Editing Performance appraisal (section)

==Methods of collecting data==

There are three main methods used to collect performance appraisal (PA) data: objective production, personnel, and judgmental evaluation. Judgmental evaluations are the most commonly used with a large variety of evaluation methods.{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}}

===Objective production===

The objective production method consists of direct, but limited, measures such as sales figures, production numbers, the electronic performance monitoring of data entry workers, etc.{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} The measures used to appraise performance would depend on the job and its duties. Although these measures deal with unambiguous criteria, they are usually incomplete because of criterion contamination and criterion deficiency. Criterion contamination refers to the part of the actual criteria that is unrelated to the conceptual criteria.{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} In other words, the variability in performance can be due to factors outside of the employee's control.  Criterion deficiency refers to the part of the conceptual criteria that is not measured by the actual criteria.{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} In other words, the quantity of production does not necessarily indicate the quality of the products. Both types of criterion inadequacies result in reduced [[Validity (logic)|validity]] of the measure.{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} Regardless of the fact that objective production data is not a complete reflection upon job performance, such data is relevant to job performance.

====Happy-productive worker hypothesis====

The happy-productive worker hypothesis states that the happiest workers are the most productive performers, and the most productive performers are the happiest workers.<ref name="Staw">{{cite journal |last1=Staw |first1=Barry M. |title=Organizational Psychology and the Pursuit of the Happy/Productive Worker |journal=California Management Review |date=July 1986 |volume=28 |issue=4 |pages=40–53 |doi=10.2307/41165214 |jstor=41165214 }}</ref> Yet, after decades of research, the relationship between [[job satisfaction]] and job performance produces only a weak positive correlation.  Published in 2001 by ''Psychological Bulletin'', a meta-analysis of 312 research studies produced an uncorrected correlation of 0.18.<ref name="Judge">{{cite journal |last1=Judge |first1=Timothy A. |last2=Thoresen |first2=Carl J. |last3=Bono |first3=Joyce E. |last4=Patton |first4=Gregory K. |title=The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. |journal=Psychological Bulletin |date=2001 |volume=127 |issue=3 |pages=376–407 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376 |pmid=11393302 }}</ref> This correlation is much weaker than what the happy-productive worker hypothesis would predict.

===Personnel===

The personnel method is the recording of withdrawal behaviors (i.e. absenteeism, accidents). Most organizations consider unexcused absences to be indicators of poor job performance, even with all other factors being equal;<ref name="Staw"/> however, this is subject to criterion deficiency. The quantity of an employee's absences does not reflect how dedicated that employee may be to the job and its duties. Especially for [[blue-collar jobs]], accidents can often be a useful indicator of poor job performance,{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} but this is also subject to criterion contamination because situational factors also contribute to accidents. Once again, both types of criterion inadequacies result in reduced validity of the measure.{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} Although excessive absenteeism or accidents often indicate poor job performance rather than good performance, such personnel data is not a comprehensive reflection of an employee's performance.{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}}

===Judgmental evaluation===
[[File:A woman starts to fill in an employee evaluation form in pen.jpg|thumb|An employee filling in an evaluation form]]

Judgmental '''evaluation''' appears to be a collection of methods, and as such, could be considered a methodology. A common approach to obtaining PAs is by means of raters.{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} Because the raters are human, some error will always be present in the data. The most common types of error are [[illusory superiority|leniency errors]], [[central tendency]] errors, and errors resulting from the [[halo effect]].{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} Halo effect is characterized by the tendency to rate a person who is exceptionally strong in one area higher than deserved in other areas. It is the opposite of the Horns effect, where a person is rated as lower than deserved in other areas due to an extreme deficiency in a single discipline.<ref name="Belle et al 2017 Cognitive Biases in Performance">{{cite journal |last1=Belle |first1=Nicola |last2=Cantarelli |first2=Paola |last3=Belardinelli |first3=Paolo |title=Cognitive Biases in Performance Appraisal: Experimental Evidence on Anchoring and Halo Effects With Public Sector Managers and Employees |journal=Review of Public Personnel Administration |date=September 2017 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=275–294 |doi=10.1177/0734371X17704891 }}</ref> These errors arise predominantly from [[social cognition]] and the theory in that how we judge and evaluate other individuals in various contexts is associated with how we "acquire, process, and categorize information".{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}}

An essential piece of this method is rater training. Rater training is the "process of educating raters to make more accurate assessments of performance, typically achieved by reducing the frequency of halo, leniency, and central-tendency errors".{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} Rater training also helps the raters "develop a common frame of reference for evaluation" of individual performance.{{sfn|Gomez-Mejia|Balkin|Cardy|2011|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} Many researchers and survey respondents support the ambition of effectual rater training.<ref name="Sudarsan"/> However, it is noted that such training is expensive, time-consuming, and only truly functional for behavioral assessments.<ref name="Sudarsan"/>

