study showed that respondents believe that performance appraisals are highly politicised. Practical/managerial implications: If used effectively, performance appraisals may improve employee productivity and efficiency as well as motivation and performance. However, if performance appraisal is perceived as unfair and political, it can diminish rather than enhance employee attitudes and performance. Contribution: Amongst others, it is recommended that managers should consider separating assessment for development and assessment for rewards.

KEY FEATURES: Using more than 900 references from the most current empirical research to support their arguments, the authors delve into timely issues such as the current debate on the effectiveness of performance appraisal. Describing the most common performance management challenges provides readers with a realistic and comprehensive look at obstacles they will face such as conflicting goals, leniency, distorted ratings, poor attitudes, and lack of training. Illuminating case studies and hands-on exercises illustrate the connection between research and practice. Spotlight boxes highlight current debates, trends, and interesting findings in the field to reinforce important concepts while keeping the reader engaged and updated on hot topics.

Thousands of studies of performance appraisal (PA)exist in both the academic and practitioner literatures. The intended purpose of many of these works is to somehow link PA to performance; i.e., to utilize the process as a performance-enhancing instrument. Employee perceptions of PA are vital to the acceptance of PA validity, and must be examined prior to any further extension of the process; yet few studies have shown credence to this premise. This paper examines employee perceptions and their implicit consequences, following such aspects of PA as perceived accuracy, feedback, participation, rater training, rewards, and others. The working market's utilization of many proven PA components is dismal; we discuss rater training and diary-keeping as two plausible factors for improving PA accuracy, fairness, and the perceptions of same. Further, we suggest that practitioners must fully sponsor the results of the vast PA research efforts to improve the process as a prerequisite to improving performance.