This presentation was drawn from a paper that was accepted by the British Academy of Management's Annual Conference (BAM2018). Abstract: The performance appraisal (PA) is one of the performance management tools that is widely used to measure the productivity of academic employees in different contexts. Therefore, this paper has two main objectives. Firstly, it critically reviews the extant literature on performance management, including; Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard Approach, among others. Secondly, it presents a qualitative research that explores the performance appraisal system in a higher education institution. The researcher has conducted semi-structured interview sessions with academic employees to analyse their opinions and perceptions toward their annual PA. The research participants revealed the costs and benefits of their PA exercise. They were aware that their educational leaders could pragmatically employ the PA’s metrics to improve their performance outcomes, in terms of stakeholder engagement, internal processes, organisational capacity and innovation, among other areas. This research implies that the PA instrument could lead to significant benefits for both the institution as well as for the personal development of individual academics

1. The Performance Management and
Appraisal in Higher Education
By Mark Anthony Camilleri, University of Malta, Malta
Adriana Caterina Camilleri, University of Bath, UK
5th September 2018
How to Cite: Camilleri, M.A. & Camilleri, A.C. (2018). The Performance Management and Appraisal in Higher Education. In Cooper, C.
Driving Productivity in Uncertain and Challenging Times. (University of the West of England, 5th September). British Academy of
Management, UK.

2. Overview
• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Methodology
• Analysis and Interpretation
of the Findings
• Conclusions and
Implications
• Future Research
5th September 2018

3. Introduction
• Effective Human Resources Management (HRM) is related to goal-oriented,
performance management (PM) processes (Jones, Davis, & Thomas, 2017; Erez &
Kanfer, 1983), and productivity outcomes (Guest, 2002; Huselid, 1995).
• Organisations measure and improve the value of their workforce (Kaplan & Norton,
2001; Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1986) through performance appraisals (PA)
(Brewster, 2017; Beer, Boselie & Brewster, 2015; Levy & Williams, 2004; Huselid,
Jackson & Schuler, 1997; Hendry & Pettigrew, 1990; Fombrun, Devanna & Tichy,
1984).
• Schools, colleges and universities are also using the PA as an HRM tool to foster a
competitive, performance culture (CIPD, 2017; Manatos, Sarrico & Rosa, 2017; Page,
2015, 2016; Decramer, Smolders & Vanderstraeten, 2013; Forrester, 2011; Soltani,
Van Der Meer & Williams, 2005).
5th September 2018

4. Research Questions
This contribution analyses the costs and benefits of utilising the PA to
measure the performance of academic employees (Elliott, 2015; Decramer,
Smolders, Vanderstraeten & Christiaens, 2012; Brown & Heywood, 2005;
Salanova, Agut & Peiró, 2005; Levy & Williams, 2004).
1. This research critically reviews the extant literature on PM, including;
Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard Approach, among others.
2. A qualitative research explores the performance appraisal system in a
higher education institution.
5th September 2018

5. Literature Review
Strategic Human Resources Management and Performance Management
• Hard HRM laid emphasis on the employees’ compliance, quantitative output, managers’ tasks and the
development of the organisation (Beer et al., 2015; Barney & Wright, 1998; Lado & Wilson, 1994; Huselid
et al., 1997; Hendrey & Pettigrew, 1990; Guest, 1989; Fombrun et al., 1984).
• Soft HRM favoured flexibility, negotiation, performance, quality, commitment, recognition of different
environments and rights in employment relations (Cook, MacKenzie & Forde, 2016; Guest, 1997; 1989;
Vroom, 1964).
o The Social Systems Perspective recognised the importance of forging relationships with multiple stakeholders (Edgar &
Geare, 2005; Guest, 1987; Beer et al. 1984; Freeman, 1984) as external factors could impact upon the internal operations
of the organisation (Beer et al., 2015; Huselid et al., 1997; Hendry & Pettigrew, 1990).
Performance Management Systems in Education (Page, 2015; Wu, Lin & Chang, 2011; Beard,
2009; Cullen, Joyce, Hassall & Broadbent, 2003)
• The Balanced Score Card Approach in Higher Education (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). Organisations can
develop a comprehensive set of financial and non-financial measures to use as leading indicators to
capture value-creating activities.
5th September 2018

