Most major organisations have performance appraisal systems, but there are considerable variations as to what is appraised and how the appraisal is carried out. A major reason for this is the broad range of purposes that appraisal is expected to achieve. These include determining individual contributions to organisational goals; providing feedback on past performance; encouraging learning and personal development; allocating financial or other rewards; identifying and, some would say, promoting staff values; identifying future potential; promoting rapport between managers and individual employees. No process can be expected to successfully achieve all of this, which is probably why so much dissatisfaction is expressed about performance appraisal. The extent to which any of these purposes are achieved will depend on the approach followed by the particular organisation, both in terms of its espoused philosophy and the reality of how appraisal is carried out.
In this paper I will first consider some definitions of performance appraisal. I will then consider the philosophy of Human Resource Management (HRM), and how this encompasses some different approaches to performance management. These formal elements will have a marked impact on the way in which performance appraisal is conducted, but so will the informal processes within the organisation. I will therefore also consider the impact of social factors and relationships on the appraisal process. Finally I will consider the effects of changes in approach over recent years, and their impact on the theory and practice of appraisal. I will argue that, while all these factors affect whether appraisal is used as a means of developing or controlling the employee, performance appraisal is primarily a means of control and that even when development is stressed it is usually within parameters which are tightly controlled by the organisation.
At first glance performance appraisal appears as though it should be something relatively straightforward. Torrington, Weightman and Johns (1989) offer a working definition of appraisal as
‘The process of judging a person’s performance and reporting that judgment.’
(Torrington, Weightman and Johns 1989: 814)
This looks simple enough, but soon gives rise to a host of questions. Who should judge the person’s performance? How should the judging be carried out? Who should the judgment be reported to? And what will be done with that information once it has been received?
An alternative definition is offered by Cascio (1986), who describes performance appraisal as
‘…the systematic description of job-relevant strengths and weaknesses within and between employees.’
The Centre for Labour Market Studies (CLMS) point out the narrowness of this definition, and how it lacks any reference to the strategic considerations which are central to performance management. So a fuller definition would relate individual performance to the wider context of organisational goals and requirements.
To understand performance appraisal and why it is the subject of such debate it is necessary to place it firstly in its historical context, and secondly in the context of the development of differing approaches to HRM. Performance appraisal has been around in one form or another for a very long time; Grint (1993: 829) refers to Swan (1991:16) quoting a third century Chinese appraisal assessment. For our purposes its relevant history probably begins in Robert Owen’s Lanark textile mills of the 1800s, when a piece of wood was placed by each employee’s machine each day marked with a different colour, which denoted the supervisor’s opinion of that worker’s performance on the previous day. This gave rise to an annual assessment which was recorded in a “book of character”. The assessments were subjective, which is one of the main criticisms still levelled at performance appraisal today.
In the early part of the twentieth century Owen’s ideas were superseded by those of ‘scientific management’, devised by F.W. Taylor and popularly associated with Henry Ford. This emphasised the use of quantitative methods to measure work performance, and led to the development of ‘work study’ techniques in the inter-war period. In 1955 Peter Drucker advocated Management by Objectives. This involves clearly identifying and communicating the organisation’s objectives, then specifying objectives for each employee setting out their individual part in achieving these. The SMART acronym has been developed to highlight the characteristics of effective objectives for individual job holders; they should be Specific about the required outcome, Measurable so that achievement can be determined, Agreed between the manager and the job holder, Realistic so that they are stretching but achievable, Time-bound so there is a clear deadline.
In theory, at least, Management by Objectives provided a clear and unambiguous framework for specifying and measuring employee performance. However, the approach has been criticised on a range of grounds. Levinson (1970) suggested that by measuring what is achieved, against objective standards, there is a risk of overlooking how those results are achieved. So a manager may be rewarded for meeting targets, even though the way in which they achieved those results was by bullying their subordinates. This links to a second concern, that important but difficult to measure qualitative aspects of the task may be sacrificed for more easily measurable, but less important, quantitative indicators. I have seen this in my own experience as a manager in the Court Service. The key attributes of an effective court usher are the abilities of establishing rapport with everyone who enters the court, ranging from judges and the legal profession to defendants and witnesses. But it is difficult to set objectives for such attributes, and much easier to measure factors such as whether they set up the courtroom on time with sufficient carafes of water.
