Editing Performance appraisal (section)

=== 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>