1. Performance Appraisal
The history of performance appraisal is quite brief. Its roots in the early 20th century can
be traced to Taylor's pioneering Time and Motion studies. But this is not very helpful, for
the same may be said about almost everything in the field of modern human resources
management.
As a distinct and formal management procedure used in the evaluation of work
performance, appraisal really dates from the time of the Second World War - not more
than 60 years ago.
Yet in a broader sense, the practice of appraisal is a very ancient art. In the scale of
things historical, it might well lay claim to being the world's second oldest profession!
There is, says Dulewicz (1989), "... a basic human tendency to make judgements about
those one is working with, as well as about oneself." Appraisal, it seems, is both
inevitable and universal. In the absence of a carefully structured system of appraisal,
people will tend to judge the work performance of others, including subordinates,
naturally, informally and arbitrarily.
The human inclination to judge can create serious motivational, ethical and legal
problems in the workplace. Without a structured appraisal system, there is little chance
of ensuring that the judgements made will be lawful, fair, defensible and accurate.
Performance appraisal systems began as simple methods of income justification. That
is, appraisal was used to decide whether or not the salary or wage of an individual
employee was justified.
The process was firmly linked to material outcomes. If an employee's performance was
found to be less than ideal, a cut in pay would follow. On the other hand, if their
performance was better than the supervisor expected, a pay rise was in order.
Little consideration, if any, was given to the developmental possibilities of appraisal. If
was felt that a cut in pay, or a rise, should provide the only required impetus for an
employee to either improve or continue to perform well.
Sometimes this basic system succeeded in getting the results that were intended; but
more often than not, it failed.
For example, early motivational researchers were aware that different people with
roughly equal work abilities could be paid the same amount of money and yet have
quite different levels of motivation and performance.
These observations were confirmed in empirical studies. Pay rates were important, yes;
but they were not the only element that had an impact on employee performance. It was

2. found that other issues, such as morale and self-esteem, could also have a major
influence.
As a result, the traditional emphasis on reward outcomes was progressively rejected. In
the 1950s in the United States, the potential usefulness of appraisal as tool for
motivation and development was gradually recognized. The general model of
performance appraisal, as it is known today, began from that time.
Modern Appraisal
Performance appraisal may be defined as a structured formal interaction between a
subordinate and supervisor, that usually takes the form of a periodic interview (annual
or semi-annual), in which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and
discussed, with a view to identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities
for improvement and skills development.
In many organizations - but not all - appraisal results are used, either directly or
indirectly, to help determine reward outcomes. That is, the appraisal results are used to
identify the better performing employees who should get the majority of available merit
pay increases, bonuses, and promotions.
By the same token, appraisal results are used to identify the poorer performers who
may require some form of counseling, or in extreme cases, demotion, dismissal or
decreases in pay. (Organizations need to be aware of laws in their country that might
restrict their capacity to dismiss employees or decrease pay.)
Whether this is an appropriate use of performance appraisal - the assignment and
justification of rewards and penalties - is a very uncertain and contentious matter.
Controversy, Controversy
Few issues in management stir up more controversy than performance appraisal.
There are many reputable sources - researchers, management commentators,
psychometricians - who have expressed doubts about the validity and reliability of the
performance appraisal process. Some have even suggested that the process is so
inherently flawed that it may be impossible to perfect it (see Derven, 1990, for example).
At the other extreme, there are many strong advocates of performance appraisal. Some
view it as potentially "... the most crucial aspect of organizational life" (Lawrie, 1990).
Between these two extremes lie various schools of belief. While all endorse the use of
performance appraisal, there are many different opinions on how and when to apply it.
There are those, for instance, who believe that performance appraisal has many
important employee development uses, but scorn any attempt to link the process to
reward outcomes - such as pay rises and promotions.