6. Table 1. The Balanced Score Card Approach in Higher Education
Perspective Question Explanation
Stakeholder
(including the government,
the national department of
education, business and
industry employers,
parents, students)
What do existing and new stakeholders value? This perspective views organisational performance from the point of view
of its stakeholders.
It gives rise to targets that matter, including; the quality and delivery of
teaching students, the provision of professional development and training
courses to business and industry, outreach and collaborations with
external stakeholders, et cetera.
Internal
(the academic and
administrative members of
staff)
What internal processes must be improved to
achieve quality educational objectives?
This perspective views organisational performance through the lenses of
quality education, individual research, engagement with trade and
professional organisations, the department’s operational internal
processes and efficiencies, et cetera.
Organisational
Capacity
(or Innovation and
Learning)
How can educational institutions improve to create
value?
This perspective views organisational performance through the lenses of
human capital, infrastructure, technology, culture and other capacities that
are key to the creation and dissemination of knowledge. It considers the
educational institutions’ research output (as a whole), and its capacity to
maintain a competitive position through the identification of the training
needs of individual members of staff, and the acquisition of new
resources.
Financial
(or Stewardship)
How can an educational institution (government,
church or private entities) improve financial
performance and their value to trustees or
shareholders? How can an educational institution
use its financial resources?
This perspective considers the organisation’s financial performance and
its use of resources. It covers traditional measures such as growth, return
on investment and profitability.

7. Methodology
• This study investigates the PA system in a higher education institution (HEI) within a
small European Union (EU) member state.
• The researcher has conducted 18 face-to-face, semi-structured interview sessions
with academic employees to analyse their opinions and perceptions on their annual
PA.
• The researcher observed the interviewees’ environmental setting, their
organisation’s culture and structure, the educational leaders’ management styles,
and the educators’ attitudes toward them, among other variables.
• The educational leaders utilise both qualitative and quantitative measures to evaluate their
academic employees’ performance on (i) teaching, (ii) research, and (iii) administration.
5th September 2018

8. The PA Process at the HEI
• The PA and its evaluation process is a collaborative appraiser / employee
(appraisee) process that starts with the identification of the individual
employee’s duties and responsibilities;
• Academic employees are given the opportunity to communicate to their
employer through a self-appraisal document;
• This feedback is used by the appraiser to evaluate the employees’ performance during
the appraisal year;
• It also offers the appraisees the chance to review their own accomplishments, and to
actively participate in their organisation’s goal-setting process;
• The appraisers (i.e. the subject or area coordinators) will mark the appraisal
form with their quantitative ratings and qualitative feedback following an
informal meeting with the appraisees.
5th September 2018

9. Analysis and Interpretation of the Findings (1)
• PA was consistently employed (on an annual basis) to serve the interests of the HEI’s performance management;
• The HEI’s leadership maintained records on their academic employees’ performance as they recognised their employees’
work output;
The Benefits of having a PA system
• PA has improved the working relationships and created a climate of trust, mutual respect and open communication at
the HEI;
• PA increased the Organisational Performance;
• Set clear, identifiable working goals for employees (PA was goal-oriented);
• Acknowledged the employees’ progress, year after year;
• Appraisees were accountable to their stakeholders (i.e. their employer, policy makers, students etc);
• PA provided employees with insightful feedback that helped them to improve their work performance and productivities;
• PA instilled a sense of ownership among employees. There were respondents who suggested that the PA exercise has increased their
commitment to work;
• The PA instrument could be utilised as an HRM tool that could lead to continuous improvements in the workplace
environment.
5th September 2018

10. The Costs of having a PA system
• The Appraisers’ Bias and Subjectivity in the PA Process
• The appraiser may provide constructive feedback as well as negative criticism. The latter type of communication may possibly lead to
employee demotivation, turn-over intention, as well as unproductive behaviours from the employees’ part.
• There may be specific situations where the appraisers’ decisions may be contested, leading to conflicts and grievances.
• PA may cause unnecessary tension among employees if it is used by HR to take ‘hard’ decisions relating to retention, termination of
employment or for disciplinary action. .
• The appraisers may have the authority to implement contentious HR decisions that will affect the appraisees’ future employment
prospects, or their take-home pay.
• PA are Backward Looking
• The PA exercise had become an annual administrative task . “PA must form part of college’s culture, rather than being considered as
something that needs to be got over and done with” (An Interviewee).
• PA instrument was not being adopted to identify the training requirements to keep the academic staff up-to-date with the latest advances
in teaching and educational technologies.
• PA should focus on the development and achievement of future objectives, rather than just assess their past performance.
• The PA and the Organisational Culture
• The PA system may be ineffective unless it is being linked to other performance-enhancing policies. “The lecturers did not feel that they
own the PA process” (An Interviewee).
5th September 2018
Analysis and Interpretation of the Findings (2)