Levinson’s final concern is that Management by Objectives often overlooks individual’s personal needs and objectives, and focuses solely on those dictated by the organisation. Fowler (1990) made similar criticisms, adding the risks of managers perceiving the setting and review of objectives as a centrally imposed administrative task and therefore paying lip service to it as a mechanical annual exercise (Armstrong and Baron 1998: 560-561).
The roots of Management by Objectives lie in behaviourism and focus on measuring and assessing employees’ performance on the basis of what they do. An alternative, the trait approach, was developed by the American and British military following the Second World War. This involved identifying desirable personality traits and then assessing the extent to which they were displayed by individuals. Traits might include such factors as drive, initiative, judgment and reliability (Torrington, Weightman and Johns 1989: 821), which were all identified as key ‘personal qualities’ in the British Civil Service appraisal scheme. The difficulties with this approach were twofold. Firstly the judgment of these traits was wholly subjective, and secondly no clear correlation was established between possession of these traits and effective job performance (Grint 1993: 830).
Performance appraisal today continues to combine a range of methods in an effort to produce reliable employee assessments which minimise subjectivity. In recent years competencies have been introduced, which attempt to encapsulate the knowledge, skills and attributes required for effective performance in a particular job role. Performance appraisal systems have been extended to include upward appraisal and 360 degree feedback, to give a wider reflection of individual performance. I will discuss the impact of these developments more fully later in this paper. However, the way in which they are applied depends on the underpinning philosophical approach to HRM.
This raises the questions of what is Human Resource Management, and how does it differ from personnel management? Is it a new development, or the same old wine in a flashy new bottle? Undoubtedly in some organisations it is simply a change of label, with the personnel department being renamed the HR department and life going on much as before. However, a number of writers have attempted to tease out the differences in approach. Legge (1988) writes that HRM ‘appears to be’
‘…a more central, strategic management task than personnel management in that it is experienced by managers, as the most valued resource to be managed, it concerns them in the achievement of business goals and it expresses senior management’s preferred organisational values.’
(Keenoy 1990: 390)
The differences highlighted here are the strategic nature of HRM, the focus on the importance of managing the managers, the emphasis on both achieving business goals and promoting organisational values. Storey (1992) produced a model setting out twenty seven points of difference between personnel and HRM approaches. The model is based around four key dimensions: beliefs and assumptions, strategic aspects, line management and key levers. Words and phrases which appear in relation to the traditional Personnel role include ‘procedural’, ‘transactional’, ‘institutionalised’ and ‘careful delineation of written contracts’. Contrast these with those relating to HRM: ‘Can-do outlook’, ‘values/mission’, ‘nurturing’, ‘transformational leadership’. Clearly Storey is highlighting HRM as a very different philosophical position from traditional personnel management, but that still leaves us to pin down exactly what HRM is.
Storey identifies two types of HRM: ‘soft’ and ‘hard’. Soft HRM has its roots in the Human Relations school, seeing employees as a resource to be invested in. Hard HRM takes a more utilitarian point of view, seeing labour as a factor of production in the same way as land or capital, and concentrating on ‘deploying the right number of people with the right skills in the right jobs’. While appearing very different these two approaches are not incompatible, and both share a priority of ‘planning a supply of readily skilled labour to meet organisational demand in the most efficient manner’. However, with regard to performance appraisal the identification of these two distinct schools is important. A ‘soft’ HRM approach is more likely to stress the developmental aspects of appraisal, while a ‘hard’ HRM approach is more likely to stress the controlling aspects. Unless there is recognition of these different approaches to HRM and regard for the validity of both, managers operating appraisal systems run the risk of being pulled in two potentially conflicting directions.
Despite these potential conflicts within HRM some consistent themes emerge. One is the stress upon the strategic nature of HRM. Truss and Gratton (1994) identify three key features of Strategic HRM. Firstly there must be an explicit link between HR policies and practices and the overall strategic aims of the organisation. Secondly, HR interventions must be organised and linked so that they are mutually supportive and make a coherent contribution. Thirdly, much of the responsibility for human resource management is devolved to line management.
Storey and Sisson (1993) highlight a number of problems with the notion of strategic HRM, among them a ‘constellation of dilemmas’ relating to performance appraisal:
‘On appraisal, will behavioural criteria or results criteria be used? Will the short-term or long-term be the chosen time-frame? Will the focus be on individual or group performance? Regarding compensation arrangements, will there be a simple base salary with no extra incentive payments or will there be many?’
