Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Mostafa Jafari
Industrial Engineering Department, Iran University of Science & Technology
Narmak, Tehran, Iran
E-mail: mostafajafari2006@yahoo.com
Tel: +98-912-1382658
Atieh Bourouni
Industrial Engineering Department, Iran University of Science & Technology
Narmak, Tehran, Iran
E-mail: bourouni@ind.iust.ac.ir
Tel: +98-912-5007402
Abstract
Performance appraisal is one of the most important processes in human resource
management, because it has a great effect on both the financial and program components of
any organization. There is a verity of methods for the appraisal of employees' performance.
Obviously, no method can claim that it has an integrated approach in performance
appraisal. Therefore, human resource managers should select an appraisal method which is
most efficient in their organizations. In this paper, we propose a framework for the
selection of appraisal methods and compare some performance appraisal methods in order
to facilitate the selection process for organizations. The value of this framework is that,
with use of it, organisations can evaluate their performance appraisal method with respect
to the key features of it before implementing any method as well as expending extra costs.
This framework is theoretical in nature, and is build based on a review of related literature.
1. Introduction
One of the basic and major needs in any organization is to evaluate its employee’s performance
contiguously and continually to find out whether they improve or not and know their situation in
organization. There are many methods for performance appraisal which are suitable for different
situations and organization’s characteristics. the major focus of enquiry for several authors (e.g.
Freeman, 2002; Seddon, 2001; Wilson and Western, 2000; Randell, 1994; Segall, 1989; Long, 1986)
has been examining why, in such a volatile environment, performance appraisal systems tend not to
92
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 3 (2009)
incorporate goals and the direction or strategic needs of the business, or the personal aspirations of the
employees and their future development. The HR strategies adopted by an organization (Harris, 1994)
may have an effect on the type of appraisal system adopted by an organization. The purpose of this
paper is to present a framework for performance appraisal comparison and show how organization can
use it. The purpose of this comparison can be summarized in two objects (Avison, 2006):
1. Academic purpose: for better understanding of nature of techniques in order to doing
classifications and improving coming knowledge mapping
2. Practical purpose: to select a technique or part of one or more techniques for specific
application or the whole of organization.
There are many successful (Pettijohn et al., 2001b; Roberts & Reed, 1996; Pettijohn et al.,
2001; Roberts, 2003; Shah & Murphy, 1995; Martey, 2002; Austin, 2008; Simmons, 2005; Ford, 2004;
Khoury, 2004; Grifell-Tatjé, 2008) and unsuccessful (Blackmore, 2005; Shih, 2005; McAdam, 2005)
cases because of suitable or unsuitable performance appraisal methods. In additional, Verbeeten (2008)
argued that the definition of clear and measurable goals is positively associated with quantity and
quality performance. The results suggest that the behavioral effects of performance management
practices are as important as the economic effects in organizations.
In this paper, in order to select an appropriate appraisal method, the Simple Additive Weighting
(SAW) is used. This method has been described in literature (Ching-Lai, 1981; Kwangsun, 1981; Fiala
et al., 1997; Tyc et al., 2004; Azar, 2000; Smith, 2006; Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Zavadskas and
Kaklauskas, 1996; Balcomb and Curtner, 2000; Triantaphyllou, 2000).
2. Review of Literature
2.1. Performance Appraisal
Employees want to know how well they perform on their jobs. A simple statement, almost axiomatic in
any organization, yet it has probably caused more controversy, applied research and practical advice
than any other assertion in the history of management writing and thinking (Kavanagh, 1997).
Performance appraisal has many definitions. “Performance appraisal” is a process within the
overall performance management process (Dowling et al., 1999), and is defined as “the evaluation of
an individual’s work performance in order to arrive at objective personnel decisions” (Robbins et al.,
2000).
93
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 3 (2009)
94
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 3 (2009)
Paired comparison: In this method, employees are compared with all others in pairs. The
N ⋅ (N − 1)
number of comparison is followed as in which N shows the number of employees. After
2
doing all comparisons, the best person is determined for each characteristic (Mondy, 2008).
2.2.3. Objectives
The third approach to appraisal makes use of objectives. Employees are evaluated on how well they
accomplished a specific set of objectives that have been determined to be critical in the successful
completion of their job. This approach is frequently referred to as Management by Objectives (MBO).
Management by objectives is a process that converts organizational objectives in to individual
objectives. It consists of four steps (Ingham, 1995): goal setting, action planning, self-control and
periodic reviews.
95
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 3 (2009)
The essay
incident
critical
The
checklist
The
rating
graphic
The
choice
Forced
BARS
Ranking
MBO
Feedback
360 Degree
Methods
Criteria
96
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 3 (2009)
To define normalized weight of each criterion, multiple linear regression was introduced to
define the straight rank of each criterion, then the resulted ranks were involved in the following
formula:
n − rj + 1
wj = n
∑ (n − rk + 1)
k =1
th
Where w j is the normalized weight for the j criterion, n is the number of criteria under
consideration and r j is the rank position of the criterion.
