亨得利等（2000）建議，評(píng)估是一個(gè)“誤用”的過程，旨在控制員工的活動(dòng)。然而，過去和最近的學(xué)者都把績(jī)效考核作為一個(gè)組織的戰(zhàn)略的組成部分（朗格內(nèi)克和戈夫1992；庫(kù)茨和施耐德2004）。當(dāng)雙方一起使用時(shí)，績(jī)效考核是指兩個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的形式來挑起和推動(dòng)在正式評(píng)估過程的組織環(huán)境中的強(qiáng)烈的反應(yīng)、情緒與意見（Pettijohn L.等人2001和 庫(kù)馬爾2005）。世界上大多數(shù)組織，不論其大小、類型和產(chǎn)品的區(qū)別，都采用績(jī)效考核的方式；但這種工具作為人力資源管理的混合物，過去常常不同程度地推動(dòng)了其達(dá)到目的（佩蒂約翰等人，2001）。過去文獻(xiàn)建議，績(jī)效考核的存在是基于若干基本原理的，其中包括為選擇提供決策，工資增加的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，為管理者和員工提供反饋的媒介，促進(jìn)員工發(fā)展（芒特，1984年）。

 

 

Hendry et al (2000) suggest that appraisal is a "misused" process, designed to control employees' activities. Nevertheless, past and recent scholars have regarded performance appraisals as a strategic and integral part of an organization (Longenecker and Goff 1992; Coutts and Schneider 2004). Performance appraisal is referred as two simple terms that provoke and propel strong responses, sentiments, opinions and judgment in the organizational context of formal appraisal procedure when mutually used together (Pettijohn L. et al 2001 and Kumar 2005). Most organizations of the world, irrespective of its size, type and product distinction employ the use of performance appraisal; but with different level of accomplishment as an instrument used to drive a mixture of human resource management purpose (Pettijohn L. et al 2001). Past literatures' suggested that performance appraisal existed based on several rationales which includes making provision for selection decisions, a yardstick for salary increment, a medium for providing feed-back among managers and employees and facilitation of employee development (Mount 1984). Research was focused toward establishing systems for improving the psychometric properties of performance ratings (Mount 1984, Fombrun and Laud 1983). However, future research has attributed development changes in recent performance appraisal system to large-scale organisations rather than advances in theory (Redman and Wilkinson 2006).

 

Numerous definitions as been given to performance appraisal by numerous scholars, researchers and practitioners. According to Flippo (1984), "performance appraisal is the systematic, periodic and an impartial rating of an employee's excellence in the matters pertaining to his present job and his potential for a better job." However, a recent and concise definition of performance appraisal by CIPD (2010) was referred as an operational short to medium term tool used to assess individual performance and development. This suggests that performance appraisal is a dominant tool to evaluate, assess, develop and compensate the performance of employee/subordinate helping to create goal congruence between the organization and it employees.#p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#

 

Research has identified a gap amongst the managers and employees' perception about performance management theory and its actual practice (Bratton J. and Gold J. 1999). In practice, most organizations do not employ the performance management process to its full capacity in motivating employees (Morris et al. 1991). Though in theory, the general acknowledgment that performance management is a tool used to promote employee understanding of its contribution to organizations strategic goals; while also ensuring that the right talent and skills are centered on the things of importance. Yet in practice, it is regarded as just a documentation phase that is used to fulfill basic organizational and statutory requirements (CIPD 2009). In simple terms, performance management can be described as a strategic part of human resource management; which is an all-inclusive process that aims to bring together various aspects including performance appraisal (Boxall and Purcell, 2003). Noticeably, an important aspect of performance appraisal is enhancing performance, which is a key element of organizational life and performance management (CIPD 2005a).

 

Past and recent scholars have argued that the lack of a generally acceptable purpose served by performance appraisal system process has raised questions for the degree to which it's various function conflicts with employee and employer (Beer, 1981 and Longenecker 1997). This may suggest that a key generally acceptable purpose of an effective performance appraisal process is still a major rift in research. However, research by other proponents suggests that performance appraisals in practice surface to be aimed at four purposes, which are: making distinctions among employees, differentiation of a person's strength from its weakness, execute, develop and assess organizations' human resource systems, and the documentation of personnel assessment (Cleveland et al 1989 and 2003). Nevertheless, further aims and purpose of performance appraisals may in due course arise and enhance performance at the employee and, subsequently, the employer or organizational level (DeNisi and Gonzalez, 2000)

 

Hunt N. (2007) in his book "Conducting Staff Appraisal" cited past scholars in his literature arguing that organization's purpose "they claim" is not appraisal inclined but rather to make money and generate profit or in the case of public corporations, provide social amenities i.e. good service. He argued that the view that appraisal does not have a direct connection with production is a fallacious statement and suggested that the purpose of a well structure appraisal system should be promoting satisfaction for both employee and employers (organization), as employees become satisfied knowing that employers or its organization are after its needs and not just the profit goal.

