Page 401 - The Handbook for Quality Management a Complete Guide to Operational Excellence

388 M a n a g e m e n t o f H u m a n R e s o u r c e s R e s o u r c e R e q u i r e m e n t s t o M a n a g e t h e Q u a l i t y F u n c t i o n 389

Other criticisms that have been leveled against traditional performance
appraisal include:

• Traditional performance appraisal focuses on the individual,
despite solid evidence that the variance in performance is
predominantly due to the system.
• It ignores, or at best, devalues, cooperative efforts.
• The goals it sets tend to be static.
• The nature of the appraisal (boss evaluating employee) emphasizes
the hierarchical status, at the expense of a process-and-customer
orientation.
• It reinforces command and control behavior and de-emphasizes
initiative.
• The multiple ratings/rankings/groupings are not statistically
valid.
• Few people are ever classified as “average.”
• It causes “high” performers to slack off, and “average” or “poor”
performers to brood.
• Appraisals are a detection-oriented technique.
• It leads to tampering with the system.

Alternatives to Traditional Appraisals
One alternative has already been mentioned: stop it now. This is the action
recommended by Deming, Joiner, Scholtes, and many others. It’s a way to
stop the damage while you explore the options described below, or invent
your own alternative.

Alternative #1: Fix What’s Broken
Prince (1994) believes that the above criticisms of traditional perfor-
mance appraisals can be summarized as arguing that “performance
appraisal systems cannot accomplish what they are designed to achieve
and inevitably do more harm than good.” He believes that this argu-
ment is simply saying that bad sys tems are worse than no system at all.
As a middle ground, Prince offers the fol lowing broad guidelines to firms
who wish to design reward and appraisal systems compatible with a
quality improvement strategy:
1. Rating scales used should have few, not many, rating categories.
Most performers should be in the middle category. (Your author
suggests three categories: below the system, within the system,
and above the system. Unless extremely strong evidence is
available, performers should be rated as within the system.)

20_Pyzdek_Ch20_p381-398.indd 388 11/9/12 5:31 PM