Another piece to keep in mind is the effects of rater motivation on judgmental evaluations. It is not uncommon for rating inflation to occur due to rater motivation (i.e. "organizationally induced pressures that compel raters to evaluate ratees positively").{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} Typically, raters are motivated to give higher ratings because of the lack of organizational sanction concerning accurate/inaccurate appraisals, the rater's desire to guarantee promotions, salary increases, etc., the rater's inclination to avoid negative reactions from subordinates, and the observation that higher ratings of the ratees reflect favorably upon the rater.{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}}

The main methods used in judgmental performance appraisal are:{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}}

*[[Rating scale|Graphic rating scale]]: graphic [[scale (social sciences)|rating scales]] are the most commonly used system in PA.{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} On several different factors, subordinates are judged on 'how much' of that factor or trait they possess. Typically, the raters use a 5- or 7-point scale; however, there are as many as 20-point scales.{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}}
*Employee-comparison methods: rather than subordinates being judged against pre-established criteria, they are compared with one another. This method eliminates central tendency and leniency errors but still allows for halo effect errors to occur.{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} The rank-order method has raters ranking subordinates from "best" to "worst", but how truly good or bad one is on a performance dimension would be unknown.{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} The [[Pairwise comparison (psychology)|paired-comparison]] method requires the rater to select the two "best" subordinates out of a group on each dimension then rank individuals according to the number of times each subordinate was selected as one of the "best".{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} The forced-distribution method is good for large groups of ratees. The raters evaluate each subordinate on one or more dimensions and then place (or "force-fit") each subordinate in a 5 to 7 category [[normal distribution]].{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} The method of top-grading can be applied to the forced distribution method.{{sfn|Smart|1999|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} This method identifies the 10% lowest performing subordinates, as according to the forced distribution, and dismisses them leaving the 90% higher performing subordinates.
*Behavioral checklists and scales: behaviors are more definite than traits. The critical incidents method (or [[critical incident technique]]) concerns "specific behaviors indicative of good or bad job performance".{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} Supervisors record behaviors of what they judge to be job performance relevant, and they keep a running tally of good and bad behaviors.  A discussion on performance may then follow. The [[behaviorally anchored rating scales]] (BARS) combine the critical incidents method with rating scale methods by rating performance on a scale but with the scale points being anchored by behavioral incidents.{{sfn|Howes|Muchinsky|2022|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} Note that BARS are job specific. In the '''behavioral observation scale (BOS)''' approach to performance appraisal, employees are also evaluated in the terms of critical incidents. In that respect, 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.<ref name=Fletcher />

The frequency of an evaluation, and policies concerning them, varies widely from workplace to workplace. Sometimes, an evaluation will be given to a new employee after a [[probation (workplace)|probationary]] period lapses, after which they may be conducted on a regular basis (such as every year). According to the 2014 Performance Management survey, 96% of employers perform annual performance evaluations and 44% of employers perform a 90-day performance review for new employees.<ref>2014 Performance Management Survey http://performancereviews.net/survey/</ref>

=== Peer and self assessments ===

For assessment to be successful and effective it must be conducted as a managed process. The process must be given sufficient time and space and be supported by appropriately trained and purposed personnel. Key activities to support the appraisal process are identified as:

* A suitable model of assessment (for example: narrative self-assessment, goal-based assessment, SWOT analysis or rating scales)
* appropriately credentialed staff to manage the process
* A supported approach to the assessment (employees understand the process, are given time to engage with it and are motivated to)
* Improvement actions are identified and acknowledged where achieved, further planning is undertaken where new or unresolved improvement actions are identified.
* The improvement cycle has a ‘closed loop’ structure, allowing employees to reset prior to progressing to new goals.
* Employees can see how their development relates to the wider organisational plan. 
<ref>{{cite book |doi=10.1016/b978-0-88415-752-6.50018-7 |chapter=Management by Objectives (MBO)—Setting SMART Goals |title=Managing Smart |date=1999 |last1=Milgram |first1=L. |page=17 |isbn=978-0-88415-752-6 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Yi |first1=Ran |title=Self-Knowledge and Learner Engagement in Hybrid Classrooms |journal=CALR Linguistics Journal |date=January 2023 |issue=13 |doi=10.60149/wtrx5743 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sepahvand |first1=Faribah |last2=Mohammadipour |first2=Fatemeh |last3=Parvizy |first3=Soroor |last4=Zagheri Tafreshi |first4=Mansoureh |last5=Skerrett |first5=Victoria |last6=Atashzadeh-Shoorideh |first6=Foroozan |title=Improving nurses' organizational commitment by participating in their performance appraisal process |journal=Journal of Nursing Management |date=April 2020 |volume=28 |issue=3 |pages=595–605 |doi=10.1111/jonm.12961 |pmid=31958192 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

While performance appraisal is typically performed along reporting relationships (usually top-down), assessment can include both peer and [[self-assessment]].

