Posts: 3,310
Threads: 505
Joined: Sep 2010
(a) Appraisal according to his traits, attributes and general behaviour on the job i.e., trail approach.
(b) Appraisal of results, work and goal achievement of the employee known as appraisal by results.
(a) Traits Approach
The trait approach, the first to develop in management history, led to the development of several kinds of ranking systems and graphic rating scales This approach became quite widespread in the 1920's and late 1930's. There are several methods of appraisal under trait approach:
1. Ranking—The oldest and simplest method of formal rating is to compare one man with all other men and place him in a simple rank order. Ghiselli and Brown have described the technical features of ranking method. Their idea of ranking is to distribute the individuals being rated along an order of merit from best to poorest, or from most to least, on one or more characteristics. This method is quite simple in a small group, but is difficult in a large one. Since differences in rank do not indicate absolute or equal differences of ability between individuals, the system is of limited value.
A variation on the ranking system designed to increase its value for use in larger groups is the method of 'paired comparison'. In this method each man is compared with every other man, one at the lime. The results of these comparisons can be tabulated, and a rank created from the number of times each person is considered to be superior. This is an improvement over the previous method; however, this requires a large number of comparisons.
2. Man-to-Man Comparison—This system was used first by US Army during World War-1. In this method, certain personality factors such as leadership, initiative, dependability, and soon, arc selected for purposes of analysis. A scale is developed for each factor. Instead of comparing a man It) another, personnel are compared to key men, one factor at a time. Thus, a scale of men is created for each selected factor. This system of measurement is utilised today in job evaluation being known as the 'factor comparison' system. Though, it is highly useful in measuring job, it has very limited use in measuring people.
3. Grading—In the grading system, certain categories of worth are established in advance. These are carefully defined, and personnel are placed in a particular group depending upon their worth. For example, the grades may be defined as outstanding, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. Sometimes, grading system is modified into a forced distribution system in which certain percentages arc fixed for each grade. The basic idea behind this is to put limit for generalisation on the part of the rather. However, in a small group, forced distribution system is not useful
4. Graphic Rating Scales: lt is an approach similar to that of the man-to-man system, except that the degree on a factor scale arc represented by definitions rather than by key men. The central idea behind this scaling is to provide the rater with a continuum representing varying degrees of a particular characteristics The rater can estimate the degree to which each trait is present in his subordinates by observing their behaviour on the job.
There are two types of factors which are measured on graphic scales. These are (i) personal characteristics, such as leadership, initiative, dependability, etc. and (ii) contributions, such as quality and quantity of work. Since, certain areas of job performance cannot be measured objectively; it is likely that graphic scales will continue to use a mixture of characteristics and contributions, with emphasis upon the latter. In India, most organisations following systematic appraisal process use this method to appraise personal characteristics. Graphic rating scales have undergone substantial changes to make the system more reliable and valid. Among the design innovations are the adoption of discontinuous scales, reversed scales, numerical weighting systems, and more accurate definitions of the traits and the degrees of traits.
5. Forced-choice Rating—Forced-choice method appraisal was developed by psychologists for the U.S. Army in World War II, and was subsequently adopted wide in industry. This method combines ratings with scoring system. The rater has a form on each item consisting of a group of statements pertaining to subordinates. The rater checks two of the four statements, one which he feels is the most characteristic and the other least characteristic of the person he is rating. For example, a pair such as the following will be presented to the rater:
1. He is hard working.
2. He gives clear instructions to his subordinates.
The rater is forced to select any one of these which is more characteristic of the rater. Though he may claim that both are equally applicable or inapplicable, heJias to select the one that is closer to describing the person in question. The rater is also forced to choose between statements that are equally unfavorable such as following:
1. He cannot be depended upon for good working.
2. He shows favoritism towards some employees.
Only one of the statements in each pair is correct in identifying the better performance, and this scoring key must be kept secret from the rater. In this manner, bias is removed from the appraisal process. In a research study, it was found that the use of forced-choice scale effectively eliminated the leniency error while the use of a graphic scale format enabled bias to be introduced. There are certain disadvantages of the forced-choice scaling, and because of these disadvantages, its use is not widespread. Cozan feels that this method appears to have greater objectivity, four basic requirements are hard to meet: trained technicians to develop the scales, a different collection of items for each job group, a fair agreement on the criteria for success and failure and acceptance by supervisors who must rate their subordinates without knowing the relative rating they are giving.
Besides the above methods of appraisal, some other methods are also used, such as checklist method, selection of critical incident method, and descriptive method.
Appraisal by Results
In recent years, the appraisal has been extended to management groups also which has encouraged added attention to evaluation of performance. Managers now feel that performance is in itself the most reliable indicator of potential and quality. This feeling has led to the development of appraisal by results that are against the setting and accomplishing of verifiable objective. The essential feature of the appraisal is the manager's observation of the subordinate's performance measured against specific pre-determined goals with the subordinate's actions, attitudes, and general job behaviour examined in this context. Conclusions are based on observation and evidence of performance rather than the superior's opinions of the subordinates.
Though there are variations, six basic elements are common to most result-oriented appraisal plans:
The superior and each of his subordinates jointly plan the subordinate's tasks and responsibilities.
The subordinate prepares a plan for specified period, say, six months, or a year. Through mutual consultation, the final target to be achieved is fixed.
Through mutual consultation, they also fix up and clarify superior's supporting and evaluative role.
At the end of the specified period, the superior makes a performance evaluation of subordinate on the basis of mutually agreed criteria.
Superior discusses the results and his evaluation with the subordinate, corrective actions, if necessary, are suggested, and mutually agreed upon targets are fixed for future.
The method emphasises traits and other characteristic, focusing on performance results.
The process of appraisal poses several questions and problems. The two most common problems relating to appraisal are— (a) fixation of goals and (b) measuring accomplishment of goals. The fixation of goals is carried on through mutual consultation between superior and his subordinate and it depends upon their judgment and experience. In assessing goal accomplishment, the evaluator must take into account such considerations as whether goals were reasonably attainable, whether the factors beyond the control of subordinate have helped or hindered him in accomplishing his goals, and finally what the reasons for accomplishment or non-accomplishment were. As such, the success of this system depends upon: (i) good job descriptions specifying areas in which goals are too developed; (ii) trust in the subordinate to establish responsible goals; (iii) specification of specific rather than general goals; and (iv) problem solving, rather than critical, discussion of ensuring performance.
