The recognition of the importance of manageability and control as well as trust in different organizations has grown dramatically in recent years. Manageability and control of employees have necessitated the need for performance appraisal and assessment in most organizations; this has also called for the need for researchers to find out whether appraisal and assessment techniques have effects on employees’ manageability and control in an organization (Mayer & Davis, 1999). This essay therefore will be based on the enhancement of appraisal and techniques on the manageability and control of employees.
Appraisal is a pivotal management tool and technique; it is part of an organization’s management systems for control and command (Daley, 1992). Performance appraisal is a way of eliciting information about the performance of one or more employees against predefined dimension or criteria (Beardwell & Claydon, 2010). The organizational management system or environment in which they exist is an important factor in the study of how appraisal and assessment techniques are used and how effective they are. From an organization’s view or perspective, many of the psychometric anomalies disappear or take on new interpretations or meanings, the process involved in appraisal may be put to innovative or new uses, yet it can still serve a valid organizational function (Daley, 1992). However, according to Pilbeam & Corbridge (2010), performance appraisal is a vital element in the performance management process, nonetheless, it is not the performance management process itself, and appraisal could involve so many processes. Performance management is an HRM process and has become progressively more popular since the 1980s; it has to do with getting the best performance from individuals or employees in an organisation, as well as getting the best performance from groups, teams and the organisation as whole. Effective and successful performance management therefore involves sharing an understanding of what needs to be achieved, then managing and developing people in a way that enables such shared objectives to be achieved (Armstrong cited in Dransfield, 2000). The performance of individuals and teams in an organisation can all be measured and compared against objectives. Drucker used the term ‘Management by Objectives’ (MbO) to identify a management approach that involves the establishment of clear objectives. A well developed performance management should therefore include: a statement of the organisation’s objectives, a statement outlining the organisations values, regular performance, reviews through the year, training and counselling, individual objectives which are linked to the organisations objectives, and performance related-pay (Dransfield, 2000).
Organizations these days try to measure almost everything and everyone. One of the most common management development tools used today is the 360-degree assessment instrument. In recent years, nevertheless, its popularity has led to uses beyond its original application for management development. 360-degree assessment is now replacing the conventional performance appraisal. Performance measurement is mostly popular because it informs both employees and organizations of their effectiveness in getting results and achieving goals. The quantitative ranking linked with 360-degree assessment therefore has had great appeal as a potential performance measurement tool. Furthermore, in a society where organizations fear litigations, the numerical assessments associated with 360-degree feedback are very relevant because they convey the impression of fairness and objectivity (Toegel & Conger, 2003)
Folan & Browne (2005), describe the evolution of performance measurement in four sections: recommendations, systems, frameworks and inter-organisational performance measurement. Measurement starts with a recommendation, which is a piece of advice linked to the measures or structures of performance measurement, the frameworks can be dichotomised into a procedural and structural typology that suggests structural framework development has outstripped procedural framework development. The basic requirements for a successful performance management system are two frameworks: one structural and one procedural as well as a number of other performance management tools (Folan & Browne, 2005). Performance management frameworks have arguably made the largest impact upon the performance management literature, with an excess of evermore complex framework models being developed in many ?elds since the late eighties. The term ‘framework’ refers to the active employment of particular sets of recommendations, for instance, a set of measurement recommendations may suggest the development of a structural framework they may give rise to a procedural framework (Wisner and Fawcett, 1991). A performance measurement framework helps in the process of performance measurement system building, by specifying performance measurement dimensions, clarifying performance measurement boundaries or views and may also provide initial intuitions into relationships among the performance measurement dimension. Essentially, a framework provides us with more information about performance management than a recommendation, but less about the actual performance management process than a system.
The contingency theory of management suggests that there is no universally applicable system of management control but that the choice of appropriate control techniques will always depend upon the circumstances surrounding a particular organization and an essential contingent variable is the objectives and strategy that an organization decides to pursue (Otley, 1999). Not only are these objectives likely to in?uence the choice of performance measures to be used that is the desired outcomes , but they must also act as the criteria against which the contingent choices that have been made can be evaluated that is, the goodness of ?t of the system . Any organisational controlled system requires objectives and goals against which its performance can be assessed and no speci?c contingent formulation is necessary to anticipate that the reality of different goals is likely to involve the selection of different performance measures and controls (Otley & Berry, 1980).
To appraise performance successfully, managers need to understand the techniques and goals of performance appraisal and assessment. Bennett (1987) defines performance appraisal as the “assessment and analysis of employees’ past failures and successes, as well as the estimation of their suitability for promotion or training”. Performance appraisal replaces ordinary observation and comment with formal, systematic procedures. Employees must know that they are being assessed and told of the assessment technique and criteria used as this will enable employees to receive feedback on their performance, identify training needs and make further plans for development (Livy, 1988). Nevertheless some of the most important reasons for conducting performance appraisal and assessment are to: set and review performance objectives; identify training and development needs; give employees feedback on their performance; improve current performance of employees; counsel employees on career opportunities; identify future potential for promotion and help managers develop a greater understanding of subordinates’ problems, improve communication, and clarify and set realistic targets. However, the success of the scheme depends on good training of the line manager conducting the appraisals, this is because they have a direct responsibility for employee performance, and relate between employees and an organization’s central department. The line managers feedback information to both parties, that is the management and the employees, he lets the subordinate know how he or she is getting on and also supplies the central organization with qualitative manpower information to be used for career and succession planning (Livy, 1988).
