FOR A PLUS WRITER

6

CAS

ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE OF STAFF APPRAISALS

It is a well-known fact that staff appraisals are conducted in many companies and well-needed tool. Staff appraisal refers to the discussion and rating of an employee’s performance in the duties assigned. This evaluation is purely based on productivity, not personality; so, so therefore it is not meant to victimize the employee. During this process the areas need improvement are addressed and this form a basis for career development. Employees should be allowed to participate in determining indicators of performance in a performance appraisal. The evaluation should be carried out in a manner that promotes dialogue between employee and supervisor. For long, companies had carried out performance reviews at the end of their financial years. However, the concept of regular performance review and feedback is emerging (Kamphorst & Swank, 2012). This paper will explore the pros and cons of each approach to employee appraisal.

Annual performance review

The annual performance review is carried out after a whole year where the employee sits with the supervisor to evaluate their productivity. Normally, employees set goals at the beginning of the year that mirrored the performance review (Kamphorst & Swank 2012). This give the employees and supervisors opportunity to set goals for the coming financial period, a proactive process. It provides ample time and opportunity to assess the improvement in employees after a significant of time and rewarding the employee is easier. Thus, preventing premature rewards of an employee after a short period of time, which can be very costly and detrimental.

Although, annual performance reviews is a great tool, there some major drawbacks. The process can create fear in employees; they may feel that it is an unfair process and that the annual performance will rates them poorly. Such belief could trigger employees to leave in fear of being label as failures. Such may stem from misunderstandings between employers and employees on what measures are used as performance indicators (Kamphorst & Swank 2012). Dialogue between the two parties is/will be needed.

Moreover, Annual reviews tend to let a lot of time pass between issues and discussions. This is a well-known case when companies fail to communicate effectively and in a timely manner with employees about their performance in the mid year. This may lead to repetition of mistakes that could have been addressed and corrected as the year progressed (Roberts, 2003). An employee may react negatively to the many mistakes addressed at the end of the year; yet management failed to correct the issue (s). Annual reviews are more susceptible to biased views because they tend to be conducted by one supervisor. The supervisor may favor some individuals especially when employees have to be ranked. However, Periodic review is less prone biases since different person complete it and performance is judge on many tasks (Kamphorst & Swank, 2012).

Regular performance reviews

This review was introduced because employees are always looking for regular feedback to help them. Regular reviews are friendlier than annual appraisal and employees are less nervous about them. The aim of regular review is not to judge productivity; instead, it is aimed at helping employees improve and tracking improvements. Regular performance review involves many supervisors and is therefore much fair because one supervisor may be biased towards or against an employee. Further, one supervisor may not be an expert in all the areas that an employee engages themselves in while at work. Another great advantage of regular employee feedback is that it creates an understanding of performance indicators between the parties. Employees also feel that the company is genuinely concerned about their career progression paths (Lunenberg, 2011).

Regular reviews give employees a chance to share their thoughts on their working conditions. This is better than waiting for 12 months before handling their work related problems. It prevents performance from dwindling because of a lack of communication (Lunenberg, 2011). When a company needs to let an employee go, regular reviews can be used as proof that the employee has not been performing optimally over a long period. For employees performing above their targets, regular reviews can be used to give them new challenges before they become bored and withdrawn. Regular employee review may be difficult to implement due to time constraints. However, companies should make it a part of their culture to have open communication channels between management and employees. The supervisors should also receive training on how to give constructive feedback to their employees.

Conclusion

Regular employee reviews are preferable to annual reviews because the latter tend to be less friendly to employees. Regular reviews do not leave issues for a later time before it can discuss. It ensures mistakes are highlighted before too much damage is done because of their repetition. Regular reviews are also fairer to employees because many supervisors evaluate several dimensions of performance. It is important that employees feel the process is fair to them; else, they may be scared and unwilling to participate. It also makes employees feel that the organization cares about their continuous improvement and they repay the employer with increased productivity and loyalty. Unfriendly evaluations can be a major cause of high employee turnover. However, regular constructive feedback is more beneficial to the employer and employee as well. It creates a platform not only for review but also the exchange of ideas.

References

Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Performance Appraisal: Methods and Rating Errors. International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity, 14(1), 19. Roberts, G. E. (2003). Employee performance appraisal system participation: A technique that works. Public Personnel Management, 32(1), 89-98.

Kamphorst, J. J., & Swank, O. H. (2012). The Role of Performance Appraisals in

Motivating Employees (No. TI 2012-034/1, pp. 1-27). Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper Series.