(Storey and Sisson 1993: 426)
They go on to highlight how these considerations might affect how appraisal is carried out. For example, if an organisation’s strategy focuses on promoting innovation and creativity this is likely to be reflected in appraisals which reflect longer-term achievements. It might also follow that appraisals are more likely to be developmental in approach, with a view to encouraging employees to develop a broad range of skills. However, if an organisation’s strategy is focused on cost reduction, then appraisals are more likely to be orientated towards the achievement of short-term goals at minimal cost. The philosophy of such a strategy is likely to promote a controlling approach to appraisal, along with the practical consideration that little investment is likely to be made in providing employee development (Storey and Sisson 1993: 427).
In many organisations performance appraisal is part of a wider strategy of performance management. CLMS identify a range of approaches to performance management, including High Performance Work Systems (HPWS) and Human Performance Technology (HPT). Here I am more concerned with performance management in broad terms, and its relationship to appraisal.
In 1992 the (then) Institute of Personnel Management defined performance management as
A strategy which relates to every activity of the organisation set in the context of its human resources policies, culture, style and communications systems. The nature of the strategy depends on the organisational context and can vary from organisation to organisation.
(Armstrong and Baron, 1998: 568)
Performance management is seen by Armstrong and Baron as ‘a means of aligning organisational and individual objectives to achieve organisational effectiveness’. (Armstrong and Baron, 1998). It is based on two main assumptions. The first of these is that when people know what is expected of them, and have some say in this, they will do their best to achieve it. The second assumption is that performance will be dependent upon ‘the levels of capability that can be achieved by individuals and teams, the level of support they are given by management, and the processes, systems and resources made available to them by the organisation’ (Armstrong and Baron 1998).
Performance management involves a continuous cycle of planning, acting, monitoring, reviewing then planning again. For many organisations this cycle links clearly into the performance appraisal process. At the beginning of the appraisal period employees meet with their managers to draw up personal development plans, setting out agreed objectives, what will need to be done in order for them to be achieved, and how performance will be measured. Employees are then expected to act in accordance with these plans, while their managers monitor their performance and provide regular feedback. Regular formal reviews are built into the process, although often they do not take place as regularly as the scheme specifies. At the end of the cycle an annual review and written report is completed, then a new plan is drawn up for the next year.
Performance management therefore involves both identifying and meeting the development needs of the individual, while also intervening at a strategic level to influence the setting of organisational objectives. It also requires detailed and continuous analysis of individual performance. However, often this analysis is not empirical, and is dependant on the perceptions of the line manager carrying it out.
This brings us to a fundamental problem with performance appraisal. Whatever the underpinning philosophy, and whatever procedures are adopted, it is carried out by human beings. In most cases at present the human beings with the lead role are line managers, who make statements such as the following:
‘Performance appraisal is a load of rubbish. You decide on the rating you want in the box and then make up a few words of narrative in the other sections to justify it.’
(Manager from County NatWest Group, quoted by Carlton and Sloman, 1992:06; cited by Grint 1993: 830)
While it would be unfair to characterise this as representative of managers’ attitudes to performance appraisal in general it does highlight the cynicism and doubt which often surrounds the subject. Sometimes this stems from a lack of credibility surrounding the appraisal process. Grint (1993: 831) points to the common assumption that appraisals are often ‘political’ in nature, that they are mechanisms for justifying decisions which have already been taken and disregard individual merit. This is particularly the case when performance related pay (PRP) is involved. Townley (1995: 866) refers to the introduction of PRP in the UK National Health Service, which had the underlying aim of cutting salary costs. Whether or not they are founded such suspicions are widely held throughout the public sector in the UK, as I have discovered when delivering training on a number of new or revised appraisal schemes. The result is that all attention becomes focused on this one issue, and that any good intentions about utilising performance appraisal as a means of personal development become lost.
At times, then, difficulties arise from the hidden agendas or ‘politics’ associated with appraisal schemes, but more generally there appears to be evidence that managers lack the competence and/or confidence to operate performance appraisal effectively. As I highlighted in the introduction to this paper, most organisations expect their performance appraisal schemes to meet a multiplicity of needs. This means that the manager is often required to take on the roles of both judge and helper (Vickerstaff 1992), a delicate balancing act that few managers feel equipped to carry out.
Redman, Snape and McElwee (1993) suggest that there are two broad models of performance appraisal: judgment-oriented and development-oriented. Judgment-oriented appraisal tends to be backward-looking, measuring performance against organisational standards then telling the employee how they have done. Development-oriented appraisal is more forward-looking, with the appraiser taking the role of helping the employee to self-assess their own performance. In simplistic terms the first approach is controlling, the second developmental. However, in reality these two ‘ideal types’ tend to get mixed up, and even systems which aim to be highly developmental give rise to a number of judgments being made about the employee Redman, Snape and McElwee (1993:5).