3. This group believes that the linkage to reward outcomes reduces or eliminates the
developmental value of appraisals. Rather than an opportunity for constructive review
and encouragement, the reward-linked process is perceived as judgmental, punitive and
harrowing.
For example, how many people would gladly admit their work problems if, at the same
time, they knew that their next pay rise or a much-wanted promotion was riding on an
appraisal result? Very likely, in that situation, many people would deny or downplay their
weaknesses.
Nor is the desire to distort or deny the truth confined to the person being appraised.
Many appraisers feel uncomfortable with the combined role of judge and executioner.
Such reluctance is not difficult to understand. Appraisers often know their appraisees
well, and are typically in a direct subordinate-supervisor relationship. They work
together on a daily basis and may, at times, mix socially. Suggesting that a subordinate
needs to brush up on certain work skills is one thing; giving an appraisal result that has
the direct effect of negating a promotion is another.
The result can be resentment and serious morale damage, leading to workplace
disruption, soured relationships and productivity declines.
On the other hand, there is a strong rival argument which claims that performance
appraisal must unequivocally be linked to reward outcomes.
The advocates of this approach say that organizations must have a process by which
rewards - which are not an unlimited resource - may be openly and fairly distributed to
those most deserving on the basis of merit, effort and results.
There is a critical need for remunerative justice in organizations. Performance appraisal
- whatever its practical flaws - is the only process available to help achieve fair, decent
and consistent reward outcomes.
It has also been claimed that appraisees themselves are inclined to believe that
appraisal results should be linked directly to reward outcomes - and are suspicious and
disappointed when told this is not the case. Rather than feeling relieved, appraisees
may suspect that they are not being told the whole truth, or that the appraisal process is
a sham and waste of time.

4. METHOD :
(Tools of ) Performance appraisal methods include 11 methods / types as follows:
1. Critical incident method
The critical incidents for performance appraisal is a method in which the manager writes down
positive and negative performance behavior of employees throughout the performance period
2. Weighted checklist
This method describe a performance appraisal method where rater familiar with the jobs being
evaluated prepared a large list of descriptive statements about effective and ineffective behavior
on jobs
3. Paired comparison analysis
Paired comparison analysis is a good way of weighing up the relative importance of options.
A range of plausible options is listed. Each option is compared against each of the other options.
The results are tallied and the option with the highest score is the preferred option.
4. Graphic rating scales
The Rating Scale is a form on which the manager simply checks off the employee’s level of
performance.
This is the oldest and most widely method used for performance appraisal.
5. Essay Evaluation
This method asked managers / supervisors to describe strengths and weaknesses of an
employee’s behavior. Essay evaluation is a non-quantitative technique
This method usually use with the graphic rating scale method.
6. Behaviorally anchored rating scales
This method used to describe a performance rating that focused on specific behaviors or sets as
indicators of effective or ineffective performance.
It is a combination of the rating scale and critical incident techniques of employee performance
evaluation.
7. Performance ranking method
Ranking is a performance appraisal method that is used to evaluate employee performance from
best to worst.

5. Manager will compare an employee to another employee, rather than comparing each one to a
standard measurement.
8. Management By Objectives (MBO)
MBO is a process in which managers / employees set objectives for the employee, periodically
evaluate the performance, and reward according to the result.
MBO focuses attention on what must be accomplished (goals) rather than how it is to be
accomplished (methods)
9. 360 degree performance appraisal
360 Degree Feedback is a system or process in which employees receive confidential,
anonymous feedback from the people who work around them.
10.Forced ranking (forced distribution)
Forced ranking is a method of performance appraisal to rank employee but in order of forced
distribution.
For example, the distribution requested with 10 or 20 percent in the top category, 70 or 80
percent in the middle, and 10 percent in the bottom.
11. Behavioral Observation Scales
Behavioral Observation Scales is frequency rating of critical incidents that worker has
performed.
PROBLEM
PROBLEMS IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
1. Problems with leniency and strictness:
• The leniency bias crops when some raters have a tendency to be liberal in their rating by
assigning higher rates consistently.
• Equally damaging one is assigning consistently low rates.
2. Problems with central tendency:
• Some raters appraise all the employees around the middle point of the rating scale and they
avoid rating the people higher or lower level.

6. • They follow play safe policy because of answer ability to management or lack of knowledge
about the job and person he is rating or least interest in his job.
3. Problems with personal prejudice:
If the rater dislikes any employee, he may rate them at the lower end and this may distort the
rating purpose and affect the career of these employees.
4. Problems with halo effect:
• A person outstanding in one area tends to receive outstanding or better than average ratings in
other areas as well, even when such a rating is undeserved
• To minimizing the halo effect, you should appraise all the employees by one trait before going
to rate on the basis of another trait.
5. Problems with recent performance effect:
In general, raters remember the recent appraisal of the employee and they usually follow
appraisal results last time.