Barlow (1989)
‘Institutionally elaborated systems of management appraisal and development are signifi cant rhetorics in the apparatus of bureaucratic control.’ They reward what is perceived to be suc- cessful performance and penalize deviance.
Appraisal systems impose artifi cial rationality. ‘Ambiguity and complexity will not be elimi- nated from the pluralistic processes and alliances of organizational life as it actually is.’
Critiques of Performance Management 43 The research established from managers that the appraisal system ‘served neither to motivate nor control.’ Managers saw the appraisal system as a bureaucratic ritual. The system institu- tionalized an ideology that sought to enlist participants’ positive effort and continued compli- ance, despite the inegalitarian nature of business organizations. The following conclusion was reached.
Conclusions on appraisal (Barlow, 1989)
The dynamic of power relationships is bound up with their intangibility… Such relationships evolve from the myriad intangible observations and devices by means of which one person learns how to relate to and work with another. Formalized appraisal systems discount the infl uences of such dynamics because they cannot be enumerated satisfactorily. In doing so they ride roughshod over what frequently is precarious and tenuous.
Bowles and Coates (1993)
Appraisal is shifting from concern with performance to concern for people in terms of
•
their identifi cation with the job and the organization. ‘Believing in the organization is the criterion rather than performing for it.’
Managers are mostly appraised by results, but results alone cannot refl ect performance
•
as it is affected by many other factors. Deming (1986) is right: job performance cannot be disentangled from systems effects.
The emphasis given to collective effort and teamwork confl icts with the individualistic
•
ethic of performance appraisal practice.
The nature of performance appraisal, which involves one individual making judge-
•
ments on another, ‘tends to reinforce authority relations and defi nes dependency’.
A survey of 48 organizations in the Midlands established that the major benefi t claimed by those with what they considered to be successful systems was its use in getting people to achieve work goals. The problems faced by some organizations were measuring performance and the extra demands made on managers.
Conclusions
‘Performance appraisal requires subtle psychological and social skills which may not be
•
acquired by many managers.’
Performance appraisal seems to be often ‘an opportunistic means to address perform-
•
ance issues’, rather than ‘a well thought out, coherent and systematic attempt to impart a new philosophy and practice of organizational relations’.
‘The absence of clear indices of measurement will often cause images of performance
•
to be exploited.’ Performance may have less to do with physical outputs and more about exhibiting the correct ‘mind set’.
An ethic is required that ‘conveys trust, integrity and faith in the ability of employees
•
to contribute to a creative management practice’.
Management should provide the ‘enabling’ conditions through which work is performed.
•
‘The active involvement of employees in the management of performance potentially allows
•
a constructive dialogue with management, to determine what factors foster performance.’
Carlton and Sloman (1992)
A review of the appraisal system in an investment bank revealed the following problems:
Managers were hostile to what they perceived as bureaucracy and disliked form fi lling.
•
Ratings linked to pay were disliked. As one line manager said: ‘Performance appraisal
•
is a load of rubbish. You decide on the rating you want to put in the box and then make up a few words of narrative in other sections to justify it.’
Ratings drift occurred. Managers tended to over-rate people because of the link between
•
appraisal and pay. As one manager commented when challenged: ‘I knew that his per- formance did not justify the rating but I thought it would demotivate him if I marked him down.’
The separation of appraisal and pay decisions was considered to be impossible because
•
‘managers only fi ll in one form and if they do not perceive a clear link with salary, they will not do it’.
Coens and Jenkins (2002)
Throughout our work lives, most of us have struggled with performance appraisal. No matter how many times we redesign it, retrain the supervisors, or give it a new name, it never comes out right. Again and again, we see supervisors procrastinate or just go through the motions, with little taken to heart. And the supervisors who do take it to heart and give it their best mostly meet disappointment. Earnestly intending to provide constructive feedback and write good development plans and goals, they fi nd that people with less than superior ratings are preoccupied with the ratings and not the message. Except for those receiving top ratings, the good conversation they had hoped for rarely happens. Employees tune out and politely complete the interview. Others become defensive and resentful, with shattered relationships sure to follow. Then the supervisors ask themselves, ‘Where did I go wrong?’ knowing they were only doing their job.
