Performance Management Research Paper by supercalifragilistic
Performance Management
Discussion of issues involved in performance appraisals of employees.
# 96614
| 1,221 words
| 8 sources
| APA
| 2007
| 
$29.95
Buy and instantly download this paper now
Description:
This paper defines and examines the many issues involved in employee performance appraisals. Several problems in performance appraisals are discussed, such as evaluator bias. Also considered is the relationship of an evaluation to pay raise, which some feel put employees and managers on opposite sides. Another problem that is explored is the lack of continuous communication between managers and employees between appraisals. The author offers several recommendations to make performance evaluations fair. The paper concludes by stating there are a number of things an employer can do to improve the performance appraisal process.
From the Paper:
"One of the largest problems in performance reviews is evaluator bias (Losyk, 2002). According to Losyk, positive and negative biases come into play to produce unfair ratings. For example, the author describes the halo effect where an employee has been recognized for excellent work in the past, but follows up with average or poor performance. Yet, the manager gives the employee a high ranking because the lingering impression of the good work. And, there's management bias to favor those who employees who agree with their decisions and never complain. There's also what Losyk calls a manager's blind spot, a situation where managers can't recognizes deficiencies and skill gaps because the managers also have them. Finally, people have a tendency to like people who are just like them, those that look, speak, dress, or act the same way. Negative biases are really the flip side of positive biases. Losyk (2002) describes the halo effect's opposite, the horn effect. This is when an employee has made a mistake during a time close to the review, and that's what the manager remembers even though the employee has had good performance throughout the rest of the review period. Losyk believes that managers have a tendency to hand down poor evaluations to employees who disagree with them or have personality traits the manager doesn't like. Or, perhaps employees are unfairly associated with a poor performing department or the friends they keep. Losyk also describes how managers prefer people to accomplish tasks the same way the managers would. This is a particular issue for employees who have been educated in different cultures."Sample of Sources Used:
- Alternative performance reviews. http://www.toolpack.com/performance.html
- Bascal, R. Seven stupid things employees do to screw up performance appraisal. http://work911.com/performance/particles/stupemp.htm
- Billikopf, G. Performance appraisal. http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7labor/06.htm
- Culbert, S.A. (2003, July). Two-sided accountability. Executive Excellence, Vol. 20 Issue 7, p 20.
- Dutton, G. (2001, April). Making reviews more efficient and fair. Workforce, Vol. 80 Issue 4, p76, 6p.
Cite this Research Paper:
APA Format
Performance Management (2007, July 12)
Retrieved May 19, 2013, from http://www.academon.com/research-paper/performance-management-96614/
MLA Format
"Performance Management" 12 July 2007.
Web. 19 May. 2013. <http://www.academon.com/research-paper/performance-management-96614/>