UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

MASTER IN

PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT

“The Mishandling of performance appraisal can do more harm than good. Discuss .”

May 2011

1

Table of Contents

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Definition

1.3 Purposes of performance appraisal

1.4 Benefits of a performance Appraisal System

1.4.1 Organizational efficiency

1.4.2 Employee Motivation

1.5 Critics of performance Appraisal System

1.5.1 Scope of the system

1.5.2 Individual performance in context

1.5.3 Applying the concept of Quality in the performance appraisal process

1.5.4 Attitudes and approach of supervisors

1.5.5 Current performance versus future potential

1.5.6 Multi skilling versus tight specification.

1.5.7 Managerial performance versus professional performance.

1.6 Inconsistencies in the assumptions of an appraisal system

1.7 Failure in the implementation of performance

1.8 Consequence of Performance Appraisal system

1.8.1 Deviant behaviors

2

1.8.2 Professionalism

1.8.3Violation of human dignity

1.8.4 Alienation of employees

1.8.5 Lack of customer focus

1.8.6 Internal politics and conflicts

1.8.7 Short termism and Individualism

1.8.8 Low commitment

1,9 Reengineering the Performance appraisal systems

1.10 TQM and Performance Appraisal

1.11 Performance Appraisal in the Public Service

1.11.1 Introduction

1.11.2 Definition

1.11.3 Purpose of Performance Management System

1.11.4 Scope of the system

1.11 5 Evaluation

1.11.6 Dealing with poor performance

1.11.7 Performance Appraisal – the flaws in the system

1.12 Conclusion

3

1.1 Introduction

The term “performance appraisal” has generally meant the annual interview that takes

place between the manager and the employee to discuss the individual’s job performance

during the previous 12 months and the compilation of action plans to encourage

improved performance.

1.2 Definition

Moon (1993, p. 8) succinctly defined appraisal “… as a formal documented system for

the periodic review of an individual’s performance while Fletcher defines performance

management as an approach to creating a shared vision of the purpose and aims of the

organization, helping each individual employee understand and recognize their part in

contributing to them, and in so doing manage and enhance the performance of both

individuals and the organization.”

He suggests that the main building blocks of such an approach include:

(a) development of the organization’s mission statement and objectives;

(b) enhancing communications within the organization so that employees are not only

aware of the objectives and the business plan, but can contribute to their formulation;

(c) clarifying individual responsibilities and accountabilities;

(d) defining and measuring individual performance;

(e) implementing appropriate reward strategies;

(f) developing staff to improve performance, and their career progression in the future;

4

1.3 Purposes of performance appraisal

There is an increasing use of the performance appraisal process which is generally

motivated by an organizational desire to affect employee behaviors and attitudes and,

ultimately, organizational performance. This occurs as a consequence of the

establishment of goals at the beginning of the evaluation cycle which provide employees

with clear performance targets, the monitoring of performance during the evaluation

cycle (which can be used to assist poor performers) and the reinforcement provided for

good performance through the provision of rewards, usually in the form of higher pay.

This process is seen to encourage employee performance in subsequent performance

cycles (Moon (1993, p. 8)

Other authors have stated that there are potentially many reasons for undertaking

performance appraisal. It includes:

(a) improvement in the communication between boss and subordinate through the use of

feedback between them;

(b) identification of the scope for performance improvement and the means to achieve it;

(c) identification of individual training and development needs;

(d) identification of the potential of individuals for future promotion, secondment,

retention or termination - all for succession planning purposes;

(e) remuneration and reward, on the basis of performance;

(f ) as a powerful means of managerial control, through the setting of objectives in a

hierarchical fashion and a review of success or failure in achieving these.

5

1.4 Benefits of a performance Appraisal System

1.4.1 Organizational Efficiency

Organizational efficiency can be affected by the quality of the performance appraisal

process There is a body of empirical research that suggests that performance appraisals

do result in increases in employee performance and productivity ( Taylor and Pierce,

1999). These improvements are seen to derive from the greater employee identification

with and commitment to the objectives of the organisation.

Work efforts are directed to activities that will be of benefit to the organisation. Poor

performing employees are identified during the evaluation cycle and given feedback on

how to improve. They might also undertake some developmental activities (for example,

training) in order to rectify performance deficiencies.

