Unfortunately, a name change doesn’t seem to make much difference. Whether called employee evaluation, performance evaluation, performance review, annual review, personal rating, performance rating, or performance appraisal, the process of formally reviewing the performance of individual members of an organization is subject to considerable skepticism among many leaders and employees. Two of the most thoughtful commentators on performance appraisal, Tom Coens and Mary Jenkins, actually wrote and published a book in 2000 that calls for the abolition of performance appraisal systems!ii
Problems of Performance Appraisal
Why has performance appraisal become a dirty word? Where did this essential managerial process go wrong? Coens and Jenkins identify several different problems and suggest that many of the underlying assumptions regarding effective performance appraisal must be called into question. First, they suggest that performance appraisals are serving too many different, and often incompatible, functions. They would undoubtedly point to the list of twelve functions that I offered in a previous essay and note that it is hard for any one organizational process to serve such a diverse set of organizational needs:iii
. . . the practice of bundling multiple functions is a key contributor to the dismal track record of appraisals. Because so many functions are associated with appraisal, its purpose is confusing and ambiguous to raters and ratees. When multiple functions are loaded on appraisal, the process becomes cumbersome and time-consuming, perhaps explaining in part supervisors’ procrastination and reluctance to execute the process. The aim and purpose also become foggy and distorted, resulting in varying interpretations and emphases. Consequently, mixed messages are sent, learning is impeded, and some purposes of appraisal are undermined or just plop on the floor.
Like many other authors, Coen and Jenkins are particularly concerned about the interweaving of personnel decision-making needs with developmental needs. It’s hard to use feedback data for one’s own development, when this data is also being used to determine pay, future job placements or even future employment.
Coen and Jenkins also suggest that a single performance appraisal system might not be appropriate for all employees. They note that most performance appraisal systems are based on the assumption that people want to know, and need to know, where they stand in their organization. A second assumption is also commonly held: a performance appraisal system can objectively and reliably assess individual performance. There is a third assumption: supervisors and rated employees will not try to manipulate performance ratings to get desired outcomes.
