Traditional performance appraisal systems This
section describes the general or predominant features of performance appraisal
systems up until very recently. Many of these features still appear in current
performance appraisal schemes but the mix is changing. 2.1
Performance appraisal purpose The purpose of traditional performance
appraisal systems was largely to ensure that the minimum standards for
the job were being maintained and that some measure of control was being exerted
over the employee. This was referred to as 'Performance Control' by Randell (1989).
In general, the performance appraisal attempted to assess past and current performance
in a particular job. These were often viewed as an opportunity to criticise rather
than give recognition or meaningful support for performance improvement. These
performance appraisal processes may or may not have included performance related
pay increases. These traditional performance appraisal systems tended not to incorporate
corporate goals and the direction or strategic needs of the business, or the personal
aspirations of employees and their future development. The inadequacies
of these performance appraisal systems design resulted in the creation of performance
review and development systems. 2.2 Methods of
performance appraisal measurement Two main methods of performance
appraisal measuring were in general use. The first was the Manager's Report.
Widely used by the armed forces, a manager would comment on various elements of
an employee's performance. However, because it did not allow differences between
individuals to be compared, quantifiable measures were sought. The second
method of performance appraisal measuring is itself comprised
of two factors. The first was to monitor records that could be easily observed
and measured, e.g., attendance record, productivity, time keeping. The second
was to assess employee traits, e.g., commitment, expertise, attitude. In an attempt
to quantify these performance appraisal rating scales were devised. These
required appraisers to form a judgment, which could be questioned by the employee
or others. The consequence could be internal strife or even exposure to the threat
of industrial tribunal action, where through lack of knowledge or skill, the appraiser
could became accused of discrimination. This resulted in many managers opting
to "play it safe", and so performance appraisal schemes never
realised their potential. All performance appraisal / development / improvement
systems must be designed and implemented with the full participation of those
involved in their use or are affected by them in any way. Both appraisers and
appraisees must be thoroughly trained in both the system and the communication
skills needed to maximise system benefits. 2.3
Performance appraisal linked to performance related pay awards The
traditional performance appraisal wisdom was to avoid making
a direct link between the performance appraisal and performance related pay awards.
The argument was that the employee's concern over pay would prejudice their ability
to discuss their performance and performance improvement objectively. They would
be concerned to 'talk their performance appraisal up' to maximise their pay increase.
This argument is expanded upon by Goss (1994). In consequence, many organisations
held an annual performance appraisal with a pay round some months later. Often
individual performance related pay was awarded with little understanding on the
part of the employee of how it had been assessed and how it reflected an individual's
actual performance. Consequently little understanding was generated on the need
for performance improvement and little attempt was made to link the actual performance
appraisal to the motivating influence of personal development. (Which some organisations
prefer - performance review and development systems but without performance
related pay, i.e. focussing only on developmental matters).. 2.4
Performance appraisal frequency, participation and paper work In
most instances the traditional performance appraisal was an annual
formal interview involving a manager and employee working through a form designed,
prepared and issued by the Personnel Department. More frequent, both formal
and informal, discussions may have taken place if the manager was particularly
supportive or if there were performance problems. However, performance problems
may well have been seen as requiring use of a disciplinary procedure, and this
tended to discredit the performance appraisal process. In some instances,
a third party attended the performance appraisal interview, normally
as an observer. This might have been a 'grandfather', i.e., the manager's manager.
Or it might have been a member of the Personnel Department. Such utilisation led
to the growth of the mentor role. The parties to the performance appraisal
interview are likely to have been asked to prepare for the interview, with guidance
notes and blank copies of forms being issued. Nevertheless, employees were not
in a good position to assert a contrary view to their manager. Appeals on the
'subjective' perforamnce appraisal findings could be directed
to the manager's manager, through a special appeal mechanism or using the less
than ideal organisation's grievance procedure. Formal, annual performance
appraisal systems tended to be paper driven. In many organisations completing
the form became the focus of the performance appraisal interview rather than how
best performance improvement could be achieved, which is the principle underpinning
performance review and development. 2.5 Performance
appraisal and target setting Early forms of performance
apraisal systems included target setting of the, 'You could do better
if you were to...' type. However, this type of performance appraisal placed reliance
upon the interviewee often without management or developmental support. The
inclusion of 'Management by Objectives' in performance appraisal systems
created a strong push towards managers (with little appraisee input) setting targets
and using them as the focus for all subsequent performance appraisal related discussions.
Objectives, linked to departmental plans, began to replace the use of trait based
performance appraisal measurement systems. Instead, employees were rated according
to how many objectives they had achieved, or how well they had achieved them.
This meant that performance appraisal rating scales could still
be used. However, employees were often left alone to deliver objectives and targets
as best they could. Consequently little performance improvement could be
realised resulting in the next performance appraisal being little more than a
re-run of the previous one. How many unproductive re-runs do you have before performance
appraisal systems become discredited? There had to be a better way and
that way was performance review and development. 2.6
Scope of the performance appraisal process Some organisations
operate a number of different performance appraisal schemes for
different categories or levels of employee. Differentiated performance appraisal
systems may have included separate measurement scales or the performance appraisal
may be linked to different performance related pay schemes, or the inclusion of
different competence definitions. Such performance
appraisal schemes are not without their problems. Our performance appraisal services can be supported by online HRD management and elearning click here for a FREE trial license. For a system description see www.hrdonline.co.uk | 