1.4.2 Employee Motivation

Employees are motivated to work at a higher level by the offer of financial incentives that

are contingent on their performance, and these financial incentives are important in

encouraging the retention of high performing employees (Lebas, M.J. (1995)

According to the instrumental school of thought, employees value PA process controls as

it promotes predictability (Cardy, R.L. (1998). Process controls can be established

through operation of formal procedures (such as the right to present evidence to a

supervisor) and enhance quality by ensuring that the process applies to all employees.

The relational school of thought postulates that individuals care about PA quality because

it signals their status and worth within the organization. The relational school of thought

emphasizes the needs for belonging and self-esteem and acknowledges the informal

actions of someone in a position of authority over the employee (Hartle, F. (1997).

Further, an individual's standing is thought to be conveyed by their interpersonal

treatment during social interactions (Gerst, R.M. (1995)

6

Low quality interpersonal treatment conveys the view that management regards the

individual as being of low status and disrespect for individual rights communicates that

their interests are unlikely to be protected (Jas, P., Skelcher, C. (2005)

1.5 Critics of performance Appraisal System

1.5.1 Scope of the system

However, empirical studies have shown that no single performance appraisal system will

effectively produce high quality results in all areas as discussed at section 1.3. Each

system inevitably will be skewed or slanted towards one or more of these purposes at the

expense of others.

Organizational appraisal systems are an attempt to formalize these activities for the

benefit of both the individual and the organisation (Torrington and Hall, 1991, p. 480).

An organization's performance appraisal system can be a practical tool for employee

motivation and development when employees perceive their performance appraisals as

accurate and fair (Ilgen et al., 1979).

Appraisal practices often include formal review and feedback sessions, and may include

procedures for establishing work objectives, conducting self-appraisals, and setting

performance goals. The processes inherent in these systems and the performance

appraisal outcomes themselves can have an important influence on employees' reactions

toward their work, their supervisors, and their organization as a whole. The appraisal

process can also become a source of frustration and extreme dissatisfaction when

employees perceive that the appraisal system is biased, political or irrelevant (Skarlicki

and Folger, 1997)

However, developing an appraisal system that accurately reflects employee performance

is a difficult task. Performance appraisal systems are not generic or easily passed from

7

one company to another. Their design and administration must be tailor-made to match

employee and organizational characteristics and qualities (Henderson, 1984, p. 54).

1.5.2 Individual performance in context

There is a growing recognition that the work performance of people in organizations

comes primarily from within, but is also powerfully affected by the social, economic and

political environment in which people work.

Moncrieff ( 1992) has expressed this in the formula:

Individual = energy × ability × motivation x performance external factors

Energy is the individual’s capacity to do work. It is also about flows and blockages,

particularly those caused by stress. It is now recognized that personal happiness, strength

and peak performance are associated with the setting and achievement of personal goals

and that this activity produces an energetic sense of “flow”.

Ability is the sum of the knowledge, skills and innate abilities which enable an individual

to convert energy into productive output. It is a more encompassing term than behavioral

“competence”,

Motivation is the will to channel energy in a particular direction and to use ability to

achieve particular ends.

External factors may be environmental (legislation, state of the economy, etc.),

organizational (structure, policies and systems, etc), team-related (demands on time and

other resources) or job-related (scope and discretion)

However, no single performance appraisal system can capture all these variables for an

individual.

8

1.5.3 Applying the concept of Quality in the performance appraisal process

Quality is typically defined as establishing and operating processes that promote

organisational efficiency. The aim of a quality approach is to reduce variation in every

process in order to obtain greater consistency (Roch, S.G., Shanock, L.R. (2006),

PA is a complex process and there is a lot of scope for variation, particularly when the

supervisor is required to make subjective judgments of employee performance (as

compared with an objective performance appraisal where the measurement focuses on the

quantifiable aspects of job performance).

