Talk:Performance appraisal

Performance appraisal

The most popularly listed methods of Performance Appraisal are defined as MBO(Manangement By Objectives), 360, BOS and BARS. But these are all premised on one key assumption: Appraisal occurs ONCE per year (or twice in some companies). What if the assumption is wrong? I believe the assumption is wrong. My view is appraisal of staff occurs EVERY DAY. So what occurs once (or twice) per year? I consider it is a summary of the past and an opportunity to plan for the next review period.

Therefore I have shown many people that ther is a NEW approach to 'performance appraisal' - a Dual Approach based on RISK and KISS. I.e. if there is no risk of a down side, 'keep it simple simon (KISS)' and based on communications. BUT if the employee situation is considered high RISK, then apply a different approach based on complicance.

My practical application identifies that if approached correctly, feedback to staff can be positive without becoming bureaucratic. But it takes a willingness to think differently; based on RISK and KISS rather than following a one-shoe-fits-all philosophy.

Mark Shaw 60.241.34.189 (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Ball State University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding merging with the article "Performance measurement"
I suggest that Performance Appraisal should be kept separate to the Performance Measurement article as Performance Appraisal is a recognised Human Resource tool and procedure. Many books have been written on the subject and it is part of the curriculum of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).

I feel that the article "Performance appraisal" could use an overhaul as it's lacking lots of information and references. If there's no objections I'll do this in a couple of weeks once I get my facts correct. durrson (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durrson (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What would be more appropriate would be a merge with Evaluation (workplace), which has popped up, has no links in, but does have a nice description of the evaluations/appraisals/reviews. --Marcinjeske (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

isalm shahidul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.188.187.25 (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Evaluation implies that work or people are being monitored only. There's a section on that page which briefly explains that a payrise is implemented after an evaluation.  One of the the points of appraisal however is to demonstrate that someone has met their objectives and work on more challenging ones.  Not withstanding, appraisal is only a small part of the larger Performance Management topic generally, which I'd like to clarify. - Any more thoughts? durrson (talk)


 * I am a little worried that this might be the case of similar concepts being described in different ways in differing parts of the world.
 * However, here goes...


 * Performance management - seems to to be a term liked by the US FedGov - else where on the government site they call it an appraisal program - a continuous loop of measurement and communication
 * Performance measurement seems to be describing these kind of methods and is based on essentially on a submitted paper.
 * Performance appraisal- also resembles a continuous process of measurement and communication like performance management (which claims it as a child)
 * Evaluation (workplace) -at least the way it is practiced in the US, is a periodic process... that is, an evaluation every six months, but involving discussing performance, problems, and goal, possible leading to adjustments in compensation or role.
 * So really, this might be a tool within the above... hmmm... I only dug shallowly into the sources, and Evaluation has none at the moment... so I could be off-base. Am I stating the distinctions roughly corrextly? --Marcinjeske (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
I removed the "critical" section again as a copyvio from the given source, which itself is a referenced quote from Peter Block's "Stewardshp". I don't doubt that a notable section highlighting the disadvantages of the topic can be crafted, but it will need to be originally written text supported by a smaller quote. I'll look at this when I get a chance, or if someone else wants to take a stab at it. Kuru  (talk)  14:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Performance Appraisal Article Project
I am going to fix up this article for a Ball State University Industrial Organizational Psychology course. I plan to begin verifying existing information in this article, to list and take notes on other possible topics to address in this article, and take notes of how I may elaborate on existing topics in this article.

According to previous discussion on this Talk Page, I should look into: writing more content in this article, finding more references for this article, determine the relationships among performance appraisal and other related areas (e.g., performance measurement, performance evaluation, and performance management), and create/write a new section for the disadvantages of performance appraisal. I am open to suggestions, corrections, thoughts, etc. Please, let me know what you think. Jlael303 (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * More sources would be good, and I really like the idea of exploring ties to related subjects.
 * It's possible to write a criticism section but it's often preferable to merge criticism in with the rest of the content rather than sidelining (or highlighting) it in a separate section.
 * Would you consider highlighting some interesting examples from specific industries or specific roles? Maybe even a historical example or something from a completely different country/culture. bobrayner (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Bobrayner! This feedback is very helpful. I especially like your last idea/suggestion about examples. Feel free to leave more feedback if you come up with anything new later on. Jlael303 (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review etc.
bobrayner (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Really nice work. A wide range of sources have been used to build some comprehensive, neutral, readable content.
 * The text itself is clear and unproblematic - don't have to worry about typos &c. Layout is OK but you have a lot of paragraphs starting with a hyphen - perhaps some could be turned into bullet points (with an asterisk * ) and others could get little subheadings?
 * There does seem to be a lot of emphasis on Muchinsky. Unfortunately I don't have a copy and I'm not really an SME - if Muchinsky is one of the standard texts for your course, I'm sure it's fine. (There can be problems if too much emphasis is placed on non-mainstream sources, ie. an anthropology article which mostly cited Erich von Däniken).
 * If any of these sources are available online, it might be a good idea to add a URL into the citation so that people reading the References list can just click on a blue link. Even if some readers just get to an abstract peeking out from behind a paywall, that's better than nothing.
 * How do performance appraisals compare against other performance-management tools? Are different tools used in different situations?
 * There are no obvious gaps in the coverage. Good attention to detail.
 * Go on, use your imagination and find one or two interesting examples/case studies. :-)

