July 2013, Volume: 1 Issue: 7 24 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN MANAGEMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION - A STUDY 1. Dr.S.K.Padhi, Professor, Presidency College, Berhampur 2. Dr.P.C.Sahu, Professor, Presidency College, Berhampur Abstract Under the present competitive era no Supervisors have time to think for him. Everybody is remaining busy with their own job. Supervisors with increased workloads and a large number of reporting relationships lack the opportunity to observe and provide fair, accurate, credible and motivating performance appraisals. To compensating with the situation and be able to compete for the survival for a longer period in the market to understand the capability of the employees become very indispensable. To solve this problem the 360 degree performance system is to be accepted by the educational institutions to study and enhance the performance of the employees as well as the standard of the institution to maintain good will’s LondonM. (2004) 1 . After industrial globalization, when hierarchy is being replaced by teamwork, participative leadership, empowering employees, improving customer service and re-engineering, employers need to look at other alternatives that will support and enhance personnel development. For the purpose of the study the researcher has selected three management educational institutions to understand how for the 360-degree performance appraisal system is helpful for betterment of the appraise and appraiser that inter alia develops the standard. Key Words: Performance Appraisal, 360-Degree Performance system, personnel development Introduction 1 LondonM.&Beatty, R.W.(1993),“360-Degree Feedback as a Competitive Advantage”, Human Resource Management,Vol.32,pp.352-373
19
Embed
360-DEGREE FEEDBACK PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL … · 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN MANAGEMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ... performance appraisal system is helpful for ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
July 2013, Volume: 1 Issue: 7
24
360-DEGREE FEEDBACK PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN
MANAGEMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION - A STUDY
1.Dr.S.K.Padhi, Professor, Presidency College, Berhampur
2.Dr.P.C.Sahu, Professor, Presidency College, Berhampur
Abstract
Under the present competitive era no Supervisors have time to think for him. Everybody
is remaining busy with their own job. Supervisors with increased workloads and a large number of
reporting relationships lack the opportunity to observe and provide fair, accurate, credible and
motivating performance appraisals. To compensating with the situation and be able to compete for the
survival for a longer period in the market to understand the capability of the employees become very
indispensable. To solve this problem the 360 degree performance system is to be accepted by the
educational institutions to study and enhance the performance of the employees as well as the
standard of the institution to maintain good will’s LondonM. (2004)1. After industrial globalization,
when hierarchy is being replaced by teamwork, participative leadership, empowering employees,
improving customer service and re-engineering, employers need to look at other alternatives that will
support and enhance personnel development. For the purpose of the study the researcher has
selected three management educational institutions to understand how for the 360-degree
performance appraisal system is helpful for betterment of the appraise and appraiser that inter
alia develops the standard.
Key Words: Performance Appraisal, 360-Degree Performance system, personnel development
Introduction
1LondonM.&Beatty, R.W.(1993),“360-Degree Feedback as a Competitive Advantage”, Human
Resource Management,Vol.32,pp.352-373
July 2013, Volume: 1 Issue: 7
25
Dissatisfaction is the real source of inspiration for future search work to provide rationale
in the subject area. Almost every employee seems to be dissatisfied with their Performance
Appraisal and always play the Blame Game.
Why is it so?
From the first ever Man to Man Rating System developed for the military personnel’s during the
First World War to the well-known 360 degree Performance Appraisal system, there seems to be
always some gap between the expected and the actual. Winds of change are sweeping business
organizations globally. Organizations jump on the band wagon assuming that survey feedback
results are valuable. Companies suffer through the experience of initially implementing the
performance appraisal system, often confronting resistance from Managers about being
evaluated by their subordinates and peers. Long term reactions and effects are rarely
determined systematically, so if the organization continues to use 360 degree feedback, the only
evidence for its effectiveness may be an ecdotes from vocal participants.(London, Manuel and
Richard W.Beatty)2. After industrial globalization, when hierarchy is being replaced by teamwork,
Participative leadership, empowering employees, improving customer service and re-engineering,
employers need to look at other alternatives that will support and enhance personnel development.
