Dilemma in Employee Performance Appraisal

Over the years, the design, management and execution of performance appraisal have been hindered by several common strategic and business mistakes (Bernardin,2003). Training and learning play an important role in addressing these failures and advancing the evaluation of individuals and organizations (Anitha j, 2014). The organization devote plenty of time and money per year to evaluate employee performance. Though, they missed the simple opportunity to get higher value from the method and improve the integrity of their assessment (Finney, 2010).

Following are several difficulties with a performance assessment that managers regularly find.

Halo/Horn Effect

Hallo is a propensity of surveying single assessment criteria of a worker and utilizing the resultant assessment of other overall criteria of the evaluation process(Javidmehr and Ebrahimpour, 2015). Managers regularly do this when they have a good relationship with the representative they are assessing, don't want to be excessively harsh, or when they like an employee, so they are allowed to personally influence their performance. This is a very exceptionally continuous mistake and a mistake that is challenging to address (Burney, Henle and Widener, 2007).

Horn errors, individual performance is based entirely on a single negative quality or characteristic. This results in an overall rating below the guaranteed level(Bhattacharyya, 2011).

Recent Behaviour Bias

This can be taken as one of the regular obstacles that occur in performance appraisal for managers. Everyone is biased against someone or something, irrespective how we characterize them. In Point of a manager, we need to handle the performance assessment process by not letting biases to frustrate the parties (Mejias and Jana, 2018) and Biases can directly manipulate the detachment of the evaluation as the manager, he needs to focus on keeping it away to ensure that you do not concession the results of your inferences and keep the consistency between employees to get out the best results from the assessment (Spain, 2019).

Stereotyping

A stereotype is a psychological division a person into a particular group and It is then determined that this person has the same assumed characteristics as the group (Holpp, 2011) and Stereotyping happens when managers theorize about employee’s performance based on a group. Grouping can be age-wise, experience-wise, region-wise or university-based, this can considerably influence the judgment severally. managers should look beyond the labels and judge the worker by set standards and performance (Branham, 2012).

Leniency and Severity Errors

Leniency is one of the common mistakes in performance evaluation. A lenient is a mistake that causes people to make higher ratings than other raters and valid/reliable trend for certain raters. The lenient error limits the range of values ​​used, which leads to analytical reduction invalidity(Yildiz and Baltaci, 2009).

The opposite of a lenient error is a Severity error, which occurs when an evaluator evaluates an employee's performance below actual performance. In alternative words, when an evaluator evaluates an employee or a group of employees below the actual level, they do not consider their actual level of success (Falcone, 2017)

Manipulating the Evaluation

According to Poon (2004), In some cases, the manager controls every aspect of the evaluation process. since he is in a position that has authority and possibility to manipulate the system. Manager can pretend that employee has reached the evaluation criteria and he is eligible for pay rise as favouring one employee than the rest. This will direct the employee to an undeserved rating adding organization tor notable financial loss.

The Recency Effect

Another common mistake of evaluation performer is, they only concentrate on a short period of their time before the assessment takes place. If your organization conducts one or two performance evaluations a year, remember that you are evaluating performance over the entire period, not just a small part of it. Otherwise, it is unfair to a person who has done a good job but has only recently begun to waver, and vice versa. Avoiding this error requires a good process to capture performance information throughout the review (Bernardin, 2003).

Attribution Error

This is an intricate the issue because of the engagement of employees and their opinion is involved to identify certain actions or outcomes needed for the appraisal criteria decision. Never assume you understand why an employee behaved a certain way, and never engage that in your evaluation process. Stick to the actual criteria that have been designed out and how the employee’s accomplishment compares to them (Durell, 2001).

Conclusion

This study aimed to identify the association of performance appraisal errors and how it's affecting the organization's objectives. As identified minimizing these errors will heading to have a good and fair performance appraisal system for employees and it will benefit the organization as well.

Reference

• Anitha j. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63 (3), pp.308–323. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008.
• Bhattacharyya, D., 2011. Performance Management Systems and Strategies. 1st ed. India: Pearson.
• Burney, L., Henle, C., & Widener, S. K. (2007). Do characteristics of strategic performance measurement systems used in incentives enhance organizational fairness? Paper presented at the American Accounting Association, Management Accounting Section, Midyear Meeting, Dallas.
• Bernardin, H., 2003. Human Resource Management: An Experiential Approach. 3rd ed. United States: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
• Branham, L., 2012. The 7 Hidden Reasons Employees Leave. 2nd ed. United States: AMACOM.
• Durell, A. (2001). Attribution in Performance Evaluation. SSRN Scholarly Paper, Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. [Online]. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=265210 [Accessed 22 September 2019].
• Finney, M., 2010.The Truth About Employee Engagement. 1st ed. New Jersey: FT Press.
• Falcone, P., 2017. 101 Sample Write-Ups for Documenting Employee Performance Problems. 3rd ed. New York: AMACOM.
• Holpp, W., 2011. Win-Win Performance Appraisals: What to Do Before, During, and After the Review to Get the Best Results for Yourself and Your Employees: What to Do Before, During and After the Review. 1st ed. USA: McGraw-Hill.
• Javidmehr, M. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2015). Performance appraisal bias and errors: The influences and consequences. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 4 (3), pp.286–302. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.33844/ijol.2015.60464.
• Mejias, A. and Jana, T., 2018. Erasing Institutional Bias. 1st ed. United States: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
• Poon, J. M. L. (2004). Effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover intention. Personnel Review, 33 (3), pp.322–334. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.1108/00483480410528850.
• Spain, S., 2019. Leadership, Work, and the Dark Side of Personality. 1st ed. United States: Academic Press.
• Steiner, D. D. and Rain, J. S. (1989). Immediate and delayed primacy and recency effects in performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (1), pp.136–142. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.136.
• Yildiz, G. and Baltaci, A. (2009). Leniency and Severity Errors in Performance Appraisal in the Context of Collectivist and Individualist Culture. p.7.