Critiques of Performance Management 45
Crosby (1995)
The performance review, no matter how well the format is designed, is a one-way street. Someone the individual didn’t select gets to perform a very personal internal examination. There are no certifi cates on the wall stating the qualifi cations of the reviewer. Yet the effect on the individual’s present and future is as real as if everyone knew what he or she were doing… The reviews, which are supposed to give
information to management about employees, do the reverse. The employees quickly realize that management has no way of knowing who is the fairest of them all, except through luck and instinct.
Deming (1986)
In the 12th of his 14 points, Deming made the following demand:
Remove the barriers that rob hourly workers and people in management of their right to pride in workmanship. This implies inter alia, abolition of the annual merit rating (appraisal of performance).
He also defi ned ‘evaluation of performance, merit rating or annual review’ as the third deadly disease of management. The further points he made were that:
Rating the performance of individuals is unsound because differences in performance
•
are largely due to systems variations.
Targets and objectives for individuals damage customer-focused teamwork.
•
Targets too often make no reference to the customer and results are limited if ‘stretch-
•
ing’ can only be achieved by sub-optimization, while, on the other hand, soft targets may be negotiated.
Formal appraisal schemes reinforce managers’ reluctance to engage in coaching and
•
open, direct regular dialogue with people.
Reliance on pay as a motivator destroys pride in work and individual creativity.
•
Furnham (1996)
The question posed was why the fundamental process of performance appraisal was frequently done so badly. The following reasons were suggested for this:
Pusillanimity – managers are too scared to give negative or corrective feedback.
•
Managers have not been trained in the skills of appraisal.
•
Managers argue that rather than having a couple of specifi c hour-long meetings over
•
the year, they give subordinates consistent feedback on a day-to-day basis. But what they fail to realize is that discussions about software, the sales fi gures and the strategic plan are not appraisal.
The organization, despite much rhetoric, does not take the whole process seriously.
•
Furnham (2004)
‘Although a basic management requirement in all types of organizations, nevertheless per- formance management systems almost universally work poorly and are negatively viewed by both managers and managed.’
Grint (1993)
There seems to be considerable, although not universal, dislike and dissatisfaction with all per- formance appraisal systems to some degree. Crudely speaking, human resource managers seem favourably inclined, line managers much less so.
The problems with appraisals are:
the complexity of the variables being assessed;
•
the subjective elements that confuse the assessment;
•
the fact that rewards and progress are in the hands of a single ‘superordinate’ (ie
•
appraiser/manager);
the fact that individuals have to work with their appraisers after the appraisal;
•
the fundamental issue relating to the appraisal by individuals of individuals who only
•
act in social situations – the comment is made that a major aim of appraisal schemes is to limit the collective aspects of work and individualize the employment relationship.
‘F W Taylor would indeed have been impressed.’
Reasons why assessments bear no close or, indeed any, relationship to reality
The assessor only sees the assessed from one specifi c position.
•
The impossibility of ‘being able to reduce the complex nature of any individual
•
to a series of scales in a tick list’.
The multifaceted identity of people may lead to views about individuals varying
•
widely – different people read each other very differently.
As people ascend the hierarchy they are likely to be less and less aware of what
•
their subordinates think about them and their performance.
The possibility of ever achieving objective appraisals of a subordinate by a
•
superior is remote.
Critiques of Performance Management 47 The conclusion was that: ‘Rarely in the history of business can such a system have promised so much and delivered so little.’ But in spite of the relatively long and generally unhappy life of appraisal schemes they should not be abandoned. Instead they should be considered more sceptically – people might have to accept their ‘subjective fate’.
Latham, Sulsky and Macdonald (2007)
The answers required to move the fi eld of performance management forward are much less straightforward than the questions. We know a great deal more about ways to manage the performance of an individual than about ways to manage a team. We know what to observe and how to observe an individual objectively. We are at a loss as to how to overcome political considerations that lead people not to do so. Advances in knowledge have been made with regard to technology that managers embrace to assist in the appraisal process, and that in the eyes of employees, their managers misuse. We know that making decisions is inherent in performance management, yet solutions to decision-making errors remain a mystery. Great strides in this domain include recognition that ongoing performance management is more effective than an annual appraisal in bringing about a positive change in an employee’s behaviour, and that context must be taken into account in doing so.