Subjective judgements have the potential to dilute the quality of the PA process as they

may be influenced by bias or distortion as a result of emotion (Longenecker et al., 1987;

Murphy and Cleveland, 1995)

1.5.4 Attitudes and approach of supervisors

The attitudes and approach of supervisors to the PA process has been identified as a

source of quality variations in PA. One source of quality variation derives from the

general attitudes that supervisors have towards the process. Many writers have identified

the reluctance of supervisors to undertake appraisals. Hartle, F. (1997), notes that “when

surveyed about most disliked tasks, managers say they hate conducting appraisals, second

only to firing employees”.

Weightman, J. (1996), believes that many practitioners see appraisal as a necessary evil

in corporate life. As a consequence Pollitt, C. (2005), stated that supervisors conduct

appraisals in an “arbitrary and perfunctory manner” as they believe that “conducting

performance appraisals requires considerable amounts of time and effort, generates few

rewards and adds considerably to the manager's level of conflict and stress”.

9

Lawton A, McKevitt, D., Millar, M. (2000), believe that managers often avoid the

appraisal process because they either fear the consequences or they feel the potential

returns from their appraisal efforts are not worthy of the required investments.

A second source of quality variation derives from the way supervisors exercise their

responsibilities under an appraisal process. Researchers have demonstrated that

supervisors make mistakes (for example, halo errors), are uncomfortable about providing

negative feedback, often put off doing appraisals or apply their own set of internal values

about performance when assessing their employees (Moncrieff, J. (1992).

In order to encourage supervisors to conduct high quality performance appraisals, a

supervisor is likely to find the assessment of their performance is partly a function of the

way they manage the evaluations of those who report to them (Cunningham, G., Harris, J.

(2005). Empirical research has demonstrated that supervisors are a major source of

quality variations in PA, but quality is ultimately the assessment made by the recipients

of the process namely employees.

1.5.5 Current performance versus future potential.

The short-termism which is a feature of organizations emerges in the continuing

obsession with current performance at work, in terms of task accomplishment - with what

is to be done, at the expense of how it is to be done. Managers are encouraged to focus on

producing visible short-term results at the expense of their organization’s capacity to

deliver results in the longer term. Performance appraisal systems reflect this trend, but

managerial performance in the short term is a poor indicator of future potential, hence the

growing use of assessment and development centre methodologies to identify this.

1.5.6 Multi skilling versus tight specification.

Two contradictory trends produce a tension in considering managerial performance. Both

historical approaches and modern job evaluation approaches push for tighter and more

detailed job descriptions.

10

In the opposing direction, the growing deregulation of labor markets and the moves

towards multiskilling and flexible working embodied in business process re-engineering

suggest that individuals should be capable of performing a wide range of work activity as

need and circumstances arise.

1.5.7 Managerial performance versus professional performance.

In all organizations where the core services are provided by professional staff there is the

question of whether systems designed to appraise managerial performance are applicable

to the performance of professional staff. Many professions therefore opt for audit - an

approach which emphasizes intra-professional autonomy, leadership and authority;

standard-setting and retrospective peer review - in direct contrast to the managerial

leadership, accountability and hierarchical boss/subordinate relationships inherent in

systems for appraising managerial performance skewed or slanted towards one or more of

these purposes at the expense of others.

1.6 Inconsistencies in the assumptions of an appraisal system

The performance appraisal system is fraught with inconsistencies:

(a) The performance appraisal system by its design is a hybrid of a performance

measurement and performance management. Performance measurement is quantifying,

either quantitatively or qualitatively. Performance management is action, based on

performance measures and reporting, which results in improvements in behaviour,

motivation and processes and promotes innovation. These are two extremes concept, yet

many performance appraisal system incorporate both these factors into a single process

(b) There is an no operational definition for the indicator and there is no guarantee that

the data are replicable, and the source data are not clearly defined.

(c)There is an assumption that the precision and accuracy of the measurements are the

correct ones

11

(d) Frequently indicators are focused on short-term results which can hinder innovation

and prevent investment in longer term initiatives (Allio, 2006). Alternatively, by the time

the data have been collected, analysed and communicated they are “old news” and they

have changed from being useful to merely providing accountability.

(e) Indicator are usually split indicators into lagging indicators (which report results after

the event) and leading indicators (which are used to predict a future event, for example,

employee satisfaction can be used to foretell customer satisfaction). These differences are

not made in most performance appraisal system. A data is most useful when it is analyzed

and used in a predictive and dynamic way rather than as painting an historical picture.