Torrington, Weightman and Johns (1989) take a similar view, highlighting two broad approaches to appraisal, which they describe as the control approach and the personal approach. The control approach is more common and stresses targets, performance and rewards. It is initiated by senior management and therefore tends to be treated with suspicion and resistance by employees. The personal approach, which is less common, is job-holder led and focuses on development and fulfilling potential (Torrington, Weightman and Johns 1989:812-813). They cite Maier (1976) as describing three alternative approaches adopted by managers when conducting appraisal review meetings. The first of these is Tell and sell. This emphasises the manager’s role as judge, telling the employee the outcome of the appraisal and where they need to improve. This approach may be effective with inexperienced employees, but is unlikely to be well received by someone who feels they have the capacity to judge their own performance. It is highly controlling.
The second approach, Tell and Listen, is a modification of this. The appraiser still takes on the role of judge, passing on the results of an appraisal which has already been completed, but then elicits the appraisee’s reactions. This may enable the appraisee to influence the results, by offering evidence or explanations which were previously unknown to the appraiser. Certainly this approach is more likely to involve the appraisee in decisions about how development needs might be addressed, such as whether they would prefer to attend a training course or receive such on the job coaching. Nevertheless, identification of the development need in the first place remains with the appraiser. Most of the control therefore remains with the appraiser, but the appraisee is allowed their say within the limits that the appraiser allows.
The third approach, Problem-solving, is described as a very different kind of interview. The emphasis is not on the judgments of the appraiser but the growth and development of the appraisee. The appraiser’s role is to elicit their self-reflection, so that the appraisee is able to identify their own strengths and development needs, and how these needs might be met. The term ‘problem solving’ may be off-putting to the employee – the appraisal may reveal a high level of performance with few problems at all! ‘Non-directive interviewing’ is a possible alternative, and is more likely to provide a focus on future development.
Problem-solving or non-directive interviewing might seem the most appealing of these three approaches, but the right conditions need to be in place for it to be effective. The appraisee needs to be confident, secure, self-aware, and aware of development opportunities. The appraiser needs to have highly developed questioning and listening skills and the ability to engage with the appraisee as an equal, even if they are more senior in the organisational hierarchy. Perhaps one of the biggest difficulties with this more personal, development-oriented approach to performance appraisal is that it is so different from most people’s prior experience. I have been involved in delivering training on an appraisal scheme for magistrates, where the focus is very much on appraisers using the skills required to encourage appraisees to reflect on their own performance. However, in most instances their experience in the workplace has involved Tell and Sell or Tell and Listen appraisals, both as appraisers and appraisees. This means that the starting point for both is an expectation that the appraiser will judge the appraisee’s performance, and that both parties find it hard to move to a more reflective and developmental process.
Randall et al (1984) offer a similar set of styles, with an additional approach they describe as Listen and support. This is similar to Tell and Listen, but is more likely to be required when the manager’s feedback has been critical and has highlighted performance problems which need to be addressed. The manager may first need to listen to the employee’s initial defensive or angry reaction, then provide support through the process of addressing the performance problem. Adopting this style would therefore usually follow on from one of the first two.
All of these approaches to performance appraisal link closely to the various models of leadership and management styles, such as Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s autocratic-participative range of decision-making styles. The Tell and sell approach is at the autocratic, highly controlling end of the continuum, while Problem solving or Non-directive interviewing is far more participative. Nevertheless, the definition of this participative style of management is that the ‘Manager permits subordinates to function within limits defined by him/her’, so the manager still retains control and may rein the employees back in if they feel it necessary (Pettinger 1997: 117).
It is often stressed that an effective manager must have the flexibility to move along this continuum, knowing when to retain tight control themselves and when to hand over some of this control to their subordinates. The same goes for appraisal interviewing, and an effective appraiser should be able to adopt any of the above styles according to the needs of the situation and the individual appraisee. However, it appears that many managers lack the skills to adopt the range of interview styles. Grint (1993:831) highlights a lack of interpersonal skills on the part of managers, while Cascio (1986) identified that ‘many employees felt less certain about where they stood and evaluated their appraisers less favourably following the appraisal interview’.
