Some Inherent Difficulties in thePerformance Appraisal Process and Proposed Solutions

The performance management cycle begins with objective setting where the appraisee ought to be oriented about performance expectations for the given performance period. Throughout the period, performance is measured officially through the performance appraisal exercise, where the appraiser is given the chance to give performance feedback through an interview. The performance management system is meaningfully linked to rewards based on outcomes or results. Following all these, modifications are implemented to objectives and activities, including the drafting of an individual development plan for closing competency gaps (Clark, 1998).

Types of Performance Appraisal Systems

Traditionally, employee performance has been evaluated solely by supervisors. Recently, however, organizations have realized that supervisors see only certain aspects of an employee’s behavior. For instance, a manager might see only 30% of his staff’s behavior; the rest is observed by customers, peers, and support staff in other parts of the organization. Furthermore, the staff might behave differently around her supervisor than around other people. Consequently, to obtain an accurate view of the staff’s performance, these other sources should provide feedback. The buzzword for using multiple sources to appraise performance is 360-degree feedback (Gruner, 1997). Sources of relevant information include supervisors, peers, subordinates, customers, and self-appraisal. According to Conway and Huffcutt (1997), there is often very little agreement in the way that two supervisors evaluate an employee or that a supervisor and a peer might rate an employee. Interestingly, supervisors whose self-ratings agree with others’ ratings tend to be better performers than supervisors whose ratings are not consistent with