(f) One of the main problems is the lack of statistical rigor and testing carried out on

performance indicator data (Brown, 2005). The results are audited, but rarely validated or

reliability tested (Evans, 2004: Carlin, 2004)

(g) There are no difficulties of interpretation and simplistic measures are used

performance evaluation data.

(h) It does not create dysfunctional behavior in an organization.

It has been reported in a study that within schools, extra attention is given to those

“borderline” pupils to ensure they pass the exams, excessive time is given to exam

techniques, and a narrower curriculum, based only on the contents of the exams, is

studied in an attempt to improve teacher performance

1.7 Failure in the implementation of performance

Some of the causes of failure in the implementation of a performance appraisal system

are summarized below:

(a) There entire process does not begins with some data collection and diagnosis aimed at

establishing a base line of existing systems, attitudes and orientations, etc.

12

(b) There is no collaboration with trade unions and professional associations which is

built in at the outset, although there should be some scope for further negotiation once a

system is introduced. It should be pointed out that trade union and professional

association representatives can have useful contributions to make to the design of systems

in ways which reflect the concerns of their members.

(c) There is no adequate briefing and preparation. This is especially important if a new

system is designed to replace earlier approaches which have a high degree of ownership

by some staff groups. Adequate lead time and a planned and phased introduction which is

consciously managed are vital components.

(d) No training investment is planned and implemented. There are two aspects to training

need, the mechanics of the system and the interpersonal skills needed for counseling,

coaching, mentoring, etc. The second is the more important, and to skimp on training

investment is dangerous.

(e) The system does not embodies some element of self-appraisal in addition to

boss/subordinate review.

(f) There is no understanding and acceptance that some managerial tasks are collective

rather than individual in nature, and that team or group appraisal is therefore a key

element.

(g) There is no recognition that performance appraisal is a central management process,

which means that it needs to be linked to such activities as business planning, etc

(h) There is no recognition that performance appraisal can be applied in modified

versions to non-managerial staff.

(e) There is realization that performance appraisal can be used to install performance

appraisal. Setting a manager objectives to have all his/her staff subject to appraisal by an

13

agreed date and then reviewing performance against this is an obvious means of doing

this.

(f) There is not an understanding that, despite good practice, performance appraisal

systems often decay and, therefore, from time to time need to be reviewed, rejuvenated

and relaunched.

(g) It is also possible to specify “failure criteria”

(h) There is an underestimation of the time, effort and cost of designing a good system

and then making it work;

(h) There is an unwillingness or inability to design and redesign work and jobs as a result

of the outcomes of the appraisal process;

(i) Where paperwork systems associated with appraisal are over-complex and where the

system has degenerated into an annual ritual, rather than a central, ongoing and regular

management activity;

(j) Where there is over-concentration on the achievement of quantitative objectives and a

corresponding underplaying of qualitative aspects, on the principle of “what gets

measured is what gets done”;

(k) Where there is an unwillingness to address the problem of unequal standards of

appraisal applied by different appraisers in different parts of the same organization.

1.8 Consequence of Performance Appraisal system

1.8.1 Deviant behaviors

It has been reported in the literature review that performance appraisal create deviant

behaviors. Deviant behaviors fall into the following categories;

14

(i) setting undemanding targets and working to only just achieve them;

(ii) performance clustering around the target either through deliberately

underperforming or manipulating the data;

(iii) concentrating on meeting targets at the expense of other (unmeasured)

factors; and

(iv) choosing indicators and targets to influence the results/manipulating the

measures.

Chang (2006) cites the example of waiting lists, on which performance was based.

Subsequently the waiting lists were reduced. This “improvement” was achieved by

selecting the easy operations first (not based on clinical need), and those waiting for

major operations such as hip replacements had to wait longer than previously.