====Self Assessment====
Self-assessment incorporates a ''“wide variety of mechanisms and techniques through which students describe (i.e., assess) and possibly assign merit or worth to (i.e., evaluate) the qualities of their own learning processes and products”'' (p.&nbsp;804)<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Panadero |first1=Ernesto |last2=Brown |first2=Gavin T. L. |last3=Strijbos |first3=Jan-Willem |title=The Future of Student Self-Assessment: a Review of Known Unknowns and Potential Directions |journal=Educational Psychology Review |date=December 2016 |volume=28 |issue=4 |pages=803–830 |doi=10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2 |hdl=10486/679161 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

Threats to successful implementation of self-assessment are scarcity of time, overemphasis on scoring tools, failure to follow-up improvement actions and lack of communication.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Teo |first1=W F |last2=Dale |first2=B G |title=Self-assessment: Methods, management and process |journal=Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture |date=May 1997 |volume=211 |issue=5 |pages=365–375 |doi=10.1243/0954405971516347 }}</ref> It is a Self-reflective process meaning that structure, and the ability to remain objective about one’s own achievements and qualities are essential to the success of self-assessment.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McDonald |first1=Betty |title=Self Assessment for Understanding |journal=Journal of Education |date=January 2008 |volume=188 |issue=1 |pages=25–40 |doi=10.1177/002205740818800103 }}</ref>

The risk of flawed self-assessment is that self-perceptions of behaviours, knowledge and skill can fail to align with the reality of an individual’s performance. This can either absorb excessive management time in addressing flawed self-perceptions of performance or, if the behaviour is not addressed, can detract from the achievement of organisational goals. Therefore, evolved reflective skills are essential to successful self-assessment.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dunning |first1=David |last2=Heath |first2=Chip |last3=Suls |first3=Jerry M. |title=Flawed Self-Assessment: Implications for Health, Education, and the Workplace |journal=Psychological Science in the Public Interest |date=December 2004 |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=69–106 |doi=10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x |pmid=26158995 }}</ref>

====Peer assessments====
In peer assessment the appraisee is subject to feedback from peers – that is members of an organisation who function at the same level as the appraisee. In general, tools are made available to peer assessors to grade the appraisee against pre-determined criteria. These tools typically take the form of a multi-format questionnaire that might include VAS, Likert scoring and the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data by a number of means.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite journal |last1=Yang |first1=Anita |last2=Brown |first2=Anna |last3=Gilmore |first3=Rachel |last4=Persky |first4=Adam M. |date=October 2022 |title=A Practical Review for Implementing Peer Assessments Within Teams |journal=American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education |language=en |volume=86 |issue=7 |pages=8795 |doi=10.5688/ajpe8795 |pmc=10159466 |pmid=34697020}}</ref>

As in any method of performance appraisal, high quality of feedback is a key to the effectiveness of peer evaluation,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ibarra-Sáiz |first1=María Soledad |last2=Rodríguez-Gómez |first2=Gregorio |last3=Boud |first3=David |title=Developing student competence through peer assessment: the role of feedback, self-regulation and evaluative judgement |journal=Higher Education |date=July 2020 |volume=80 |issue=1 |pages=137–156 |doi=10.1007/s10734-019-00469-2 |doi-access=free |hdl=10536/DRO/DU:30134272 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref name=":12">{{cite book |doi=10.2991/978-2-38476-056-5_24 |chapter=Peer Assessment Analysis of Performance Appraisal Using Analytical Rubrics to Improve Critical Thinking Skills |title=Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Education and Technology (ICETECH 2022) |series=Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research |date=2023 |last1=Iriani |first1=Tuti |last2=Anisah |last3=Luthfiana |first3=Yusrina |volume=745 |pages=216–224 |isbn=978-2-38476-055-8 }}</ref> as is closing the loop on the appraisal process. There are threats to both the quality and perception of feedback in peer-assessment, for example peers may be biased by pre-existing relationships and less trust or value might be put in the appraisal of a peer than a senior.<ref name=":12" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Murphy |first1=Kevin R. |title=Performance evaluation will not die, but it should |journal=Human Resource Management Journal |date=January 2020 |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=13–31 |doi=10.1111/1748-8583.12259 }}</ref> Additionally in an organization where peer assessment is undertaken, employees may have concern for how the analysis of other is perceived, and how this my impact on their own assessment in turn.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Klapper |first1=Helge |last2=Piezunka |first2=Henning |last3=Dahlander |first3=Linus |title=Peer Evaluations: Evaluating and Being Evaluated |journal=Organization Science |date=July 2024 |volume=35 |issue=4 |pages=1363–1387 |doi=10.1287/orsc.2021.15302 }}</ref>