 

Past approach to performance appraisal referred to as traditional, viewed performance appraisal as a method for justification employee salaries, rewarding and punishing employee for organizational performance. Traditional performance appraisal methods rate employees using the quantitative tools and employ numerical or scalar ratings orientation (Appraisal.Naukribub.Com 2007). The combination of these methods with logical decision provides sufficient procedure of performance; nevertheless as the complexity of employment increase, the orientation to figures makes it more challenging because the reduction of individual contribution's complexity and competency to a figure results from a mix of inadequate reasons (Murphy T. and Margulies J. 2004).#p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#

 

The primary goal of traditional approach was aimed at providing control and documenting employee historical performance. The appraisal was performed occasionally and the leadership practices were estimated and directional in nature. This approach emphasized an individual orientation reward practice with high degree of formality process (Appraisal.Naukribub.Com 2007). On the other hand, a more collaborative technique approach to an effective performance appraisal is the modern performance appraisal, which has developed the appraisal system of organizations over the years to a more formal and structured system (Tool pack 2000-2009).

 

The modern system approach is primarily aimed at developing and creating a problem solving environment for employees; and promotes a leadership style that is facilitating and tutoring in nature (Gomez-mejia et al 2006). The aim of this system has its guiding value attributed to the performance appraisal system, and employs a more frequent (periodic and continuous activity) appraisal system for employees. This system has a low degree of formality and practice a group or team orientation reward practice. Modern appraisal approach includes; management-by-objectives (MBO), work planning and review, 360° appraisals, peer review, etc. (Murphy T. and Margulies J. 2004). This study intends to analyze major effects of some appraisal system methods in relation to employee and employer below.

 

In an online website (Scribd 2009), rating system was regarded a major aspect of the traditional method of performance appraisal. It was argued that it has been fundamentally flawed, though a quick system, which makes appraisal system inaccurate and ill-complete. This system does not give a comprehensive dimension of criteria employed in rating an employee, and in turn does not provide reasons for rating results. An example is the halo effect; where employers believe that an employee is excellently good and neglects all other evidence towards him. In negative terms (horns effect), when employers perceive an employee has poor; might result in immediate dismissal without detailed evidence of result (Performance Appraisal n.d.). According to Bacal (2010), rating systems are subjective (but appear to be objective) and this does not help employees get better, it decrease employee morale to work.

 

Roberts (2003) from his research argued that critics of individual appraisal system assume negative scale of accuracy measurement, provoke dysfunctional employee difference and competition, attributes large responsibility for poor performance to employees while underestimating the significance of the work process and work grouping generally, frequently used as management "Theory X" control mechanism. Gomez-mejia et al(2006) argues that the individual appraisal system stems both positive and negative response when feedback is involved from the employee; as the positive outcome of this appraisal motivates the employee and the negative outcome reduce his future performance. The qualitative ratings employed the use of common words like "excellent", "first class", "very good", "good", "fair" etc. this does not provide adequate informative feedback of the appraisal to employee. Employees have bad emotions to work when they receive a bad rating or comment without adequate information as to the reasons for the evaluation result (Performance Appraisal n.d.).#p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#

 

Upward performance appraisal promotes a reversal appraisal for managers and subordinates, with the supervised giving a feedback to the supervisor (Team 3 2010). This system grants employee a say and promotes a fair appraisal. Redman and Wilkinson (2009) suggest that employees should fill questionnaire anonymously but this might promote employee being sarcastic in appraisal. Employees use these as payback time and give ineffective appraisal to get back to the manager, or rather give a befitting response in order to receive managers' favor (Tool pack 2000-2009).

 

360 degree, however, employs several perspectives in providing adequate feedback on employee performance in organization, which includes peer review, self ratings, upward assessments and sometimes customer appraisal (CIPD 2005a and Tool pack 2000/2009). Feedback is sought from various avenues. Team 3 (2010) based on its research described 360 degree as a drastic improvement from the gap created by the traditional performance appraisal system. Pfau and Kay (2002) argued the controversy as regards whether 360-degree feedback in practice develops employee performance, and suggested that it may reduce shareholder worth. Also, Jackson and Schuler (2003) highlighted major setback as to the little research surrounding the system, however, did not give adequate guide to developing the appropriate practice.

 

Dave mote (2010) argues that generally, most appraisal systems are subjective in nature, as there is no accurate procedure of measurement. Quality of worker evaluations may be influenced by various subjective measures by misrepresentation, as a result of emotions or bias. In order to overcome these errors many organizations would need to train appraisers to avoid these errors or form of bias: halo effect, central tendency error, cross cultural error, leniency and strictness, recency effect and personal prejudice.