1.8.2 Professionalism

It has also been reported that performance measurement reduces the professionalism of

public sector staff and turns services into commodities, which runs counter to all thinking

on quality and results in poorer performance(Adcroft and Willis (2005)

1.8.3Violation of human dignity

Performance appraisal are assertions of organizational control which violate the

assumption that everyone is acting with competence and in good faith. Violating this

assumption lowers morale and confidence (Meyer and Rowan, 1977, p. 359)

1.8.4 Alienation of employees

Pidd (2005) defines public sector organizations as consisting of being predominantly

hierarchist, and this can result in myopia, sup-optimization, tunnel vision, measure

fixation and misrepresentation. Performance management systems have emphasized the

15

rational, financial and numerical aspects to the detriment of the qualitative factors, hence

alienating most employees

1.8.5 Lack of customer focus

Behn (2005) suggests that problems occur because managers implement a performance

system with rules and regulations and then leave it to run, rather than take a hands-on

operational approach, and use leadership skills to “motivate people […] to produce more,

or better, or more consequential results that are valued by customers”. As such,

performance appraisal has tendency to make employee to focus on internal process and

internal politics rather than concentrating on the big picture i.e the customers.

1.8.6 Internal politics and conflicts

Around the world there are common issues arising in performance management systems

from conflicts between different interest groups – internal politics between factions and

coalitions, pressures from special interest groups, conflict between central agencies

wanting control and departments/local bodies and professionals all wanting autonomy

(Radin, 2003)

1.8.7 Short termism and Individualism It has been reported that managers have become more focused on obtaining immediate

results, to the detriment of the long-term vision and ethos of the public sector. In many

respects, this change in the management style and system represents a shift in values

from equity, security and resilience – features of the public sector – to efficiency and

individualism

1.8.8 Low commitment

Traditional research has viewed performance appraisals as “analogous to the

psychometric process of constructing a test”. The test metaphor relies on the assumptions

that an objective view of reality exits and, in the ideal appraisal situation, that both rater

and the employee share this view. However reality is completely different and this has

16

cause interpersonal conflicts , turf fighting , decrease of commitment and has been major

cause of low motivation.

1,9 Reengineering the Performance appraisal systems

Waldman, D.A. (1994) has distinguished between enabling and disabling systems in

work organizations. The former encourage individuals and groups in organizations to

improve their performance, while the latter act as a drag or brake on this process.

Using this distinction it is possible to devise some rules of thumb for the design of

effective performance appraisal systems.

(a) The system should identify minimum standards to be achieved - a floor below which

no one has an excuse for falling, rather than a ceiling beyond which no one can rise. This

implies that, provided minimum standards are adhered to (and this can be proven), then

diversity of approach for different areas of sub-organization or professional groups is

entirely acceptable.

(b) The system should start with a basic assumption that people want to do a good job

and are trustworthy. There is a powerful element of self-fulfilling prophecy in this

approach, not least because a system designed to check and double-check performance

will not encourage people to give of their best - because someone else will change it !

(c) The performance appraisal system should be expressed, as far as possible, in terms of

a set of principles which people will need to follow, rather than rules which they have to

obey. Principles allow for choice, discretion and room for manoeuvre, which a rigid

system does not. For this reason they will be more attractive to professional staff who

value their autonomy.

(d ) The touchstone for judging the success of the appraisal system should be the extent to

which it helps the organization deliver a better service to the customer.

17

(e) The system should be minimalist and not generate mountains of data. The Pareto

principle or 80/20 rule should apply - what are the 20 per cent vital few data which are

needed, rather than the 80 per cent interesting many, which are not.

(f) Performance appraisal systems should be line management designed and driven, with

the role of the HR function being to provide support in ways that line management deems

important. Design of the system would need to begin with how it reflects and affects the

mission, purpose, etc. of the organization, before going on to the design of paperwork,

training, etc.

(g) The system needs to be piloted in representative parts of the organization, but with the

understanding that the purpose of the pilot is not to consider if performance appraisal is

to go ahead, but how it is to be done.

(h) Performance appraisal systems need to fit into the natural rhythms of organizational

life - the existing peaks and troughs of activity, often associated with the financial year

and the business planning cycle.

(i) Finally, a performance appraisal system designed to promote dialogue between people

.It should not be allowed to transform into one whose main purpose is to generate

information for record-keeping or planning purposes.