Appraisal is generally identified as a managerial activity: the provision of data designed to guarantee that resources are used efficiently in accomplishing organizational objectives. Coupled with organizational reform and improvement, appraisal is recommended to enhance employee motivation and managerial and organizational performance (Randell, 1989). In providing information on individual’s job performance, appraisal and assessment contribute to decision-making and resource allocation. Some accounts have questioned this aspect of appraisal for conveniently ignoring the political realities of the firm (Barlow, 1989), and suggesting that appraisal functions as a method for the control of employees. Performance appraisals may differ, reflecting, as Pym (1973) emphasises, the culture of the organization in which they operate, their functions mirrored in the particular details of a scheme, links with promotion or discipline; the choice of appraiser; appeal mechanisms; confidentiality of documents, and so on. Both interpretations, nevertheless, reflect an approach to the study of management highlighted earlier- activities are defined in terms of their origin and imputed from an assumed intention or function; appraisal is a managerial activity to be judged in terms of its contribution to organizational effectiveness or managerial control. Managerial or organisational control has been expressed as the coordination of the activities of the various subunits of an organisation as a whole. The control function used to be seen in terms of conformity to plan or as a means of ensuring subunits efficiency and a view of which emphasized the separateness of subunit activity Baumler (1971). Baumler (1971) also defined management control as the process in which managers assure that resources are obtained and used efficiently and effectively in the accomplishment of the organisational objectives and this can be achieved through the use of a key component of the performance management system which is appraisal.
The approach adopted here is to decentre “management’ as an organizing focus, dissociating power from structure or function. Rather, through an analysis of appraisal documentation as ‘texts’, Foucault’s ascending analysis of power was used to illustrate how management as a directional activity becomes articulated through minute organizational procedures and limiting the approach to written texts may draw the criticism that management in operation is neglected. The work of Foucault provides a substituted conceptualization of power. It also addressed the relational and the constitutive dimensions identified earlier as being important in an understanding of management (Foucault, 1981, p.92).
According to Miller and Rose (1990), it is out of linguistic fundamentals that rationalities of government are elaborated and seek to identify appropriate bases for the organization and mobilisation of social life. Nevertheless, Appraisals vary in the extent to which they articulate a role for the appraiser, and the extent to which a clearly managerial role becomes written into existence. The basis of appraisal is that the appraiser is ‘present’, and the embodied persona is vital to ‘validate’ the information which emerges during the appraisal process. The role which is articulated for this person differs greatly and is to some extent dependent on the process by which individuals are obliged to providing information about themselves and their jobs (Miller and Rose, 1990). For instance, variation can be seen in terms of the structuring of the appraisal interaction: thus, the appraiser submits points for discussion which may arise from the appraisee’s self appraisal; the appraiser’s role and function is to make the appraisee aware of the structure of the review meeting and the appraiser should begin by giving a member of staff his or her observations on the appraisee’s performance. In each of these, the role of appraiser becomes structured in terms of initiating and controlling discussion particularly through setting the agenda.
According to Babara, (1993), a major area of effect at issue of appraisal and assessment techniques on employees is the control over the labour process and the degree of individual control over work. Appraisal has some important implications for this, varying in the extent to which control over work is seen as something to be discussed in consultation with colleagues or directed by the emergent hierarchy, for example, a collegially based system states ‘one objective is to help the employee set personal goals at a realistic and acceptable level and discuss the means by which they can be realised’, while for others, ‘manageability’ emerges by becoming inextricably linked to control over the labour process, appraisal provides the opportunity and a avenue for individuals to discuss what performance is expected of him or her and receive feedback. (Babara, 1993). An appraisal, structured within a formally hierarchical relationship, assumes the specific and directly experienced elements of managerial control found in the judgement of work and deriving from this the legitimacy to manipulate its subsequent direction. Targets become externally recognized as the head of department is expected to use his or her expectations of what is required of an employee or a member of staff as criteria for measurement and in the interview should invite members of staff comments on criteria chosen. Sometimes there are setbacks on the ability of appraisers to impose targets by ensuring precise reference on the appraisal form to problems or difficulties in achieving them (Growler and Legge 1983). In some other circumstances, control over the labour or work process, although directly or explicitly articulated as a ‘managerial’ activity may be constrained by the format in which work is discussed, for instance, it is important that target setting be relevant to goals which are valued, and focus on the realistic and the attainable, the specific and the measurable, and they should also be actions which will be possible to review in a years to come (Babara T, 1993).