We have already seen that two of the difficulties affecting managers in conducting effective performance appraisal are a lack of role clarity, as to whether they are primarily judges or helpers; and an inability to adopt the range of skills required to conduct different types of appraisal interview. A third difficulty for managers is the fact that organisations are social organisms, and that performance appraisal does not take place in isolation from these social processes. Managers and employees have to continue working together after an appraisal meeting has taken place, so managers may be reluctant to address shortcomings in performance in case this damages the working relationship. Job-holders may feel similar concerns; as Grint ominously points out, ‘…as far as the assessment process is concerned, we are what our superordinates say we are’ (Grint 1993: 831). He goes on to state
…it is not what the appraised thinks has transpired which accounts for his or her subsequent reward package, it is what the appraiser thinks that carries more weight – and with the weight the reward or the punishment.
(Grint 1993: 834)
This raises the issue of the relationship between performance appraisal and pay. The theory behind closely linking performance appraisal with reward systems was that desired performance would be encouraged and rewarded. However, the reality seems to have been that appraisers have tended to mark most people as ‘just above average’, so they get the performance pay, while appraisees have towed the line and kept quiet about their development needs in case they are marked down. The close association between performance appraisal and pay has therefore adversely affected the potential for performance appraisal to be developmental in nature. Recognition of this may be reflected in the results of surveys conducted by the (then) Institute of Personnel and Development (IPD). In their 1991 survey 74% of responding organisations had some form of performance-related pay, but by the 1999 survey this had fallen to 43%. In contrast the use of personal development plans (PDPs) was not mentioned in 1991, but was cited as a key feature of performance management by 68% of respondents in 1999.
Does this suggest that organisations are moving towards a more developmental approach to performance appraisal? Certainly the above figures would suggest this is the case, a view supported by a research project carried out in 1999 by CLMS, where the training managers taking part in the study commonly viewed the identification of individual training needs as a major outcome of the appraisal process. CLMS cite some specific examples from the study; firstly Kent County Council, where each individual has a PDP made up of an action plan and a performance review, followed by individual development planning. The second example is Eastbourne College of Art and Technology, where appraisal emphasises development and career progression as opposed to just performance and pay. A similar shift in emphasis has taken place in Control Risk Group, where clear links have been established between organisational objectives, core competencies and individual development needs.
The reference to competencies here is interesting. Redman, Snape and McElwee (1993: 6) suggest that ‘the increasing emphasis on competency offers some prospect of relating the performance appraisal process to actual behaviour’. In the 1999 IPD survey 31% of respondents stated that they used competence assessments, a figure which is likely to have increased since that time. Competence assessments had not been a significant factor in the 1991 survey (CLMS 1999a: 1239).
There are a variety of definitions of ‘competence’ and ‘competency’. CLMS define the difference between the two as follows:
Competences define the performance outcomes in terms of correctly completed processes or work products; competencies more generally describe personal attributes or sometimes behaviours.
In reality the position is clouded by the fact that the two terms are often used interchangeably. For example, the British Court Service has what it calls a ‘Competence Framework’, but many of the statements it contains describe the personal attributes and behaviours that CLMS define as ‘competencies’.
The National and Provincial Building Society defines its competencies as ‘the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour which are required to effectively carry out roles within N&P’ (Armstrong 1995: 49). They are described in terms of behaviour: ‘what an individual is seen to do, or what the role holder should be able to do’ (Armstrong 1995: 50). This is a common definition of competencies and, if the competencies are properly researched and well drafted, has several benefits. They describe those key aspects of performance which were previously difficult to quantify and measure, such as interpersonal skills. This assists appraisers in identifying what constitutes effective and ineffective performance, and what constitutes a development need. Access to the competencies is available to all, so job holders not only know the criteria they will be assessed against, but can assess their own performance and identify their own development needs. They can even assess their managers’ performance, through upward appraisal or 360 degree feedback systems.
Theoretically, then, the advent of competencies should increase employee involvement in their own appraisal and development. This accords with Armstrong and Baron’s first key assumption of performance management, that people will work most effectively when they not only know what is expected of them, but also have some say in formulating it. However, this principle is not always applied in practice. A competence-based development programme for managers at Manchester airport specified that
The thrust of the exercise would be to focus on what was needed, rather than what the individual selected as a development need (in our previous experience, these rarely coincide).
(Jackson 1991: 1224)
The author later mentions that the programme was met with initial apathy and hostility, although he does not connect this with the complete disregard of the participants’ own views. He goes on to stress that the development programme must lead to improvement in individual job performance, as measured against job-related targets. The key message for participants in the programme is that ‘development and performance are one and the same thing’ (Jackson 1991: 1228).