1.10 TQM and Performance Appraisal

The majority of literature on performance appraisal in the context of TQM are based on

the discussion originally proposed by Deming (1986), who listed “evaluation of

performance, merit rating and annual review” as the third of his “seven deadly diseases”

of western management. In fact, in an attempt to facilitate the journey towards business

excellence through TQM initiatives, Deming suggest that organisations should relinquish

and eliminate performance.

18

He stressed that system factors exert a major influence on organisational performance and

thus variance in performance is determined by systems-level features Systems-level

features are generally beyond the control of the employee. Examples of system factors

include: quality of raw materials, equipment, suppliers, co-worker support, and even

proper training and direction by management (Cardy and Dobbins, 1996).

More specifically, for Deming (1986), over 85 per cent of variance in organisational

performance is due to system factors and only 15 per cent of performance variance is due

to person factors (see, for further details, Bounds and Pace, 1991; Cardy and Dobbins,

1996).

According to Deming (1986), managers need to maintain statistical process control charts

on their employees, and only employees who are out of control limits (upper and lower

7.5 per cent) should be considered as performing higher or lower than other employees.

Deming indicated that differences in employee performance within the middle of the

distribution should be attributed to system factors. appraisal practices

Second, Deming (1986) questioned the degree of fairness of the current performance

management systems since they hold the worker responsible for errors that may be the

result of faults within the system (cited in, Ghorpade et al., 1995, p. 33).

In addition, Deming (1986) characterised the current approach to appraising performance

in western management as “management by fear”, claiming that staff are forced to look

for short term, individual achievements, in an attempt to meet their appraisal objectives

Taken together, the following issues were highlighted as the main difficulties of

performance appraisal from a TQM perspective:

(a) Holds the worker responsible for errors that may be the result of faults within the

system;

19

(b) Focuses on the past rather than the improvement of future performance;

(c) Promotes worker behavior that compromises quality;

(d) Creates a band of discouraged workers who cease trying to excel;

(e) Robs the workers of their pride in workmanship;

(f) Disregards and, in fact, undermines teamwork;

(g) Disregards the existence of a system;

(h) Disregards variability in the system;

(i) Uses a measurement system that is unreliable and inconsistent;

(f) Encourages an approach to problem-solving that is superficial and culprit-oriented;

(g) Tends to establish an aggregate of safe goals in an organisation;

(h) Creates losers, cynics, and wasted human resources; and

(i) Seeks to provide a means to administer multiple managerial functions

.

(j) Promote individualism rather than team work – a sine qua non for cross funtional

process improvement

The consequences are

(a) They promote worker behaviour that compromises quality;

20

(b) They create a band of discouraged workers who cease trying to excel;

(c) They assign an inordinate amount of responsibility for poor performance to individual

employees while undervaluing the importance of the overall work process;

(d) They rob the workers of their pride in workmanship;

(e) They assume a false degree of measurement accuracy;

(f) They engender dysfunctional employee conflict and competition

(g) They underemphasize the importance of the work group; and they are often used as a

managerial “Theory X” control device

White and Nebeker (1996, p. 202) precisely discussed team-oriented performance

management and its congruity with the TQM context and listed the following steps

needed to develop a team approach to performance management:

(a) The performance management focus must shift from individuals to teams

(b) An atmosphere of blame must be changed into one of trust so that the appraisals can

be used to develop employees skills and abilities (driving out fear); and

(c) Awards and recognition must emphasize teams (team-based awards).

1.11 Performance Appraisal in the Public Service

1.11.1 Introduction

This part of the assignment will critically look at performance appraisal in the public

service. The PRB initially proposed a performance management system for the public

21

service in its 2003 Report and in the 2008 Report, it is recommended that the system

should be operationalised as from 2011 .

1.11.2 Definition

The Guide to Performance Management of the Ministry of Civil service Affairs defines

‘performance management as a purposeful, continuous process aimed at positively

influencing employee behavior for the achievement of the organization’s strategic goals;

the determination of the correct activities as well as the evaluation and recognition of the

execution of tasks/duties with the aim of enhancing their efficiency and effectiveness;

and a means of improving results from the organization, teams and individuals by

understanding and managing performance within an agreed framework of planned goals,

objectives, standards and support incentives.”