Potential benefits of peer assessment are:

* Decreased “social loafing” (mitigates the tendency to be less productive when part of a team).
* Improved performance.
* An environment that better reflects the culture of the team.
* Individuals take greater of each other and their relationships.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

====360 Degree Feedback====
360 degree feedback contains elements of self, peer and manager appraisal as it aims to incorporate feedback from multiple sources to produce a more comprehensive evaluation of the appraisee.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=González-Gil |first1=M.T. |last2=Parro-Moreno |first2=A.I. |last3=Oter-Quintana |first3=C. |last4=González-Blázquez |first4=C. |last5=Martínez-Marcos |first5=M. |last6=Casillas-Santana |first6=M. |last7=Arlandis-Casanova |first7=A. |last8=Canalejas-Pérez |first8=C. |title=360-Degree evaluation: Towards a comprehensive, integrated assessment of performance on clinical placement in nursing degrees: A descriptive observational study |journal=Nurse Education Today |date=December 2020 |volume=95 |pages=104594 |doi=10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104594 |pmid=32979748 }}</ref> The feedback is divided to reflect formative and summative domains – formative feedback is taken from peers; Summative feedback is taken from managers. Both are combined to inform development, but it is the summative feedback which counts most toward organizational performance indicators and potential rewards or punishments related to performance.<ref name="Meghdad et al 2020 Assessment of the performance">{{cite journal |last1=Meghdad |first1=Rahati |last2=Nayereh |first2=Rohollahi |last3=Zahra |first3=Sakeni |last4=Houriye |first4=Zahed |last5=Reza |first5=Nanakar |title=Assessment of the performance of nurses based on the 360-degree model and fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method (FMCDM) and selecting qualified nurses |journal=Heliyon |date=January 2020 |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=e03257 |doi=10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03257 |doi-access=free |pmid=32042978 |pmc=7002825 |bibcode=2020Heliy...603257M }}</ref>

The principal advantage of 360 degree feedback is that it is comprehensive and makes it possible for the “organization” to feed back on an individual, thus blunting potential biases that might occur in less fulsome processes, as such the 360 process promotes organizational trust, and mitigates against staff members’ intent to leave.<ref name="Meghdad et al 2020 Assessment of the performance"/>

====Negotiated Performance Appraisal====
In negotiated performance appraisal the appraisal follows the typical format, but a facilitator is present who may mediate perceived risks of defensiveness, bias or conflict and can prevent the tendency of appraisers to leave areas of under-performance unaddressed. This approach has little presence in the literature around performance appraisal but may be of benefit in supporting face to face peer performance conversations.{{citation needed|date=September 2024}}

In general, optimal PA process involves a combination of multiple assessment modalities. One common recommendation is that assessment flows from self-assessment, to peer-assessment, to management assessment – in that order. Starting with self-assessment facilitates avoidance of conflict. Peer feedback ensures peer accountability, which may yield better results than accountability to management.  Management assessment comes last for need of recognition by authority and avoidance of conflict in case of disagreements. It is generally recommended that PA is done in shorter cycles to avoid high-stakes discussions, as is usually the case in long-cycle appraisals.{{citation needed|date=July 2013}}

Research has shown that the source of the feedback (either manager or peer) does not matter in influencing employees' subsequent innovative or extra-role behaviors after the feedback is received.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eva |first1=Nathan |last2=Meacham |first2=Hannah |last3=Newman |first3=Alexander |last4=Schwarz |first4=Gary |last5=Tham |first5=Tse Leng |title=Is coworker feedback more important than supervisor feedback for increasing innovative behavior? |journal=Human Resource Management |date=July 2019 |volume=58 |issue=4 |pages=383–396 |doi=10.1002/hrm.21960 |url=https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/30420/3/Eva%20Is%20CoWorker%20Feedback%20More%20Important%20than%20Supervisor%20Feedback.pdf }}</ref> As long as the feedback is provided, the source does not matter.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eva |first1=Nathan |last2=Meacham |first2=Hannah |last3=Schwarz |first3=Gary |title=Is Co-Worker Feedback More Important than Supervisor Feedback for Increasing Extra-Role Behaviors? |journal=Academy of Management Proceedings |date=August 2018 |volume=2018 |issue=1 |pages=11942 |doi=10.5465/AMBPP.2018.11942abstract }}</ref>