A CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON THE PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN THE GOVERNMENT

Organization is a social system and the worker is indeed its

most vital element.

Most of social scientists believe that the failure or success of

an organization hinges on the kind of workers involved in

that organization. Thus, they uphold the idea that human

problems when they stand in the way of every organization’s

objectives must be controlled or minimized, if not possibly

eradicated. And one way of controlling, minimizing, or

eradicating these problems is through the adoption of

performance appraisal.

Performance appraisal as a process of evaluating task

results is both essential for the development of both

management and employee. For management, the results

of appraisal are used in making decisions on such matters

like compensation upgrading, promotion, transfer, and other

employee fringe benefits. These evaluation results are also

useful in determining employee’s work improvement or

progress, and in making an employee activity plan during

the period of employment.

For employees, the results of appraisal provide feedback

about their work, and promote fair relationships within

groups. Assuming that performance is satisfactory, the

appraisal enhances an employee’s self-image and feeling of

competence, thus improving his performance and attitudes.

In most Philippine government agencies, the performance

appraisal process starts with a supervisor consolidating the

task inputs of his subordinates which include productivity

numbers, attendance and tardiness reports, and project

reports. The supervisor proceeds by assessing the

employee’s personal attributes using the 1-2-3-4-5 system of

the Trait Rating Scale (TRS) method, and by providing

descriptions regarding the strong and weak aspects of the

employees’ behavior, and recommending employees’ future

trainings and assignments.

The data are then transferred to a performance rating form,

and subsequently communicated to the employees through

an interview in which the supervisor provides feedback to

the employee on past performance, discusses with him

problems that have arisen, and elicits from him answers and

reactions. Then the two parties both affix their signatures on

the said rating form. The employee however has the option

to “agree” or “disagree” the ratings made.

Either the employee agrees or disagrees, the performance

rating form is transmitted to the personnel department of

the agency for preparation of over-all human resource

evaluation and findings to be submitted to the Civil Service

Commission (CSC) and to the top management for inclusion

in the corporate planning.

Before another year commences, top-level executives of

government, as part of their management functions, then

meet for corporate planning to discuss and set goals and

specific objectives of the organization for the incoming year.

The results of the planning are then transmitted to the

managers and supervisors at the lower echelons who, in

turn, communicate them to the people at the lowest level of

the organization.

However, this process of cascading the goals and objectives

of the organization, a “from-top-to-bottom” approach, has

created complex problems affecting the effective

implementation of a particular agency's performance

appraisal system for it tends to be confronted with criticisms

and dissatisfaction among the employees from the rank-and-

file level. The goals and objectives formulated by the top

management which also involve performance targets are so

general as they are focused on the total workforce of the

agency that they lack consideration to constraints and

barriers peculiar to every division or branch of the whole

organizational. Thus, there are employees of some divisions

or field offices who feel they are more burdened with targets

than the others.

The appraisal interview process in which the rater and the

ratee talk face-to-face has also been always stressful for

both parties as it sometimes emerges to be confrontational,

emotional, and judgmental. It is confrontational because

each party tries to convince that one view is more accurate

than the other; emotional, because the supervisor’s role calls

for a critical perspective, and the employee’s desire to “save

face” oftentimes leads to defensiveness; and judgmental,

because the supervisor must evaluate the employee’s

behavior, putting the employee clearly in a subordinate spot.

The first recorded appraisal system in industry was Robert

Owen’s use of character books and blocks in his New Lanark

cotton mills in Scotland around 1800. Today, however, there

are already numerous methods and techniques created for

performance evaluation. Yet, most organizations in the

world use only the three methods stated below in their

employee evaluations. These are also the same methods

adopted, or at least, endeavored to be adopted by the

Philippine government agencies, namely:

1. The Trait Rating Scale (TRS) or Graphic Rating Scale.

It uses a chart or graph containing a set of traits to be

considered;

2. The Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS).

Developed by Smith and Kendall, it is an improvement

over the TRS because the important dimensions of a job

are listed; and

3. The Management by Objectives (MBO). This method

is the process in which the supervisor and worker of an

organization together identify their common goals, define

each individual’s major area of responsibility in terms of the

results expected, and draw up specific measures to serve as

guides in effectively and efficiently operating the unit and in

assessing the contribution of every member. MBO was first

introduced by Douglas McGregor and Peter Drucker, and was

further improved by George S. Odiorne, John Humble, and

others.

John M. Ivancevich considers MBO more than just an

evaluation program process. He views it as a philosophy of

managerial practice, a method by which managers and

subordinates plan, organize, control, communicate, and

debate. Ivancevich quoted McGregor as saying that the

superior in every organization should work with subordinates

to set goals. This would enable subordinates to exercise

self-control and manage their job performance.

The implementation of internal appraisal system for every

government agency in the Philippines took effect on March

25, 1989 under the administration of the Civil Service

Commission. It is pursuant to the provisions of Section 5 (b)

and 6 of Republic Act 6713, otherwise known as “Code of

Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and

Employees”.

Under Sections 5 (b) and 6, all public officials and employees

are obliged to submit annual performance reports within

forty-five (45) working days from the end of every year. In

line of this is the granting of incentives and rewards to public

officials and employees who demonstrate exemplary service

and conduct to Filipinos in general on the basis of their

observance of the norms of conduct laid down in Section 4 of

the same Code, namely: commitment to public interest,

professionalism, justness and sincerity, political neutrality,

responsiveness to the public, nationalism and patriotism,

commitment to democracy, and simple living.