 

In summary, the result of modern system approach promotes HR decisions such as reward, promotions, training and development, transfers and demotions (CIPD 2005a). Here, the promotion of employee and employer relationship in the organization is strengthened; while communication is also improved through its feedback process. Theoretically, the formal appraisal process merits are numerous and striking to any organization allowing for their use. However in practice, various shortcomings associated with the formal performance appraisal systems design and implementation are well-known and continue to raise issues with both practitioners and academics (Jackson and Schuler 2003). Nevertheless, the formal system approach might have emerged from the lapse or the gaps posed by the traditional approach. Bratton and Gold (1999) nevertheless, concluded that the tension between the judgmental (Traditional) and developmental (Modern system) process of appraisal systems has never been resolved and is likely to continue in its nearest future (Appraisal.Naukribub.Com 2007).#p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#

 

Landahl (2010) suggested that an effective performance appraisal system is a significant vehicle for improving performance and productivity of employees and organizations' operations. In support of these, Journal of Applied Psychology argues that a, "poorly designed or implemented performance appraisals may lead to employee frustration, resentment and withdrawal."

 

Performance appraisals evoke immediate and sometimes negative response from the managers and employees in the appraisal process of organizational life (Longenecker 1997). Yet, every manager recognizes that, like it or not, performance appraisals are here to stay. Sogra et al (2009) argues that politics as its stake in most organizations' appraisal process and only the deliberate effort of manager and those partaking in training employees on appraisal techniques to make the performance appraisal process effective. Hunt N. (2007) however, suggested that employers and organizations should eliminate political mentally in order to generate an effective performance appraisal.

 

In order to build up an effective performance appraisal system, two major criteria and goal need to be accomplished. Firstly, the application of performance appraisal to everyday work practice in organizations and secondly, the satisfaction and acceptability of the performance appraisal system by employees and employers (Duraisingham and Skinner 2005). The principle of social exchange theory can be adopted in achieving an efficient performance appraisal system, as it promotes organizational shore up and opportunities for employee improvement evidenced by developmental appraisal purpose (Blau 1964). It is logical and reasonable to suggest that an employee that views its organization as employee success minded would enjoy a positive attitudinal response from its employees. This would reciprocate organizational commitment from employees (Cialdini 2001).

 

The joint involvement of both the employee and employer in the performance appraisal system will effectively ensure a more conducive working environment and targeted agreement between both parties; through the use of feedback, training, frequent reviews for development (Crook and Crossman 2004). Many more systems that focus only on examining performance without any personal benefit would not attract employees (Hunt N. 2007). Chiang F. and Birtch T. (2010) in their research discovered that the trust in appraisal process in UK, Canada, USA, Sweden and Finland was high due to the frequent participation and utilization of communication development. A high level of employee participation will generate greater trust and confidence in employers and the appraisal process as a whole; the more often feedback the appraisal process generates affords the employee and the employers a greater opportunity to discuss historical and potential expected performance, exchange ideas and interact better.

 

An effective performance appraisal system should be imperative to put into consideration not only the employee but also the employers, who will act as the appraiser rather than the appraised. Employers and managers would also have anxieties and apprehension about the appraisal system's effectiveness, whether training would be adequate for employees, whether employees are aware of the opportunities for training and development available within the organization. In order to have an effective performance appraisal, both participants of the process should be sort during the designing process of the system to the implementation stage.

 

Recent research argues that training to make adequate assessments and oversee an effective performance appraisal system has been given to managers and other principal, while training for analyzing and acting on constructive performance evaluations are not given to the appraisee. It has also been argued that those without any appraisal role within the organization do not often receive training in the performance appraisal system (Crook and Crossman 2004). Bretz et al (1992) have advocated the need for training to be an ongoing process in order to attain effectiveness. An effective performance appraisal system should be as simple as possible without been over-bureaucratic. The operation of the performance appraisal system would however be ineffective without the fairness and consistency in operation by the participants. This will lead to enhanced satisfaction for both employees and employers (Crook and Crossman 2004 and Hunt N. 2007).

 

結(jié)論--Conclusion

There are enormous benefits to implementing regular and systematic performance appraisal system within an organization some of which are increase in employee contribution, knowledge and productivity. This can however, come in form of performance consultation, professional training, performance improvement and adequate feedback system which in turn increases employee contribution and ensures smooth productivity of organizations. In order to gain the most benefit and acceptability from performance appraisals it is recommended that a system is developed in consultation with workers and managers, and clear links are established between appraisals and valued rewards and outcomes (Duraisingham V. and Skinner N. 2005).