In table 2, we can see criteria, their rank, weight and their w j
As shown above, in this example MBO method is in the top of the list, therefore MBO is the
best method to apply in putative organization as a performance appraisal method. After that, 360
degree feedback, BARS and checklist are the most suitable methods for appraisal. Forced choice
method and Ranking, include group order ranking, individual ranking and paired comparison, are
indifferent. It means that if the human resource manager uses each of them for their employees’
performance appraisal, his (or her) consent will be the same. The critical incident, the graphic rating
scale and the essay are the worst method to use. They are not even in the mean.
5. Conclusion
A part of human resource management is performance appraisal to improve corporate performance, all
the while harming the targeted individuals and even undermining the commitment and energy of the
survivors. Developing clear, realistic performance standards can also reduce communication problems
in performance appraisal feedback among managers, supervisors, and employees.
Proposed framework is based on six factors which are training needs evaluation, coincidence
with institutes, excite staff to be better, ability to compare, cost of method, and free of error.
97
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 3 (2009)
Along with this selection framework, a comparison of methods is represented with attention to
the key features of each performance appraisal method. These features play an important role in
successful appraisal of employees. The represented framework helps human resource managers to
select their suitable method with attention to methods’ features and apply it in organization and be sure
of doing appraisal successfully.
References
[1] Armstrong, M. 1998. Performance management: The new realities. London: Institute of
personnel and development.
[2] Austin, Manila S. & Harkins, Debra A. 2008. Assessing change: can organizational learning
“work” for schools? Journal of The Learning Organization, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 105-125.
[3] Avison, D. and Fitzgerald, G. 2006. Information Systems Development Methodologies,
Techniques & Tools. 4th Edition, McGraw Hill.
[4] Azar, Fred S. 2000. Multiattribute decision-making: Use of three scoring methods to compare
the performance of imaging techniques for breast cancer detection. Department of
BioEngineering, Technical report MS-BE-00-01.
[5] Balcomb, J. D. and Curtner, A. 2000. MCDM-23: A multi-criteria decision making tool for
buildings. Proceedings of International Conference on Sustainable Building, Maastricht, The
Netherlands, pp. 219–221.
[6] Blackmore, Jacqueline A. 2005. A critical evaluation of peer review via teaching observation
within higher education. International Journal of Educational Management. Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.
218-232.
[7] Boswell, W. R. and Boudreau, J. W. 2000. Employee satisfaction with performance appraisals
and appraisers: The role of perceived appraisal use. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
Vol. 11 No.3, pp. 283.
[8] Boswell,W. R. and Boudreau, J.W. 2002. Separating the developmental and evaluative
performance appraisal uses. Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol. 16 No.3, pp. 391-412.
[9] Ching-Lai, H. and Kwangsun, Y. 1981. Multiple attribute decision making. New York:
Springer Verlang, Berlin-Heidelberg.
[10] Decenzo, D. A. and Robbins, Stephen P. 2002. Human resource management. John Wiley and
sons, 7th edition.
[11] Dessler, Gary. 2000. Human Resource Management, Prentice Hall, 8th edition.
[12] Dowling, P.J. and Welch, D.E. and Schuler, R.S. 1999. International Human Resource
management. South-Western, Cincinnati, OH.
[13] Fiala P. and Jablonský J. and Maňas M. 1997. Vícekriteriální rozhodování. VŠE, Praha.
[14] Ford, D. K. 2004. Development of a performance appraisal training program for the
Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 28, No. 7,
pp. 550-563.
[15] Freeman, J. 2002. How to improve the effectiveness of performance management and appraisal
by overcoming the root cause of the problem. The HRM Guide Network, available from:
www.hrmguide.com/performance.
[16] Greguras, G. J. and Robie, C. and Schleicher, D. J. and Goff, M. 2003. A field study of the
effects of rating purpose on the quality of multisource ratings. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56
No.1, pp. 1–21.
[17] Grifell-Tatjé, E. and Marques-Gou, P. 2008. Internal performance evaluation: the case of bank
branches. International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 302-324.
[18] Harris, M. M. 1994. Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: A theoretical
framework, Journal of Management, 20(4): 737.
98
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 3 (2009)
[19] Harris, M. M. and Smith, D. E., and Champagne, D. 1995. A field study of performance
appraisal purpose: Research versus administrative-based ratings, Personnel Psychology, Vol.
48 No.1, pp. 151.
[20] Hoffman. 1995. Ten reasons why you should be using 360-degree feedback. HR Magazine,
Vol. 40 No.4, pp.82-6.
[21] Hwang, Ch. L. and Yoon, K. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin Heidelberg, New York, pp. 260.
[22] Ingham, Terry. 1995. Management by objectives: a lesson in commitment and co-operation.
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 35-38.
[23] Jawahar, I. M. and Williams, C. R. 1997. Where all the children are above average: The
performance appraisal purpose effect, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50 No.4, pp. 905.