One of the basic problems of the appraisal process is how to have an open discussion of performance that meets the employee’s need for feedback as well as the organization’s need to develop employees, yet prevents damage to the employee’s self-esteem and his security about organizational rewards. The contingency model of performance appraisal system as proposed by Cummings and Scwab (1987) cited in Cederblom (1982) notes that the appropriate function of the appraisal and the type and frequency of its feedback are contingent on the nature of the employee’s job and characteristics. This model maintains that a suitable appraisal and assessment technique depend on the degree of the structure it provides. According to Cederblom (1982), the effectiveness of appraisal system on the employee’s manageability depends on a large number of factors including assessment techniques and content characteristics of appraiser and appraisee and the purpose of the appraisal and appraisee’s job. Nevertheless, Bowman (1994) stresses in contrast that total quality management improves the control process and claims that performance appraisal’s focus on controlling, assessing, managing and individual behaviour is misguided. Garbor (1990) cited in Bowman (1994), stated four reasons why it is so difficult for managers to abandon performance appraisal: perfectionism, control, scarcity and frozen feeling, it is supported that that appraisal is necessary to keep employees under control. Managers control the people they supervise and employees role is also to be controlled and managed not empowered.
ConclusionIt cannot be disputed that, apparently appraisal and assessment techniques improve employee’s control and manageability, nevertheless the use of performance appraisal has also raise so much problems, which can be conquered by redesigning the appraisal system to minimize the negative dynamics outlined above (The manager usually has only marginal control over these matters (Michael, B. (1981). More attention can also be paid to the ongoing relationship between managers and subordinates and the interview process itself, that is, the quality of communication between supervisor and subordinate can be improved. According to Bowman (1994), Managers should be concerned with fairness and using the appraisal systems which can help them manage more successfully. Nevertheless, any organisation that expects to thrive must do more than simply encourage high level of performance; instead it must also measure and reward performance (Gregory, et al. 1990). Organisations that aspire to be high performance organisations should be encouraged not only to identify the management competencies that are the most critical to successful performance but also to ensure that these same competencies are incorporated in the performance appraisal process (Cederblom, 1982).
References
Barbara T. (1993). Performance Appraisal and the Emergent of Management: Journal of Management Studies, 20(2), p 221-238
Barlow, G, (1989). ‘Deficiencies and the perpetuation of power: latent functions in managerial appraisal’, journal of Management Studies, 26, 449-517.
Baumler, J. V. (1971). Defined Criteria of Performance in Organizational Control: Administrative Science quarterly, 16(3), p 340.
Beardwell, J & Claydon, T. (2010). Human Resource Management: A Contemporary Approach, 6th (Ed), Pearson Education Limited, p 463.
Bennett, Roger(1987). Management. London: Pitman, p 50.
Bowman, J. (1994). Atlast, an Alternative to Performance Appraisal: TQM, Public Administrative Review, 54 (2) p 129-136.
Cederblom, D. (1982). The Performance Appraisal Interview, A Review, Implications and suggestions: Academy of Management Review 7(2)
Daley, D. M. (1992). Performance Appraisal in the Public Sector: Techniques and Application: Greenwood Publication Inc, p 12-93
Dransfield, R. (2000). Human Resource Management: Performance Management System. Heinemann Educational publisher, p 69-84
Folan, P & Browne, J. (2005). A Review of Performance Measurement: Towards Performance Management. Computers in Industry, p 663-680
Foucalt, M. (1981). The History of Sexuality, Volume One, an Introduction. London: Penguin
Gowler, D, and Legge, K, (1983), ‘The Meaning of Management and the Management of Meaning: a view from social anthropology’. In Earl, M. (Ed.), Perspectives on Management: a Multidisdplinary Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Gregory, et al. (1990). A Contingency Approach to Appraisal Satisfaction: An initial Investigation of the Joint Effect of Organisational Variables and Appraisal Characteristics, Journal of management, 16(3), p 619-630.
Livy, Bryan (1988). Corporate Personnel Management. London: Pitman, p 176.
Mayer, R.C. & Davis H. D. (1999). The Effect of the Performance appraisal System on Trust for Management : A field Quasi-Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), p 123-136.
Michael, B. (1981). Performance Appraisal: Dilemma and Possibilities. Organisation Dynamics, 9(3), p 24-36
Miller, P. and Rose, N. (1990). ‘Governing economic life’: Economy and Society, 19, pp 1-31
Otley, D. T. & Berry, A. J. (1980). Control, Organisation and Accounting: Accounting Organizations and Society, p 231-244.
Otley, D. (1999). Performance Management: A framework for Management Control Systems. Management Accounting Research, Academic Press, p 363-382.
Pilbeam, S & Corbridge, M. (2010). People Resourcing and Talent Planning: HRM in Practice, 4th (Ed), Pearson Education Limited, p 316
Pym, (1973). ‘The politics and ritual of appraisals’. Occupational Psychology, 47, p 221-24.
Randell, G. (1989). ‘Employee appraisal’: Personnel Management in Britain. Oxford: Blackwell, In Sisson, K (Ed) p 221.
Toegel, G. & Conger J. (2003). 360- Degree Assessment: Time for Reinvention: Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(3).
Wisner, J & Fawcett, S., (1991). Linking ?rm strategy to operating decisions through performance measurement: Production and Inventory Management Journal, 32, (3) p 5–11.