11. Conclusions and Implications of Study
5th September 2018
• HRM strategy should be internally-consistent and externally-relevant to achieve organisational success (Decramer et al.,
2013; Amaratunga & Baldry, 2000; Kaplan & Norton, 1992).
• The organisations’ HRM systems and their performance outcomes must be monitored on a regular basis to ensure that leaders are
managing resources and capabilities in an effective and efficient manner.
• BSC could be used to analyse the performance management of educational institutions in terms of their (i) stakeholder, (ii) internal,
(iii) organisational capacities and (iv) financial perspectives. Organisations could evaluate their strengths and address those areas
that require further improvement.
• The PA process is informing HEI leaders on their academic employees’ performance and productivity.
Its successful execution may lead to: an increased employee motivation, job satisfaction, better feedback, increased accountability,
and to a fairer distribution of rewards
• This reflective paper has highlighted the costs and benefits of the PA process. It suggested that the PA exercise is
increasingly relying on the skill and on the predisposition on the part of assessors who provide constructive criticism and
key recommendations to their colleagues.

12. Limitations and Future Research Directions
• The number of research participants was sufficient in drawing conclusions about
the interviewees’ attitudes toward the PA; however, this qualitative study is not
amenable in drawing general conclusions in other contexts.
• Further research is necessary to identify the organisational aspects that facilitate or hinder
the successful implementation of the PA process. Knowledge about these aspects could
inform and guide practitioners to achieve the desired outcomes.
• The BSC can be used to thoroughly assess HEI performance through the 4 perspectives
(stakeholder, internal, organizational capacity and financial);
• Longitudinal studies in this area of research could investigate the relevance of ongoing PAs
to improve the organisations’ productivity and performance;
• Future studies could explore whether the PA exercises are providing constructive feedback
to employees, increasing the employees’ accountability, rewarding good practice, boosting
employee morale, enhancing job satisfaction and motivation of employees, reducing
turnover, among other research avenues).
5th September 2018

13. References
• Barney, J. B. and Wright, P. M. 1998. On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37(1), pp. 31-46.
• Beard, D. F. 2009. Successful applications of the balanced scorecard in higher education. Journal of Education for Business, 84(5), pp. 275-282.
• Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P.R., Mills, D.Q. and Walton, R.E. 1984. Managing Human Assets, Free Press, New York, NY.
• Beer, M., Boselie, P. and Brewster, C. 2015. Back to the future: Implications for the field of HRM of the multistakeholder perspective proposed 30 years ago. Human Resource Management, 54(3),
pp. 427-438.
• Brewer, P. D. and Brewer, K. L. 2010. Knowledge management, human resource management, and higher education: a theoretical model. Journal of Education for Business, 85(6), pp. 330-335
• Brown, M. and Heywood, J. S. 2005. Performance appraisal systems: determinants and change. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(4), pp. 659-679.
• Camilleri, M. A. (2015). Valuing stakeholder engagement and sustainability reporting. Corporate Reputation Review, 18(3), 210-222.
• Camillieri, M. (2017). Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.Cham, Switzerland,: Springer Nature.
• CIPD 2017. Performance Appraisal: Understand the basics of performance appraisals and how to ensure the process adds value to the organisation. Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development. https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/people/performance/appraisals-factsheet (accessed 15th December 2017).
• Cook, H., MacKenzie, R. and Forde, C. 2016. HRM and performance: the vulnerability of soft HRM practices during recession and retrenchment. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(4), pp.
557-571.
• Cullen, J., Joyce, J., Hassall, T. and Broadbent, M. 2003. Quality in higher education: from monitoring to management. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), pp. 5-14.
• Decramer, A., Smolders, C., Vanderstraeten, A. and Christiaens, J., 2012. The impact of institutional pressures on employee performance management systems in higher education in the low
countries. British Journal of Management, 23, S1, pp. S88-S103
• Decramer, A., Smolders, C. and Vanderstraeten, A. 2013. Employee performance management culture and system features in higher education: relationship with employee performance
management satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(2), pp. 352-371.
• Edgar, F. and Geare, A. 2005. HRM practice and employee attitudes: different measures–different results. Personnel review, 34(5), pp. 534-549.
• Elliott, K. 2015. Teacher Performance Appraisal: More about Performance or Development?. Australian Journal of teacher education, 40(9), pp. 101-116.
• Erez, M. and Kanfer, F. H. 1983. The role of goal acceptance in goal setting and task performance. Academy of management review, 8(3), pp. 454-463.
• Fombrun, C. J., Devanna, M. A. and Tichy, N. M. 1984. The human resource management audit. In Strategic Human Resource Management. pp.235-248. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
• Forrester, G. 2011. Performance management in education: milestone or millstone?. Management in Education, 25(1), pp. 5-9.
• Freeman F.E. 1984. Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
5th September 2018

14. 5th September 2018