[24] Jones, J.E and Bearley, W.L. 1996. 360° Feedback: Strategies, Tactics and Techniques for
Developing Leaders. HRD Press, Armhurst, MA.
[25] Kavanagh, M. 1997. I simply want to know how well I am doing! Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 22 No.2, pp.147-148.
[26] Khoury, Grace C. and Analoui, Farhad. 2004. Innovative management model for performance
appraisal: the case of the Palestinian public universities, Journal of Management Research
News, Vol. 27, No. 1/2.
[27] Long, P. 1986. Performance Appraisal Revised. London: Institute of Personnel Management.
[28] Martey, A.K. 2002. Appraising the performance of library staff in a Ghanaian academic library.
Journal of Library Management, Vol. 23, No. 8/9, pp. 403- 416.
[29] McAdam, Rodney, Hazlett, Shirley-Ann and Casey, Ch. 2005. Performance management in the
UK public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 256-
273.
[30] Mondy, W., and Noe, R. 2008. Human Resource Management. Prentice-Hall, 10th edition.
[31] Pettijohn, C. E., Pettijohn, L. S., and d’Amico, M. 2001. Characteristics of performance
appraisals and their impact on sales force satisfaction. Journal of Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 12(2): 127–146.
[32] Pettijohn, C., Pettijohn, L. S., Taylor, A. J., and Keillor, B. D. 2001. Are performance
appraisals a bureaucratic exercise or can they be used to enhance sales-force satisfaction and
commitment? Journal of Psychology & Marketing, 18(4): 337–364.
[33] Randell, G. 1994. Employee appraisal, in Sisson, K. (Ed.), Personnel Management: A
Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice in Britain, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
[34] Robbins, S., Bergman, R., Stagg, I. and Coulter, M. 2000. Management, 2nd ed., Australia,
Sydney: Prentice-Hall.
[35] Roberts, G. E. 2003. Employee performance appraisal system participation: A technique that
works. Journal of Public Personnel Management, 32(1): 89.
[36] Roberts, G. E. and Reed, T. (1996). Performance appraisal participation, goal setting and
feedback, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 16(4): 29.
[37] Seddon, J. 2001. Performance a miracle: praise the workers, The Observer, 11 March.
[38] Segella, L.J. 1989. Kiss appraisal woes goodbye. Journal of Supervisory Management, Vol. 34,
December, p. 24.
[39] Shah, J. B., and Murphy, J. 1995. Performance appraisals for improved productivity. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 11(2): 26
[40] Shih, Hsi-An, Chiang, Yun-Hwa and Kim, 2005. Expatriate performance management from
MNEs of different national origins. International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.
157-176.
[41] Shrestha, Shruti. 2007. Improving employee performance appraisal method through web-based
appraisal support system: system development from the study on Thai companies. IEICE
TRANS. INF. & SYST., Vol.E90–D, No.10, pp. 1621-1629.
99
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number 3 (2009)
[42] Simmons, John and Lovegrove, Ian. 2005. Bridging the conceptual divide: lessons from
stakeholder analysis. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 495-
513.
[43] Smith, P. N. 2006. Flexible aggregation in multiple attribute decision making: application to the
kuranda range road upgrade, Cybernetics and systems: an international journal, Vol. 37, No. 1,
pp. 1–22.
[44] Stone, R. 2002. Human Resource Management. 4th ed., Wiley, Brisbane.
[45] Taylor, E. K., and Wherry, R. J. 1951. A study of leniency in two rating systems, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 39–47.
[46] Tornow, W. 1993. Perceptions or reality: is multi-perspective measurement a means to an end?
Human Resource Management, Vol. 32 No.2 and 3, pp. 221-229.
[47] Triantaphyllou, E. 2000. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrechet, pp. 290.
[48] Tyc O. and Holoubek J. 2004. Poznámky k problematice vícekriteriálního hodnocení
konečného počtu variant. Proceedings of conference Kvantitativné metódy v ekonómii, SPU,
Nitra.
[49] Verbeeten, Frank H.M. 2008. Performance management practices in public sector
organizations. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 427-454.
[50] Wiese, Danielle S. and Buckley, M. Ronald. 1998. The evolution of the performance appraisal
process. Journal of Management History, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 233-249.
[51] Wilson, J.P. and Western, S. 2000. Performance appraisal: an obstacle to training and
development? Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 384-91.
[52] Winston and Creamer, 1997. Performance Appraisal. Available from:
http://filebox.vt.edu/users/dgc2/staffinghandbook/performanceappraisalsingleunit.
[53] Yukl, G and Lepsinger, R. 1995. How to get the most out of 360° feedback. Training, Vol. 32
No.12, pp.45-50.
[54] Zavadskas, E. K. and Kaklauskas, A. 1996. Systemotechnical evaluation of buildings (Pastatų
sistemotechninis įvertinimas). Vilnius: Technika, pp. 280 (in Lithuanian).
100