Page 134 - Psychological Management of Individual Performance

116 appraisal: an individual psychological perspective
INTRODUCTION

Performance Appraisal (PA) is a generic term covering a variety of processes whereby
an individual’s work performance is assessed, usually by that person’s line manager, and
discussed with a view to solving problems, improving performance and developing the
individual appraised. It has a long and perhaps not very distinguished history in organi-
sational life. Despite the fact that it is all too often seen as problematic or ineffective
in some respects, it not only persists as a feature of large organisations but has actually
increased in its range of application. For example, in the UK during the 1990s it was
systematically introduced into elements of the public sector which had not used it before,
while in the private sector it was applied to a greater spread of levels and staff groups
in organisations (Fletcher, 1997a). Also, new aspects of appraisal, such as multi-source
feedback (so-called 360 degree feedback) have become popular; Antonioni (1996, p. 24)
observed that “without question, 360 degree appraisals are taking hold in American
business”.
However, to gain an understanding of where PA is today, it is helpful to look briefly
at how it has evolved. Its origins can be traced back as far as the First World War, but to
appreciate contemporary perspectives it is not necessary to go back beyond the 1950s
and 1960s. In the 1950s, personality-based appraisal systems were quite common. These
were associated with a belief in the importance of feedback as an aid to learning and as
a motivating mechanism. Then McGregor’s (1957) famous article, in which he took an
“uneasy look” at PA, expressed criticism of personality-based ratings and identified them
as a principal reason for the tendency of managers to avoid doing appraisals if possible.
This line of thought was taken up by other writers in the field and, with the additional
influence of the concept of Management By Objectives (MBO), appraisal practice in
the1960sshiftedtoagreateremphasisongoal-settingandtheassessmentofperformance-
related abilities (and, much more recently, competencies) rather than personality. In the
decade that followed, PA practices were influenced by equal opportunities legislation. In
line with this, the practice of having report forms as confidential documents not available
for scrutiny by the person appraised largely died out. The late 1980s, and the whole of
the 1990s, saw organisations undergo a process of rapid and successive change. The
nature of these changes—downsizing, delayering, etc.—had implications for the way
that PA was applied (Fletcher, 1997b). For example, with fewer management levels
and greater autonomy for individual managers, the traditional practice of having the
line manager as the appraiser sometimes became difficult to apply—because of both
the number of potential appraisees and the limited contact their immediate boss might
have with them. Along with these changes, many companies introduced performance
managementsystemsinanattempttoimproveperformanceandmanagehumanresources
in a more integrated and consistent manner (Williams, 1998). Almost inevitably, PA
became a central mechanism in this more holistic approach. Thus, the aims, context and
processes of PA have increasingly reflected the wider business needs and priorities of
the organisations operating it, as well as legal requirements.
This shift has been noted in numerous radical critiques and analyses of appraisal.
These have portrayed appraisal as a management control process that tries to ensure that
subordinates act in accordance with organisational goals, and have tended to dismiss
any pretence of appraisal being a process that has any benefit for the person appraised
(e.g. Newton & Findlay, 1996; Townley, 1999). The approach of many of these writers