PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL LITERATURE REVIEW

The amount of research regarding the topic “Performance Appraisal” is so vast. The topic is literally not new; it is as old as the formation of the organizations. Before the early 1980’s, majority of theoretical studies emphasized on revamping the rating system within the organization. The actions were a great thing to reduce the chaotic of employee’s performance appraisal (Feldman, 1981). With the passage of the time the methods and rating system among the employees got enhanced and received an immense appreciation and attentions of the managers. 

Behavioral Observation Scale (BOS) is one of the best techniques utilized by the managers to arte the employees. The dilemma was on the peak in the 1960s and 1970s. In the same period couple of new innovated rating scales were introduced, which was Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) and the Mixed Standard Scale (MSS). The innovations were dominant one which condensed the errors and improved the observation skills from the performance appraisal practice. According to the research of Arvey and Murphy (1998), there were hundreds of thousands of researches had been taken place between the periods of 1950 to 1980, which merely focused on the different types of rating scales. Landy and Farr (1980) reviewed and researched the methods of performance appraisal in totally a different manner, in which they understand the rater and process in an organizational context. Other Performance appraisal reports include the rater characteristics in their report like race, gender and likeability. 

After the year 1980 the biasness among the performance appraisal system occurred outrageously and appraisal had been granted on the favoritism or race and gender basis rather examined the knowledge, skills and style of the work of the employee. The accuracy criteria among the performance appraisal system clutched its grip in the start of the 1980s, where the researches were emphasized on common psychometric biases which include the diversified rating errors like leniency, central tendency and halo, which were termed as rating errors in the appraisal method. It has been observed that the bias free appraisals were inevitably true or more precisely we can say more accurate, but the concept was totally refused by the research of Hulin in 1982. According to them the biasfree appraisals were not necessarily accurate (Murphy & Balzer, 1989). 

Researches which had been done in the year 1980 were found the most dominating one which contributed the appraisal system in a great deal. The researches of the1980 also helped out to clarify some presumed assumptions regarding the performance appraisal, just like the work of Murphy (1982). Research has included the measure of employee attitudes towards the system of performance appraisal and its acceptance (Roberts, 1990). Bernardian and Beatty (1984), suggested in their research that behavioral and attitudinal kinds of measure ultimately prove to be better anticipator as compared with the traditional psychometric variables, which we have declared earlier as well, like leniency, halo and discriminability. A Performance Appraisal system is totally ineffective in practice due to the dearth of approval from the end users (Roberts, 1990).  

According to a number of researchers, the enhanced and upgraded performance appraisal procedure and method will enhance the satisfaction level of the employees and definitely will improve the process of goal setting within the organization. 

References

Palmer, J.K. and Feldman, Jack M, “Accountability and Need for Cognition Effects on Contrast, Halo, and Accuracy in Performance Ratings”, Journal of Psychology, 139 (2), 2005, 119-137 

F. J. Landy, And Farr, J. L. “Performance Rating”, Psychological Bulletin, 87, 1980, 72-107

Murphy K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. Performance Appraisal: An Organizational Perspective, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991

 

Roberts G.E., “The Influence of Participation, Goal Setting, Feedback and Acceptance on Measures of Performance Appraisal Effectiveness,”, Dissertation Abstracts In-ternational (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1990