Two purpose of Performance Appraisal:

1. Supplying Information to management for

personnel decisions
2. Diagnosing strengths and weaknesses of
employees to enable them to improve their
specific job performance and to provide them
with sufficient motivation for doing so.

If the assessment is of any value, the

interpretation and recommendation must be
communicated to the employee.
A person’s self-appraisal will not be matched by
his or her supervisor ’s appraisal.
There will be discrepancy between how well
the employees think they are doing their jobs
and how well their supervisors think they are
doing it.
The larger the discrepancy ,the more defensive
the employee become.
The purpose of telling the employees how
they fared in a performance appraisal is the
hope that they will improve their behavior on
the job.
Some workers when criticized, react by
behaving in a contradictory manner as an
imagined means of revenge.
Another purpose of Post Appraisal Interview is to
reward or praise workers for better than average
job performance in the hope that such praise will
spur them to even more efficient behavior.

Unfortunately, this goal, too, remains more ideal

than real. In cases, in which there is criticism as
well as praise, many workers focus unduly on the
criticisms and minimize or ignore the praise.
Criticizing a subordinate must be undertaken
with the utmost tact and understanding. Most
people consider the job they perform vital, in
psychological terms a job provides much of the
basis our self-worth, esteem and pride.
Criticizing the way we do our jobs goes much
deeper that just criticizing out work behavior. It
influence ones whole-self image.
Appraising workers of their job progress and
general level of effectiveness should be done
once or twice a year. It provides a more
continuous record of development and
achievement.
Set a goal in each feedback session for the
employee improvement-goals reached by
mutual agreement between the worker and
supervisor.
The top management of a division of the General
Electronic Corporation, thought so poorly of the
program that no more than half of them used it.
Employees criticized it as inaccurate, unreliable,
and waste of time: Two major complaints were
identified. First, appraisals were undertaken only
once a year and were based on traits rather than
on actual behavior on the job. Second, employees
had little opportunity to participate in the
appraisal process.
An appraisal task force, assisted by Industrial
Psychologists, was established to device a
better approach. The new appraisal system
they proposed offers a continuing, ongoing
process of planning and reviewing the work of
the entire division. The program has the
following goals:
1. All work is planned jointly by employees and
supervisors. Specific goals and objectives,
and the best ways of meeting them, are
mutually determined, providing employees
ample opportunity to participate in the
appraisal process.
2. Formal appraisals are given annually, but
interim evaluations and coaching are
provided as needed. The focus in these
sessions is on monitoring employee’s
progress towards achieving goals and on
devising changes in behavior where needed.
3. In the annual formal appraisals, employees
and managers discuss what has been
accomplished and how it was done. Goals
established during the previous appraisal are
evaluated in terms of their outcomes and
new goals are established mutually for the
future. Employees documented what, in
their view, they have accomplished during
the year.
The major ingredients for the success of this
program are mutual goal setting, frequent
feedback, and an emphasis on behavior rather
than traits. Overall, perhaps the best
explanation for the acceptance of this
performance appraisal system is that it was
designed not solely to judge employees but to
help them.
Most organizations evaluate their workers by traditional
methods, which has disadvantages and limited access.
As a result, both the worker and supervisor in the
performance appraisal may view it suspicion that widens
the gap between them.
Performance appraisal may cause a decrease in
performance and motivation and lead to employee
defensiveness, this is due to the fact that most
companies do not know what their evaluation programs
are doing for them or to them.
Others describe performance appraisals as “a bad joke”.
Other reasons why performance appraisal programs got poor rating
1. Work appraisal systems demand much time and conscientious
effort from supervisors who are already subject to stress and
strains.
2. A supervisor spend many hours observing subordinates to
develop sufficient knowledge of their capabilities to be able to
assess them fairly; additional hours are needed to fill out the
performance appraisal forms.
3. Evaluations are often hastily completed, a situation that is not
conducive to thorough and systematic appraisals.
4. Many supervisors do not like the idea of judging employees, of
being in a position to give their subordinates low rating, even for
poor performance.
Reasons why employees do not like the idea of
performance appraisals.
1.They fear the effect of the assessment of their
future
2.They think that their supervisor will use it against
them for misunderstanding or personality clashes
unrelated to their work ability
3.They do not know the criteria by which they are
being judged or even precisely what is expected of
them on the job
In many organizations, the result of the
assessment are filled in the personnel
department and are never used for their
intended purpose:
To help make decisions about promotions and
pay increases or to counsel employees. And this
simply increases the negative attitudes toward
the whole idea of performance appraisal
To sum-up, the system of performance
appraisal as generally practiced in industry is
unsatisfactory. However, new approaches and
techniques such as better training for raters are
being developed because performance
appraisal, in some fashion, must be carried out.

Judgment and appraisals of job ability at all

levels of employment are necessary, For it is
the most effective approach to take.