Performance Appraisal Article Project Finished!!!
I have finished my article project, and I thank you, Bobrayner, for all of your help and support. Thank you Dr. Michael Tagler (Mjtagler) for your guidance and inspiration. Thank you James (jastha08) for being my Wiki coding "yoda". And finally, thank you Nathan2055 for your original barnstar post on my talkpage and encouraging words :-) Jlael303 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

REQUEST TO ADD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
I would like to include under your Appraisal and Legal Implications heading, the following paragraph:

'''The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines apply to any selection procedure that is used for making employment decisions, not only for hiring, but also for promotion, demotion, transfer, layoff, discharge, or early retirement. Therefore, employment appraisal procedures must be validated like tests or any other selection device. Employers who base their personnel decisions on the results of a well-designed performance review program that includes formal appraisal interviews are much more likely to be successful in defending themselves against claims of discrimination.''' ^ Schultz & Schultz, Duane (2010). Psychology and work today. New York: Prentice Hall. p. 129. ISBN 0-205-68358-4.Nikicia (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

request to add additional information
I would like to add the following to your article:

Computers have been playing an increasing role in PA for some time (Sulsky & Keown, 1998). There are two main aspects to this. The first is in relation to the electronic monitoring of performance, which affords the ability to record a huge amount of data on multiple dimensions of work performance (Stanton, 2000). Not only does it facilitate a more continuous and detailed collection of performance data in some jobs, e.g. call centres, but it has the capacity to do so in a non-obvious, covert manner. The second aspect is in mediating the feedback process, by recording and aggregating performance ratings and written observations and making the information available on-line; many software packages are available for this. The use of IT in these ways undoubtedly helps in making the appraisal process more manageable, especially where multiple rating sources are involved, but it also raises many questions about appraisees' reactions and possible effects on PA outcomes. Mostly, the evidence so far is positive.

^ Fletcher, Clive. Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology74 (Nov 2001):p.482

http://search.proquest.com.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/psychology/docview/199343619/13DE818160D274F042C/2?accountid=15180Nikicia (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians! I am looking to make some small edits by adding:

In the behavioral observation scale (BOS) approach to performance appraisal, employees are also evaluated in the terms of critical incidents. In that respects, it is similar to BARS. However, the BOS appraisal rate subordinates on the frequency of the critical incidents as they are observed to occur over a given period. The ratings are assigned on a five-point scale. The behavioral incidents for the rating scale are developed in the same way as for BARS through identification by supervisors or other subject matter experts. Similarly, BOS techniques meet equal employment opportunity because they are related to actual behavior required for successful job performance.

1.^ Schultz, Diane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen (2006). Psychology and work today: an introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (9th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall p144. ISBN 0-13-193212-8. Angela Sandy (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add this to Judgement evaluation/Behavioral Checklist and Scales. Thanks! Angela Sandy (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request
I would like to make an informative addition to this page on improving Performance Appraisals. The addition i would like to make is in my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joselv83/sandbox Thank you Joselv83 (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Performance appraisal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VbAsplhrfTQJ:hrweb.mit.edu/system/files/Conducting%2Bthe%2BDevelopment%2BDiscussion%2B-%2BManager%2BTips_0.pdf+%22human+resources%E2%80%9D+%22development+discussion%22+site:edu&hl=en with https://web.archive.org/web/20120617092356/http://hrweb.mit.edu/system/files/Conducting%20the%20Development%20Discussion%20-%20Manager%20Tips_0.pdf on http://hrweb.mit.edu/system/files/Conducting%2Bthe%2BDevelopment%2BDiscussion%2B-%2BManager%2BTips_0.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Negative Image
I think it would be good for the article to touch on the widespread negative image of performance reviews. Many employees dread going to their performance reviews, because no one likes to have their faults discussed. It can be quite depressing. I think a major challenge of performance reviews is to overcome this negative image. In fact, in many smaller companies, or smaller offices of large companies, performance reviews are simply never done because of this negative image. Everyday feedback is all the employee gets. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Evaluation (workplace) into Performance appraisal
Not clear in the article what the difference is between these two concepts. ... disco spinster   talk  17:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)