The most common approach is to prepare the appraisal, invite the employee into your office, give him a few minutes to read the appraisal, then begin a dialogue. I've never felt that this was fair.

As the evaluator, you get to take all the time you want preparing the appraisal, while the employee gets only a few minutes to absorb what you've written before responding. It's particularly unfair to employees who have difficulty thinking on their feet or who are easily intimidated.

Fairness can be built into the system quite easily. Continue to take as much time as you like, but give the employee two working days to review the appraisal and get back with you.

You may be wondering, "Why two days, why not three days or a week?" First, two days is ample time for the employee to reflect on the evaluation and his behavior.

A request for more time is often an indication that he disagrees with your appraisal. If that's true, additional time won't diminish his displeasure. Quite the contrary; given more time, the employee's unhappiness can escalate to anger, bitterness, and resentment. By requiring the employee to discuss his appraisal within two days, you avoid this escalation of ill will.

A second, more selfish reason for selecting two days is that you don't have to reconstruct your thoughts. If more than two days elapse between the completion of the appraisal and the meeting, you may forget some of what you intended to say to the employee. The time spent trying to remember is unproductive. In effect, you're doing the same work twice. If the meeting occurs within two working days, you avoid this waste of time and do a better job of helping the employee.

How do the employees feel about this approach? They like it. First, they don't feel pressured. Second, they have time to organize their thoughts. Third, they have time to reflect on the comments and their own behavior. This approach avoids a lot of the pressure created with "evaluator favored" approach. Here are a few more reasons for adopting this approach.

Regardless of how skilled you become as a communicator, what you say or write can easily be misconstrued. If the employee's gut reaction to your comment is disagreement, the additional time allows him to reread your statement. Often the second reading helps him get past a word or phrase he finds objectionable.

Similarly, a low rating will initially trigger a defensive reaction. Again, the additional time allows the employee to reflect on his behavior. If your rating is accompanied by a comment that illustrates the reason for your rating, the employee will find it easier to accept. Many of the negative reactions we see in performance appraisals can be avoided by simply allowing the employee more time to review the appraisal.

A friend of mine offered this approach. I haven't had a chance to try it, but I love the concept. She provides the employee with a blank appraisal form and asks him to rate himself. She also asks him to write improvement ideas in the comment section. Simultaneously, she pencils her appraisal of the employee.

At a mutually agreed upon time, they provide each other with copies of the appraisals they've prepared. She allows two days for reflection, then they meet to discuss each item on the appraisal.

There are a couple of advantages to this approach. First, people tend to be more critical of themselves than others are. That means that you'll have opportunities to tell your employee that he's better than he thinks he is. That's a lot more fun than criticizing, isn't it?

Second, you have a chance to reevaluate your ratings. I'm not suggesting that you waffle endlessly on your decisions. That will cost you your employee's respect. I am saying that there are times when new information will influence your thinking.

Approach three opens the door to new information in the form of your employee's perspective. This occurs before the appraisal is finalized. That's why my friend uses a pencil on the initial appraisal; it's easier to make changes when warranted.

The "balanced" and "participative" approaches both provide time for reflection—a critical element in the success of the appraisal. Allow your employees time to think about the ratings, your comments, and their behavior. These approaches remove a lot of the stress normally associated with the appraisal process.

The more successful you are at communicating expectations, using communication triggers, and maintaining feedback systems that allow employees to monitor their own progress, the more your ratings and those of your employees will converge.

Agreement is the foundation for future success. Employees who agree with their performance appraisals are open to suggestions for improvement. They are also more likely to act on those suggestions. Their continued success and improvement make all future performance appraisals more enjoyable.

The opposite is true as well. For employees who can't monitor their own progress and who don't get regular feedback, criticism comes as an unpleasant surprise. Employees experiencing these surprises feel that they have been blindsided.

How do you feel about situations like this? Do you want to discuss ideas for improvement? Do you feel that your boss is really interested in your success? I doubt it.

There is another advantage gained by allowing your employees to monitor their own progress. It reduces the amount of time you have to spend on the performance appraisal.

The easier it is for the employee to monitor his progress, the less likely he is to disagree with his evaluation. Appraisal meetings progress more quickly when you don't have to spend time resolving disagreements. You can turn a previously unpleasant task into an enjoyable and rewarding experience by simply creating feedback systems that allow your employees to monitor their progress.