1.11.3 Purpose of Performance Management System

The purpose of the system is set out below:

The primary aim of the Performance Management System at Ministries/Departments is to

improve performance by focusing on key areas of activity, which are identified through

strategic planning processes.

It seeks to establish clear links between organizational development, the delivery of

quality services and the development of employees at work.

It also purports to create a common bond of ownership among all employees as well as an

environment where all individuals are developed, motivated and inspired to deliver a

quality performance.

In short, the main purpose of the new system is to manage and improve performance at

all levels in the Ministries/ Departments.

22

1.11.4 Scope of the system

The Performance Management System requires that the management of performance at

individual level integrates with the management of performance at organizational and

unit levels. To ensure that the system is effective, it must be seen as part of an integrated

HRM system and not as an isolated event or tool and should take the following into

consideration:-

Ministry vision, mission and values

Departmental medium term strategic plans as well as annual plans and budgets

Service delivery improvement plans

Job descriptions

Induction and orientation

Job rotation

Recognition programmes (non monetary)

Employee personal development plans

Workplace skills plan

1.11 5 Evaluation

The evaluation is carried out using two criteria :

(a) An individual key result are /Key task in terms of the requirement, with emphasis on

the outputs and their measures and the actual achievement against these outputs.

23

(b) The competencies of the employees on at least 10 factors

1.11.6 Dealing with poor performance

According to the guidelines, some of the options open to the Appraiser for overcoming

poor performance are:

Personal counseling.

On-the-job coaching

Training.

Redefining the PA.

Work environment audits to establish whether there are other factors affecting

performance.

1.11.7 Performance Appraisal in the Public Service – the flaws in the system

(a) The system is framed to measure both output and competence . As mentioned in the

literature review, measuring competence is a subjective factor and it could be perceived

as unfair by the appraisee, hence de motivating the employee.

(b) The system has been poorly planned and enough training has not been given to public

officers (i.e both appraisers and appraisee)

(c) The performance system is generic in the sense that it does cater for the diverse work

force of the public sector eg a doctor will be assessed on the same basis as a Clerical

Officer.

24

(d) Although the outcome of a performance appraisal is to identify the area where an

employee need to improve, there is not a systematic process to capture those information

in the process eg training.

(e) With respect to training, the Ministry has limited resources allocated to training as

well as it has not both the capacity and capability to train all the employees in the public

sector e.g a Civil service college

(f) The Ministry is promoting quality in the Civil Service by assisting organization to

implement ISO 9001:2008. As noted in the literature review, a famous author on quality

i.e Deming (1986) was against performance appraisal because it does not promote team

work but rather an individualistic behavior. On one hand PMS is at odd with quality and

on the other hand no provision has been made in the PMS to frame and design the system

to include team work.

(g) The system does not make provision for sociologist and psychologist to assist line

managers as performance appraisal is a people issue.

(h) There has not been a learning process as the system has not been tested on a pilot run

in one or two Ministries. This could have served as a basis for fine tuning the system.

All these factors point out that performance appraisal is the public sector will create more

harm than good and it is heading towards a total failure. On the basis, there is a great

danger that performance appraisal will be taxed as a “management fad’ in two or three

years time

1.12 Conclusion

The above discussions on this topics have pointed out that there are two school of thought

surrounding the benefits of performance appraisal the MBO (Management by Objectives)

school and the quality management school.

25

In the MBO school, workers could be motivated provided that the system is

comprehensive and take into account the specificities of the organization while in the

Quality Management school, there is a need to foster team work in a performance

appraisal system

As such it can be concluded that there is more risk of mishandling performance appraisal

in the MBO school.

26

References

Adcroft, A., Willis, R. (2005), "The (un)intended outcome of public sector performance measurement", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 18 No.5, pp.386-400.

Behn, R. (2005), "On the ludicrous search for the magical performance system", Government Finance Review, Vol. 21 No.1, pp.63-4.

Bounds, G.M., Pace, L.A. (1991), "Human resource management for competitive capability", in Stahl, M.J., Bounds, G.M. (Eds),Competing Globally Through Customer Value: The Management of Strategic Suprasystems, Quorum Books, New York, NY, Vol. 648-682 pp.648-82.

