Appraisal of performance entails a systemic evaluation of the employees in the attempt to understand their abilities to enhance growth and development. The employees’ pay is put to comparison with their targets, which the supervisor evaluates along with the other factors that affect their performance. With this evaluation, the employers are in a better position to help workers reach their targets or for better production.
These supervisors should understand the objectives of evaluation of the performance of employees to be in a position to appreciate appraisal. First, the evaluations reports help capture the weaknesses and strengths of employees that enables to pick the right person for certain fields of work. It is the basis for personal growth and development, where, for instance, in cases of super performance a person is granted promotions and it pays a key role in the maintenance of records that determine workers’ salaries and other packages such as compensation packages and other. It is presupposed that management of the performance is aimed at developing persons with the needed commitment and qualifications for the employment.
Jim, being concerned with the issue of remembering every worker’s parameter for the whole year, is well founded. The frequency of carrying out appraisals depends on the objectives of the appraisal. However to curb the issue of the supervisor remembering only few instances in which one is rated, the appraisals could be more effective if done frequently.
Man being a social being is prone to apply political issues in many instances. Lynne’s confession about the political considerations in the process of appraisal is a reality. Politics in the business organization is a determinant in the evaluation of workers as there is better survival in the organization for those highly appraised.
In light of the written above, there is the possibility that the supervisors at time tend to affect the outcomes of the evaluation of performance through the manipulation of the ratings. Organizational politics may have the penalties for persons, who assign their positions or power to influence others and to attain their personal interests. It is more of a self serving mechanism, where one or a group of individuals is in position to get benefits at the expense of those under them.
There are instances, where the appraisal is done in organizations on the basis of social context, for instance, liking or disliking. In other circumstances, the appraisal rating is on the basis of the supervisor sharing some values or aspects with the person he/she is supposed to rate. The type of relationship that is existent between the appraised and the appraiser-supervisor greatly influences the type of rating that is awarded.
Max should understand that appraisals are not to be arbitrarily used as they are an important key to career development or flop, as they determine an individual’s pay or even more important, the chances of raising the ranks through promotions. Therefore, unless there is an elaborate structure of carrying out the appraisals, these evaluations could be used with bias or prejudice against persons arbitrarily. This may lead to issues in regard to motivation of the deserving ones, but poorly rated individuals and ethical questions such as integrity would be raised.
The expectancy theory of motivation (Maslow, 1954), portrays recognition as an incentive for performance. Appraisals are meant to make tangible the work efforts of individuals. The organization seeks to acknowledge the work that an individual has contributed, which in turn motivates the individual.
In line with this theory, fine tuning of performance appraisals, and recognizing workers at a higher rate than they deserve could be a motivational tool in some instances, but could however be dangerous, where such workers may slack in their performance: if the organization appraised them so highly with dismal performance, then little of slack will also rate averagely.
Fine-tuning denotes circumstances, where parameters are adjusted to fit precisely to the outcomes that are desired. Fine tuning could be acceptable in instance, where there are marginal differences between the scored rate and that of the award. It is correct to motivate individual that their targets are attainable and encourage them to work more effectively. However, there exist other instances, where fine tuning is done without the consideration of motivation, but for other ulterior motives such as getting rid of subordinates that a supervisor dislikes or favoring an undeserving friend, or even lowering appraisal rates to use the outcomes in suits against the workers. This ceases to be fine tuning and become distorted appraisal.
As much as management is an art and it is supported by psychology, that does not make it right to distort appraisals. This is mainly because the individuals being appraised have an idea of a possible outcome of the ratings, especially in a systematic rating parameter. Therefore the means to motivate people would be to issue truthful appraisal reports and find better ways of motivating the workers to even better performance.
To reduce or discourage fine tuning, formal systems of appraisal should be put in place to be the instruments to the evaluation, which would encourage objectivity of the rating system. As the rating scales that rate from poor to excellent each parameter or where there is a checklist to ensure that all individuals are rated objectively. Other means of reducing fine tuning is to train and encourage supervisors to carry out the appraisal in professional ways.