In order to issue an accurate appraisal, supervisors are required to assess the work performances of their staff members. The employer’s responsibility is to find ways to motivate personnel to perform at stellar levels and help them achieve their highest potential. Sander and Keefe (2004) contend that an employee evaluation helps leaders justify the parameters for a salary increase and/or a promotion; or on the other hand, its sets the groundwork for the dismissal of an unacceptable employee whose performance levels are substandard. The experts suggest and recommend revisions in current appraisal systems as many are outdated and deemed insufficient for collecting accurate information. The terms supervisors used to evaluate employees, for example, may be too general, ambiguous and in some cases merely bias statements to insure the highest level of monetary promotion rather than to garner accurate appraisals of staff work performance levels. Sandler and Keefe (2004) postulate that in addition, leaders design an evaluation system that can assess the following components with respect to the work performances of their staff: (a) the level of accuracy and attention to details, (b) quality of their work, (c) their work habits, (d) how developed their teamwork and interpersonal skills are, (e) amount of time devoted to their occupation, and (e) their overall work attitude (Sandler & Keefe, 2004).
There are many effective methods employers could use to appraise their employees. For best results, Dessler’s research (2011) contends that employers design an appraisal system that combines a variety of methods. For example, incorporating a graphic rating system can serve to measure skills and aptitude levels, while integrating a ranking system is an effective method to quickly identify personnel with the highest and lowest performance levels. In addition, incorporating a system to include Critical Incidents creates a paper trail of specific work-related behavior that has been recorded which is then applied as part of the assessment process (Dessler, 2011). Employers that integrate a variety of appraisal methods will most likely yield the best results.
Because today’s business arena is extremely driven, successful employers find ways to stay competitive by rewarding their staff for outstanding performances. Some managers are concerned that their current appraisal systems are ineffective however, because they are based on monetary incentives by way of salary increases, rather than performance levels. Lyster and Arthur’s (2007) research suggests that employee performance appraisals need not be salary driven. Instead, employers should focus their efforts and provide employees other forms of incentives that are focused on inspiring exceptional performance achievement levels. They purport that reviews should integrate the organization’s goals, vision, ethics, and values. In this way, the appraisal process becomes a significant part of the organization’s climate (Lyster & Arthur, 2007). Managers can develop appraisal systems that combine rating, ranking, and critical incident methods as effective tools to assess the strengths and weaknesses in their personnel. This system would be designed to include a platform that provides workers the opportunity to engage in one-to-one communication and allows employers to convey the organization’s vision and objectives with the entire staff, as well as gather information to identify specific elements that inspire employee passion and motivation, while incorporating those results to develop more effective incentives and an efficient reward system.
Dessler, G. (2011). A framework for human resource management (Sixth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Lyster, S., & Arthur, A. (2007). 199 Pre-written employee performance appraisals. Ocala, FL, USA: Atlantic Publishing Group, Inc.
Sandler, C., & Keefe, J. (2004). Performance appraisal phrase book. Avon, MA, USA: F&W Publications Company.