Brown, A. (2005), "Implementing performance management in England's primary schools", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 54 No.5/6, pp.468-81

Carlin, T. (2004), "Output-based management and the management of performance: insights from the Victorian experience", Management Accounting Research, Vol. 15 pp.267-83.

Cardy, R.L., Dobbins, G.H. (1996), "Human resource management in a total quality management environment: shifting from a traditional to a TQHRM approach", Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 1 No.1, pp.5-20.

Cardy, R.L. (1998), "Performance appraisal in a quality context: a new look at an old problem", in Smither, J.W. (Eds),Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA, pp.133-61 .Chang, H. (2006), "Development of performance measurement systems in quality management organisations", The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 26 No.7, pp.765-86

Cunningham, G., Harris, J. (2005), "Toward a theory of performance reporting to achieve public sector accountability: a field study", Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol. Summer pp.15-42.

Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of Crisis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Evans, J. (2004), "An exploratory study of performance measurement systems and relationships with performance results", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 pp.219-32.

Fletcher, C. (1986), "The effects of performance review in appraisal: evidence and implication", in Mabey, C., Isles, P. (Eds),Managing Learning, Routledge, London, pp.115-32..

27

Gerst, R.M. (1995), "Assessing organisational performance", Quality Progress, No.February, pp.85-8

Ghorpade, J., Chen, M.M., Caggiano, J. (1995), "Creating quality-driven performance appraisal systems", The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 9 No.1, pp.32-40.

Hartle, F. (1997), Transforming the Performance Management Process, Kogan Page, London, .

Henderson, R.I. (1984), Practical Guide to Performance Appraisal, Reston Publishing, Virginia.

Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D., Taylor, M.S. (1979), "Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64 pp.349-71.

Jas, P., Skelcher, C. (2005), "Performance decline and turnaround in public organizations: a theoretical and empirical analysis", British Journal of Management, Vol. 16 pp.195-210.

Lawton, A., McKevitt, D., Millar, M. (2000), "Coping with ambiguity: reconciling external legitimacy and organizational implementation in performance measurement", Public Money & Management, Vol. 20 No.3, pp.13-19

Lebas, M.J. (1995), "Performance measurement and performance management", International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 41 No.1, pp.23-35.

Longenecker, C.O., Gioia, D.A., Sims, H.P. (1987), "Behind the mask: the politics of employee performance appraisal", Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1 pp.183-93.

Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B. (1977), "Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony", American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No.2, pp.340-63.

Moncrieff, J. (1992), "Empowering people to perform", in Developing a Performance-oriented Culture (Eds),Association for Management Education and Development, London,

Moon, P. (1993), Appraising Your Staff, Kogan Page, London., .

Pidd, M. (2005), "Perversity in public service performance measurement", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 54 No.5/6, pp.482-93.

Pollitt, C. (2005), "Performance management in practice: a comparative stuffy of executive agencies", Journal Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 16 pp.25-44.

28

Radin, B. (2003), "A comparative approach to performance management: contrasting the experience of Australia, New Zealand and the United States", Vol. 26 No.12, pp.1355-76.

Roch, S.G., Shanock, L.R. (2006), "Organizational justice in an exchange framework: clarifying organizational justice distinctions", Journal of Management, Vol. 32 pp.299-322.

Skarlicki, D.P., Folger, R. (1997), "Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 pp.434-43

Taylor, S. (1998), Employee Resourcing, Institute of Personnel and Development, London.,

Torrington, D., Hall, L. (1991), Personnel Management – A New Approach, Prentice-Hall International (UK), Hertfordshire., .

Train, L., Williams, C. (2000), "Evolution of quality management: British Benefit Enquiry Line", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 13 No.6, pp.526-39.

Waldman, D.A. (1994), "Designing management system for total quality implementation", Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 7 No.2, pp.31-44.

Weightman, J. (1996), Managing People in the Health Service, Institute of Personnel and Development, London.

White, M.A., Nebeker, D.M. (1996), "Team-oriented performance management: an alternative to traditional performance appraisal", in Knouse, S.B. (Eds),Human Resources Management Perspectives on TQM, Concepts and Practices, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI, pp.193-215

29