Organizations are asking personnel for more productivity with fewer resources. The traditional tops
down supervisor only evaluation systems are no longer practical for the present globalization days.
Supervisors with increased workloads and a large number of reporting relationships lack the
opportunity to observe and provide fair, accurate, credible and motivating performance appraisals. To
compensating with the situation and be able to compete for the survival for a longer period in the
market and to understand the capability of the employees become very indispensable. To solve this
problem the 360 degree performance system is to be accepted by the educational institutions to study
and enhance the performance of the employees as well as the standard of the institution. According to
David W. That multi rater feedback (360-degree) for decision making has worked in many
2London, Manuel and Richard W.Beatty, "360-Degree Feedback as a Competitive Advantage"-Human Resource Management 32(2&3) 1993
July 2013, Volume: 1 Issue: 7
26
organizations (Bracken, Dalton, Jako, McCauley, Pollman and Hollenbeck, 1997).3 Before
understanding the meaning of 360-degree performance appraisal we should first know what
performance appraisal is. The basic root function of performance appraisal is gauging where the
employee is in job, how doing in that job, and what can be done to improve job performance, if
improvements are necessary. ”Performance appraisal is an exercise in observation and judgement, it is
a feedback process, and it is an intensely emotional process” (Cascio 1995,274).4 The 360 - degree
performance appraisal is an appraisal system that encompasses views of employee's superior and
co-workers/peers. Through 360-degree performance appraisal the employee has the chance to
review the supervisor an element that is not practiced with top down performance appraisals. The
use of 360 degree instruments has exploded during the past ten to fifteen years. The 360 degree
appraisal takes information from more than one source. This assessment collects information
from peers, subordinates, and superiors so that the person can get a well-rounded, or 360 degree,
view of their performance. “Here the traditional source for performance appraisals - the
individual's manager is supplemented by other sources who has significant perspectives to
provide which the manager may not have" (Tornow 1993,212)5. Ideally with multiple assessment
sources, the manager will have little doubt that every part of the employee's performance is
checked and double checked. The more feedback the manager is given the better the appraisal
process should go. And better yet, the employee will not think that they are criticized solely by
the manager " a cardinal rule is that the more information one collects and the greater depth of
the information, the greater the commitment must be to the recipient on the part of the
organization and on the part of those who conduct such an exercise"(Kaplan 1994)6.
3 Bracken,D.W.Dalton, M.A.Jake, R.A.McClauley, C.D.Pollman, V.A, and Hollenbeck,
G.P.(1997) Should 360-degree feedback be used only for developmental purposes?
Greensboro, North Carolina: Center For Creative Leadership. 4Cascio, Wayne F. Managing Human Resources, New York: McGraw-Hill,1995..
Following Upward Feedback”, PersonnelPsychology,Vol.52,pp.271-303. 12WalkerA.G.&Smither,J.W.(1999),“A Five Year Study of Upward Feedback: What Managers do with their Results Matter”, Personnel Psychology,Vol.52,pp.393-423. 13Bose,Manab(2003)“360-Degree feedback as an Intervention”, in T.V.Rao and Raju Rao(Eds.),360- DegreeFeedback&PerformanceManagementSystem,NewDelhi:ExcelBooks.PP65-75. 14Wakhlu, Anu (2003), “Leadership Development using 360-Degree Feedback Process - The Pragati Approach“, in T.V.Raoand RajuRao(Eds.),360-Degree Feedback and Performance Management System, NewDelhi:ExcelBooks,pp.58-64.
