10.8. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN PRACTICE

It is generally felt that a person should know where he or she stands, and, consequently, the supervisor should periodically discuss his or her performance with the employee. In practice, however, experience shows that neither the employee nor the supervisor is anxious to participate in the performance appraisal process.

To illustrate this problem, McGregor (1972, p. 134) cites an example. In one company with a well-planned and carefully administered appraisal program, an opinion poll included two questions regarding the performance appraisal system. More than 90 percent of those answering the questionnaire approved of the idea of an appraisal system, yet nearly 40 percent of the respondents indicated that they never had performance appraisals done at this company. The record, however, showed that over 80 percent of them had signed a performance appraisal form and that they had had more than one appraisal interview with their supervisors since they had been with the company. This is an interesting discrepancy. The respondents had no reason to lie, nor was there any reason to believe that the supervisors had falsified the performance appraisal signatures of the employees. The most likely reason is that the supervisors were basically reluctant to undertake performance appraisal activities and, thus, had conducted the interviews in such a perfunctory manner that many subordinates did not realize or did not remember what had happened.

Could this be due to the fact that, in practice, the focus is on "evaluation" and "judgment" rather than on employee "contribution" to the organization?

In addition to the problem described above, it is very difficult to decide exactly what all the elements for performance appraisal ought to be so that measures used include all the behaviors expected, activities to be performed, and results to be achieved by the employee. When strictly quantifiable measures are used, this can introduce an intolerable rigidity into the system to the detriment of overall organizational goals. Subjective performance elements, though necessary, can be criticized because they have a built-in bias. Also, one could argue that in most organizations, the proper environment for mutual (the employee and the supervisor) goal setting and complete trust does not exist. Consequently, the ambivalence about performance appraisal and evaluation continues to be shared by both the supervisor and the employee. In practice, therefore, there are many underlying difficulties with the performance appraisal process. Yet it is an important activity for organizational effectiveness and employee and organization goal congruence.