The incentives and rewards may take on any form of the

following: bonuses, or citations, or directorships in

government-owned or controlled corporations, or paid

vacations; and automatic promotion to the next higher

position suitable to the employee’s qualifications.

The performance evaluation process is administered by the

Committee on Awards for Outstanding Public Officials and

Employees, composed of representatives from the CSC,

Office of the Ombudsman, and Commission on Audit (COA)

as assisted by technical experts from the government and

the private sectors.

Performance appraisal systems are supposedly, among other

things, a program created by government to align corporate

and individual performance with goals, standards, and

expectations, and to develop a more objective and

constructive performance review that encourages self-

development. Sadly, these objectives melodic they may

sound to every government employees ear, remain

unachieved. The appraisal systems of the government are

still remote from being reflective to the actual performance

of every employee for it lacks consultative venue between

the management and workers as evident of its “ from top-to-

bottom” approach in target setting.

It has also bestowed immense authority to the supervisors in

the semestral evaluation of employee performance that it

constantly produces rater-ratee conflicts.

In the sphere of public service, performance appraisal

systems of the government have not been able to provide

CSC with the accurate profile of the total government

workforce for it lacks the dimensions focusing on the norms

of conduct clearly laid down in Section 4 of RA 6713, thus

depriving the government employees of the recognition and

possible awards and incentives they deserve.

The problems faced by the performance appraisal systems

could be resolved effectively and fairly if the course followed

in the target setting is the “from-bottom-to-top” approach,

rather than the other way around.

In the “ from-bottom-to-top” approach, the branches are

given the venue to come up with their own targets taking

into point the outcome of their own environmental and

corporate appraisals. This is, however, a no-picnic process

for they are going to submit the result of the target setting

to top management and defend it with macro and

microeconomic indicators. But, despite of all these

complexities, it is important to note that it is the employees

who formulate the targets, thus the commitment and

dedications to meeting these targets are more honest and

firm. This same concept is strongly stressed by modern

appraisal philosophy that embodies Drucker and McGregor’s

MBO, and which should have been conscientiously adhered

by government agencies. As the saying goes, “ if you know

where you want to go, you are more likely to get there”.

While the immediate supervisor is in the best position to

evaluate and rate employee performance since he is in

direct touch with and is in the work place, it must also be

reckoned that he also has his biases and favors which may

affect the objectivity of the appraisal process.

Hence, for the purpose of objectivity, the agency must also

include in the appraisal system the ratings given not just by

the supervisor, but also by peers, by a committee or board,

and by the ratee himself.

The peer evaluation is desirable to help determine potential

supervisors because it indicates the degree of esteem a

colleague has for his co-workers.

The use of committee or board on the other hand could

make a more reliable appraisal provided that the immediate

supervisor is included in the committee since it can offset

biases and favors.

Problems can arise however in self-appraisal for there are

some poor performers who tend to rate themselves too

mildly. Nevertheless, these limitations can be overshadowed

by the fact that most government employees are frank and

sincere enough in identifying their strengths and

weaknesses, and are able to lay with impartiality their

performance against previous expectations. Besides, self-

evaluations are much less threatening to one’s self-esteem

than those received from others. As Newstrom and Davis

put it, “self-appraisals provide a more fertile soil for growth

and change.”

For government performance appraisal systems to be potent

they involve formulate performance evaluation procedures

and standards that are congruent with the objectives of the

organization.

Procedures and standards of work performance must not be

set up arbitrarily. Instead, they must be analyzed from the

point of tasks they contain and just what the workers are

doing or supposed to be doing. They must encourage

workers to give their best efforts to the organization, rather

than bring disappointment, and worst, demoralization.

The organizational objectives, on the other hand, must be

clear and specific enough that can be understood and

identified with even by the lowest ranking worker of the

organization. They must also be measurable, time-bound,

and most of all, realistic and attainable.

References

Candy, Robert L. and Gregory H. Dobbins, Performance

Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives (Cincinnati: South-

Western, 1994), pp. 25-61.

Flippo, Edwin B., Personnel Management (New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984), pp. 224-245.

Ivancevich, John M., Human Resource Management

(Chicago: Irwin, 1995), pp. 256-291.

Miranda, Gregorio S., Supervisory Management: The

Management of Effective Supervision

( Mandaluyong:

National Book Store, 2004), pp. 173-195.

Newstrom, John W. and Keith Davis, Organizational

Behavior: Human Behavior at Work (New York:

McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993), pp. 172-175.

Republic Act No. 6713: Code of Conduct and Ethical

Standards

for Public Officials and Employees (Quezon City: CSC,

1989), pp. 02-04.

Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical

Standards

for Public Officials and Employees (Quezon City: CSC,

1989), pp. 05-11.

Sison, Perfecto S., Personnel Management in the 21st

Century as revised by Ranulfo P. Payos and

Orlando S. Zorilla ( Manila: Rex Book Store, 2003),

pp. 58-66.

Tendero, Avelino P., Theory and Practice of Public

Administration in the Philippines (Manila: Fiscal

Administration Foundation, Inc., 2000), pp. 129-

134.

Trice, Harrison M. and Janice M. Beyer, The Cultures of

Work Organizations (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-

Hall, 1993), pp. 130-132.