July 2013, Volume: 1 Issue: 7
30
fair, honest, and thorough hearing as he presents his evaluations and plans for development and he
should leave the review session feeling that his superiors take his idea seriously and are vitally
interested in his progress “(Rowland 1970, 303)15
. There are certain things to be done when an
appraisal meeting takes place. “The boss should avoid any thing of threatening attitude in his
conduct of the appraisal interview. If he does not do this, his appraisal group will become nervous
as appraisal time approaches and the work will suffer “(Rowland, 1970, 210). Nobody wants to be
called into the managers’ office to be yelled at or talked down to. This technique can be seen as a
motivational tool but all it doesis destroy productivity because the entire employee thinks about is
the appraisal meeting and what will be said during it. Rowland maintains that while conducting the
meeting, the manager should avoid telling the employee that their performance needs improvement,
“Specific cases should be called to the attention of the appraise for they will help to make clear
exactly what the appraisers meant by the statement they made but should not take the form of a
harsh reprimand (Rowland,1970,273). The employment of performance appraisal for
development purposes helps strengthen the employee-supervisor relationship where the
supervisor is cast in the role of coach and adviser rather that of lord high executioner encourages
teamwork and facilitates the development of good work behaviours (Daley,1992,48).16
According
to Cascio(1995,277)17
the appraiser should be carefull and be unbiased while appraising on the
performabce of others. The criterion used in the appraisal process is a big determinant of the
validity of the appraisal process. If a manager is able to insert his/her bias into the appraisal then
the validity decreases. "The more subjective the rating criteria the easier it is for the raters’ biases
to enter into his/her evaluation"(Fleenor Scontrino,1982, 70)18
. The appraisal system needs be as
objective as possible to eliminate bias on the part of the supervisor. The courts have ruled on
what exactly constitutes an objective performance appraisal. "Case law outlines six criteria for
15
Rowland, Virgil K. Evaluating and Improving Managerial Performance New York McGraw-Hill Publishers,1970 16
Daley, Dennis M "Pay for Performance, Performance Appraisal, and Total Quality Management" Public
Productivity and Management Review 18(I) 1992:39-51 17
Cascio, Wayne F. Managing Human Resources New York McGraw Hill, Inc 1995 18
Fleenor,C.P. and M.P.Scontrino. Performance Appraisal: A Manager Guide, Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company 1982
July 2013, Volume: 1 Issue: 7
31
constructing objective performance appraisal system: job analysis, work behaviours,
communications, training, documentation, and monitoring combine to guide the development of
systems capable of appraising performance" (Daley,1992,49)19
. If an organization constructs an
appraisal system that has at least these six objective criteria, the courts and the majority, if not
all, the employees should consider the system a valid appraisal of productivity and performance.
Analysis and discussion
On the basis of the Best(1977)20
measurement scale the following tables are being analysed.
Table No. 1 Respondents’awareness of performance appraisal system
Category Strongly
agree
Agree Moderate Disagree Strongly
disagree
Mean SD Total
Professor 07 03 00 00 00 4.7 3.08 10
Associate
Prof
05 08 02 00 00 4.2 3.46 15
Asst Prof 02 04 08 04 02 3.0 2.44 20
Demonstrator 00 00 10 00 00 3.0 4.47 10
Office Staff 00 00 05 03 17 1.5 7.03 25
Total 14 15 25 17 09 3.1 5.83 80
Sources : Compiled Primary data
19Daley, Dennis M "Pay for Performance, Performance Appraisal, and Total Quality Management" Public Productivity and Management Review 18(I) 1992:49 20Best, J. W. (1977). Research in Education. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
.
July 2013, Volume: 1 Issue: 7
32
The table No.1 depicts that 100% (Mean 4.7) professors have agreed that they have the idea about
the performance appraisal system of their institution. That 87% Associate Professors opined
positively whereas 13% did not comment on the subject. The mean in case of associate professors
are 4.2. In respect of Assistant Professors 30% expressed that they are having knowledge about
performance appraisal system, whereas 40% did not comment and 30% have no knowledge about
the existing of performance appraisal system. The mean in this respect is 3.0. With regard to the
demonstrator, that all the demonstrators did not expressed whether they have the knowledge on the
existing performance appraisal system of their institution or not. 80% Office staffs of the
institutions opined negatively that they are not having any knowledge about the performance
appraisal system of their institution and mean is 1.5 only.
From the above it can be interpreted that the professors and associate professors are having
very good information about the existing of the performance appraisal system. In case of Assistant
Professors and Demonstrators it exhibits that they are having average awareness on the system. But
Official staffs are not aware of the performance appraisal system.
Table No.2 Respondents’ Satisfaction with Current Evaluation System