Lee (2005)
Most traditional performance appraisal schemes are fundamentally fl awed as they are coun- terproductive by design. The stated purpose of these systems is to measure and rate past per- formance when, in reality, the goal of any performance management system should be performance enhancement… No one has the power to alter the past, so it is far wiser to direct attention and efforts to the future.
Newton and Findlay (1996)
Most writers on appraisal are over-infl uenced by the ‘neo-human-relations’ writers of
•
the 1950s and 1960s (eg Douglas McGregor), who provide ‘unitarist prescriptions that are generally insensitive to both context and outcome’ and assume that appraisal will serve the supposed common interest of employer and employee.
Appraisees are not going to view appraisal as a ‘helping/counselling exercise’ if there is
•
the possibility that the data will be used in assessing promotion or demotion.
Participative approaches to appraisal are suspect because they constitute ‘a desire
•
through which management control may be enhanced by appearing to disperse it’.
Appraisal can be regarded as a management strategy ‘aimed at eliciting a measure of
•
voluntary compliance from employees’ and encouraging workers to regulate and police their own behaviour.
‘A greater understanding of the organizational context in which appraisal takes place and, consequently, of appraisal itself, requires an acknowledgement of the differences of interests between appraisers and appraisees.’
Pulakos, Mueller-Hanson and O’Leary (2008)
The main problems with performance management in the United States are:
Performance management is regarded as an administrative burden to be minimized
•
rather than an effective strategy to obtain business results.
Managers and employees are reluctant to engage in candid performance discussions.
•
Judgement and time factors impede accurate performance assessments.
•
Sparrow (2008)
Performance management issues in the UK include:
the ability to produce higher levels of employee engagement as opposed to just more
•
self-awareness (or measurement accuracy);
the level of alignment between rewards (in their fullest sense) produced by the per-
•
formance management system, and the varied needs of diverse employee segments, who may be working to very different psychological contracts;
the extent to which stand alone performance management systems contribute directly
•
to value creation in the organization or rather serve more to protect value by managing only marginal risks (extremely high or low performance, the identifi cation and man- agement of which may well be handled through other processes such as business per- formance modifi cations, team socialization processes or talent management/calibration exercises).
Stiles et al (1997)
A survey of three companies revealed that there was a considerable degree of managerial apathy and even scepticism about carrying out appraisal. The reasons were:
the perceived bureaucracy of the appraisal system that diverted managers from their
•
‘real job’;
the lack of positive outcomes in terms of both development and pay;
•
Critiques of Performance Management 49 variations between individual managers in judging performance;
•
defensive use of appraisal – lumping everyone together in average or even high/low
•
categories.
The research found the following problems in the way performance management was being used:
Changes were driven in a top-down, systematic manner and the absence of consulta-
•
tion produced cynicism and a lack of trust among employees.
Concern was expressed by employees over the fairness and accuracy of the perform-
•
ance management system – little or no negotiation in objective setting, question marks over the achievability of the targets, variability and inconsistency in appraisal, lack of opportunities for development, and a large degree of mystifi cation about the workings of the appraisal were indicative of this concern.
Employees believed changes to the performance management system had increased the
•
transactional nature of the contract (eg emphasis on the link to pay, little concern about development).
The manner of introducing the contract did little to restore the trust of employees – there
•
was a lack of procedural justice (giving employees involvement in determining decisions about change, giving input during objective setting and performance evaluations).
Strebler, Bevan and Robertson (2001)
The wholesale devolution of performance management responsibilities to line managers
•
has meant that they have to grasp and deliver the often quite complex and subtle manage- ment skills required to set goals in line with a wider business plan, assess performance, give constructive feedback, identify training and development needs, and rate or rank performance for pay purposes. Not all have embraced this opportunity willingly or con- sistently, resulting in at best, performance review schemes of variable quality.
Performance management assumes that line managers have the ability and motivation
•
to perform somewhat confl icting roles of judge and coach. There is evidence that they fail to deliver on both counts. Most performance management is about control rather than development and most managers do not have the skills to make it work.
