Appraisal systems can measure a variety of things. They are sometimes designed to measure personality, sometimes behaviour or performance, and sometimes achievement of goals. These areas may be measured either quantitively or qualitatively. Qualitative appraisal often involves the writing of an unstructured narrative on the general performance of the appraisee. Alternatively, some guidance may be given as to the areas on which the appraiser should comment. The problems with qualitative appraisals are that they may leave important areas unappraised, and that they are not suitable for comparison purposes. When they are measured quantitively some form of scale is used, often comprising five categories of measurement from 'excellent', or 'always exceeds requirements' at one end to 'inadequate' or 'rarely meets requirements' at the other, with the mid-point being seen as acceptable. Scales are, however, not always constructed according to this plan. Sometimes on a five-point scale there will be four degrees of acceptable behaviour and only one that is unacceptable. Sometimes an even-numbered, usually a six-point, scale is used to prevent the tendency of raters to settle on the mid-point of the scale - either through lack of knowledge of the appraisee, lack of ability to discriminate, lack of confidence, or desire not to be too hard on appraisees. Rating other people is neither an easy nor a quick task, but it can be structured so that it is made as objective as possible.
Much traditional appraisal was based on measures of personality traits that were felt to be important to the job. These included resourcefulness, enthusiasm, drive, application, and other traits such as intelligence. One difficulty with these is that everyone defines them differently, and the traits that are used are not always mutually exclusive. Raters, therefore, are often unsure of what they are rating. One helpful approach is to concentrate on the job rather than the person. In an attempt to do this, some organisations call their annual appraisal activity the 'job appraisal review'. Both the requirements of the job and the way that it is performed are considered.
Behaviourally anchored rating scales (BARS)
This is one way of linking ratings to behaviour at work. At the first stage a sample group of raters suggest independently examples of behaviour for each point on a scale associated with a behavioural feature to be assessed, e.g. relations with clients. From this a wide variety of behavioural examples are collected. At the next stage these examples are collated, and then returned to the raters without any indication of the scale point for which they were suggested. The raters allocate a numerical scale point to each example, and those examples which are consistently located at the same point on the scale are selected to be used as the behavioural examples for that point on the scale. Future raters then have some guidance as to the type of behaviour that would be expected at each point. BARS are most helpful when using scales that relate more clearly to work behaviour rather than specific job performance.
Behavioural observation scales (BOS)
These are an alternative to BARS. They indicate a number of dimensions of performance with behavioural statements for each. Individuals are appraised as to the extent to which they display each of the characteristics.
Meeting objectives (MO)
Another method of making appraisal more objective is to use the process to set job objectives over the coming year and, a year later, to measure the extent to which these objectives have been met. The extent to which the appraisee is involved in setting these objectives varies considerably. If these objectives are part of an organizational management by objectives (MBO) scheme, then the individual will never be involved and will simply have them handed down. Alternatively, if they are not part of a larger scheme, there is a lot of scope for the individual to participate in the setting of such objectives. One of the biggest problems with appraisal on the basis of meeting objectives is that factors beyond the employee's control may make the objectives more difficult than anticipated, or even impossible. Another problem is that objectives will change over a period and so the original list is not so relevant a year later.
Development of appraisal criteria
Various methods have been suggested to identify appraisal criteria. These include the use of critical incident techniques to identify particularly difficult problems at work, content analysis of working documents, and performance questionnaires whereby managers and potential appraisees identify (anonymously) what characterizes the most effective job-holder and the least effective job-holder.
Job analysis
In addition to identifying appraisal criteria, job analysis is used to formulate key tasks and duties, and the performance standards that are expected. Appraisal is then based on a comparison between this and the performance actually achieved. This is similar to appraisal by objectives, but much broader. This type of job analysis and appraisal is a very useful approach in smaller organizations which cannot afford to invest in the development of sophisticated appraisal criteria. It is an approach which clearly relates to job performance.