This is an example of development being offered in a highly controlled way. Development in this context is not about personal growth, as stressed by the ‘soft’ approach to HRM, but solely about increasing the individual’s ability to contribute to the business.
Alongside the increasing use of competency-based approaches to performance appraisal over recent years has been the introduction of multi-rater systems, more commonly referred to as 360 degree appraisal. This again moves away from sole reliance on the judgments of supervisors, encompassing assessment of performance from subordinates, colleagues and, in some instances, customers. There are many benefits of adopting this approach. The employee gains a broader picture of how they are seen by others. The problem of over-reliance on a single reporting officer’s perceptions are addressed, as 360 degree appraisal inevitably brings a range of views from which key themes can then be identified. It is often a highly developmental approach, as subordinates, colleagues and customers are able to highlight development needs which may have been outside of the awareness of the employee’s line manager (Armstrong and Baron, 1998).
One of the concerns expressed about 360 degree appraisal has been that subordinates may not be equipped to comment on some areas of their manager’s performance. While this may be true in relation to technical matters, they are often best placed to comment on leadership and inter-personal skills, particularly following the introduction of competencies. There may be an element of self-preservation in managers resisting 360 degree appraisal on these grounds; as Kiechel (1989:202) puts it ‘most managers pride themselves on their people skills. Alas, subordinates may have a different view’ (cited in Grint 1993: 832).
Other drawbacks to 360 degree appraisal are that it can be complicated and expensive to administer, meaning that it is generally only offered to people in management roles. So it may result in a more developmental approach to performance appraisal for people at these levels, but not necessarily those lower down the organisational hierarchy.
The final area I wish to explore in considering whether performance appraisal is primarily an instrument of development or control is that of organisational change. As the structures of organisations change, so do the means by which they control their employees. Modern organisations have tended to move towards more flexible work patterns and less direct forms of supervision. Hierarchies are flatter and workers have been ‘empowered’ to take more responsibility for their own performance. As this means that these employees will need greater scope for decision making, unnecessary bureaucratic rules and regulations have been removed.
In the light of these developments, how can organisations continue to control their employees and ensure that their efforts remain directed towards the effective achievement of organisational goals? According to Townley (1995), the answer lies in establishing a strong corporate culture, where the organisation’s aims and espoused values are ‘internalised’ by employees. One of the ways in which these aims and values can be promoted is through the appraisal process. In their summary of Townley CLMS write
…in addition to evaluating performance, appraisals can be used to communicate organisational culture and objectives. Work habits, attitude and other personal traits can therefore be passed on through appraisal.
Townley’s views suggest that performance appraisal remains a way of controlling employees. The form of control is less direct than those used in the past, but may be more insidious as a result.
In this paper I have explored a number of issues relating to the practice of performance appraisal. I began by considering definitions of appraisal, which tend to focus on its role as a process for judging employee performance. I then considered the historical development of performance appraisal, which again has tended to focus upon judging and controlling employee performance. The extent to which this remains the case depends upon the organisation’s prevailing approach to HRM and performance management; whether they lean towards the ‘soft’ HRM of the human relations school or ‘hard’ HRM, with its roots in scientific management. Whatever the philosophical standpoint, performance appraisal is often left in the hands of line managers and is therefore subject to their attitudes, which may be at odds with those espoused by their organisation, and their skills, which may limit the effectiveness and range of appraisal. The nature of appraisal has also been influenced by changes in HR such as the rise and fall of performance pay, the development of competencies and 360 degree appraisal. Wider organisational change has also impacted upon appraisal, leading writers such as Townley to suggest that a reduced emphasis on rules has led processes such as performance appraisal to become mechanisms which are predominantly used as means of control.
The evidence in this paper suggests that performance appraisal can be seen as a means of both developing and controlling the employee, but that the development aspect is often narrowly defined. As the Manchester airport case study highlights development needs may be defined by the organisation, with little or no input from the employee, and may focus solely upon improving organisational performance. This is development of a kind, but hardly amounts to the vision of the learning organisation where development is valued for its own sake, and employees are nurtured and encouraged to fulfil their wider potential.
Please visit our services page to find out about training opportunities with SATC.
Find out what's new with SATC.
We're happy to answer any questions you may have. Phone Steve on 01424 442861, alternatively, visit our contact page.