Organizations come up with cunning, elegant and integrated designs for performance
•
review linked to pay progression, team bonuses, personal development plans, compe- tencies and 360-degree feedback (via their intranet). These designs frequently fail a number of tests, including the ability of line managers to assimilate and deliver the processes, the affordability of the training required, the quality of support needed from HR and doubts as to whether the benefi ts will justify the costs.
Townley (1990/1991)
An analysis of 30 university appraisal schemes generated the following general comments on appraisal:
Appraisal is regarded as a technical function that is considered in isolation.
•
Appraisal should be viewed as ‘an assemblage of signs whose meaning is constructed
•
dependent on the context of its introduction and operation’.
A failure to contextualize appraisal will ignore the ‘different, sometimes confl icting
•
interests’ that infl uence the form of appraisal adopted.
Seeing appraisal in the context in which it operates ‘points to the diversity of functions
•
into which a single system may be invested’.
Appraisal can become a ‘mechanism around which interests are negotiated, counter-
•
claims articulated and political processes expressed. Designers of appraisal schemes would do well to remember this.’
The term appraisal usually implies a judgement by a superior of a subordinate, that is,
•
a process that is unilateral and top down.
Townley (1993)
Management is ‘institutionally empowered to determine and/or regulate certain aspects of the actions of others’. The concept of control is central to an understanding of management.
Power is exercised through its intersection with knowledge: for example, methods of observa- tion, techniques of registration – mechanisms for the supervision and administration of indi- viduals and groups.
Appraisal is defi ned as a managerial activity – ‘the provision of data designed to ensure that resources are used effi ciently in accomplishing organizational objectives’. The role of apprais- ers is structured through setting the agenda. Management is inextricably linked to control over the labour process.
One of the inherent paradoxes of appraisal is that ‘the information required to ensure effective work organization will not be forthcoming if it is thought that this will jeopardize the individual’.
Appraisal operates as a form of ‘panopticon’ (a concept for prison design originated by Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century that incorporates a central observation tower from which the activities of all the inmates can be seen). The process of appraisal takes this form because it combines hierarchy, unilateral observation and ‘a normalizing judgement’. Anonymous and continuous surveillance is a method of articulating a monitoring role.
Appraisal is the ‘exercise of control at a distance both spatially and temporally’. It ‘illustrates how knowledge of the individual and the work performed articulates the managerial role as a directional activity’.
Critiques of Performance Management 51
Winstanley and Stuart-Smith (1996)
Traditional approaches to performance management fail because they are fl awed in imple- mentation, demotivate staff and ‘are often perceived as forms of control that are inappropri- ately used to “police” performance’. Performance management as a concept and a process can be criticized as follows:
There is a lack of conclusive evidence that it leads to improved performance.
•
It can produce undesirable side effects: demotivation on the one hand and over-
•
bureaucratization on the other.
It is diffi cult to set performance objectives that cover intangibles, are fl exible in response
•
to change and cover the whole job.
Lack of time is given to the process.
•
It is a form of ‘Taylorism’ – in the perception of appraisees, it can ‘become akin to a
•
police state’ where evidence is collected, dossiers built up and ‘supervision becomes a matter of spying through keyholes’.
It is managerialist in that it takes a unitary view of the organization. This is referred to
•
as the ‘radical critique’ of performance management, namely that ‘it operates within a unitarist paradigm and is not able to treat organizations as pluralities of interests’.
The question is asked: ‘Are individuals in the process treated as “ends in themselves or
•
merely means to other ends?”’ (It is suggested that the latter approach is typical.) It reinforces modes of ‘intrusive control’.
•
It is suggested that a stakeholder perspective should be adopted in the design of performance management systems that offers a wider role to individuals as ‘creators’ rather than ‘victims’
of performance management. Because pluralism is endemic in organizations, it should not only be the power holder’s voice that is heard. ‘Where consensus exists it can be built in, but where it does not, dissenters are not silenced.’
The approach should be one of ‘stakeholder synthesis’ that goes beyond the analysis of the interests of stakeholders to gaining their views about business strategy and incorporating these views in the system design.