Staff Appraisal and Development

Edgar Anstey, Clive Fletcher, James Walker

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351866514
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

Organisations of all kinds have invested a great deal of time and effort in staff appraisal and management development, continually re-defining their aims and methods. This book, first published in 1976, reviews the progress made by 17 organisations in both public and private sectors. It presents the findings of an extensive series of research studies that assess the effectiveness of appraisal interviews and identify the factors contributing to their success or failure. Looking beyond appraisal, further measures needed to increase job satisfaction and efficiency are outlined. These include more systematic career development plans for all staff and fresh initiatives to secure their more active participation in the appraisal process. This title will be of interest to those who are concerned in management, and those studying business studies and human resource management.

1

The Need for Appraisal

PRE-EMINENCE OF HUMAN RESOURCES

In nearly all organisations by far the greatest asset is their human resources. These exceed in value and in importance all the land, buildings, equipment, vehicles and other physical assets. The usefulness of new school buildings, for example, is wholly dependent on the availability of teachers to teach cheerfully and efficiently in them. The value of much equipment, such as new mining machinery or police two-way radio sets, lies not in themselves but in the contribution that they make to enhancing the output or the efficiency of the human beings involved. No new technology is of the slightest practical use if the people concerned are not able to grasp it and willing to operate it efficiently. Yet, whereas material assets appear in the traditional balance sheet, the human assets, the people, do not.

Only in recent years has a start been made on human asset accounting – see the articles in Accountancy by Giles and Robinson (1972) and by Robinson (1975). Applying this system to the balance sheet, alongside estimates of the value of the material capital are estimates of the human capital. These can be calculated in various ways, two of which are:

(1)  The investment by the organisation in the individual in terms of the cost of training him, giving him relevant experience and developing his skills.

(2)  The cost that would be incurred by the organisation if he had to be replaced.

The omission of human assets from the balance sheet has no doubt been mainly because the workers are not ‘owned’ by the organisation in the same way that the material assets are owned, and they might tend to resent any implication that they are. In a more profound sense, however, there is increasing recognition of identity between the organisation and the people in it. The old saying that the Church is not an institution but a community of people is becoming increasingly applicable elsewhere, not only in a moral but also in a contractual sense. By virtue of recent industrial legislation it is illegal for any employee to be dismissed without good reason, and if he becomes redundant because of a decrease in demand, he is entitled to compensation in the form of severance pay depending on his age and length of service. There are now several precedents for workers threatened by the insolvency of an organisation taking over control themselves, and this outcome is beginning to seem respectable rather than revolutionary.

Another reason for non-inclusion of human assets has no doubt been the difficulty of attaching a figure to the value of an individual to the organisation. Physical assets may appreciate or depreciate in value, but the human assets do so to a far greater and less easily predictable and assessable extent.

The importance of the human factor has, of course, been recognised by many people in the past, not only by religious leaders such as St Paul – ‘If I have faith so as to move mountains’ – but also by such materialistic people as Napoleon, who reckoned ‘Morale to be three times as important as Material’. What has been lacking has been systematic appraisal of the human resources and determination to give priority to developing staff by making the best possible use of them as the most important factor in meeting the organisation’s aims and objectives.

NEED FOR A DYNAMIC APPRAISAL SYSTEM

There has long been recognition of the need for comprehensive information about the efficiency of staff, but gathering this information has traditionally been regarded as a downward process. Supervisors or managers have supplied their opinions, written or oral, in the form of a series of snapshots of the man’s performance as it has struck them at different times. Until recent years there has been little attempt to involve the man himself in the process of appraisal. Great emphasis has been placed on efficient selection and training, both formal courses and on the job. Much attention has been given to various measures towards improved personnel management, including elaborate report forms and appraisal interviews. But these measures have been concerned mainly with doing things for the man, intended (in a humane company) for his benefit as well as that of the organisation, and assuming his passive approval, but without necessarily requiring his active involvement.

More than good personnel management is needed, however, in order for staff to give of their best. In an article on this theme published in Management Services in Government in May 1974 under the title ‘People Matter – People Differ’, Dr Anstey pointed out that one of the most powerful methods of motivating people is to encourage them to participate in determining their objectives, and in the management and control of their own affairs. Effective participation is most likely to be achieved by pursuing the following objectives:

(1)  That people are aware of the aims of the organisation and how their own jobs are contributing to organisational objectives.

(2)  That people know what is expected of them in their jobs, and have as much say as possible in how they carry out their work.

(3)  That people are involved in decisions which they perceive as affecting them.

(4)  That there is a good match between people’s skills and abilities and the jobs they have to do, and careers available to them. This has implications for job content as well as recruitment and allocation.

(5)  That jobs are defined in terms of what was to be achieved rather than the process by which this is done and that recognition is on the basis of this.

Some ways in which a person can participate in the appraisal process are as follows: First, the man should be involved in determining what the job is, i.e. defining the main objectives, the relative importance or priority of different tasks (which may change from time to time), and how they should be carried out. He must be clear about the lines of command, where he himself can turn for guidance or help, and the extent of his responsibility for his own work or that of others. In all this he is entitled to have his say, to put forward suggestions which he thinks would increase his efficiency or his satisfaction, and to have them considered seriously. Until the job has been properly defined, any assessment of his performance in it might not be a fair one.

Agreement having been reached in the main duties performed in the job, the raw data for appraisal should be comments by the man’s supervisor on the extent to which the required results have been achieved. These should be much more objective than assessment of ‘qualities’. Even so, they need to be balanced by comments both from above and from the man himself. An appraisal that takes into account the man’s own views on what he has done and how he has done it will be that much more accurate than one which does not.

The raw data then need to be interpreted according to the circumstances and the man’s attitude to his work. If he did something particularly well, was this to some extent a stroke of luck, or does it show a talent that he could be expected to develop and exploit, given the opportunity? If he made a particular mistake, has he recognised how he went wrong, and to what extent would he be likely to avoid repeating such mistakes in future? It would be possible for many members of staff to have achieved much the same profile of results and yet, because people differ so much, the appraisal of each person’s prospects for development might be radically different.

Then one can look for reasons why a task has been performed well or badly, but the main purpose of this is not so much to refine the assessment as to explore how performance can be improved. A person is most likely to improve if he is helped to arrive at a realistic self-appraisal, and if he himself contributes to plans for improving his performance.

Most people look for changes in their work from time to time, preferably following some kind of progressive plan. This should not be too vague, so that extraneous circumstances continually interfere with it, nor too cut and dried. The plan must be adaptable to changes in the circumstances of the organisation, such as expansion in one field and contraction in another, and adaptable also to changes in the attitudes interests and aspirations of the man himself.

How a person will develop is not a fact that can be predicted with certainty, regardless of the circumstances. It will depend on the interaction between the man and the organisation, on the skill and consideration with which he is treated, and on how he responds to his treatment. Some people may fail to live up to early promise; others will surpass initial expectations. On the whole, the more care that is taken with individual career development, the greater each individual’s chances of developing his full potential.

Thus, compared with the procedure which relies on combined assessments of a person by various superiors, a dynamic system of appraisal which involves the man himself and reflects changes in his outlook has many advantages. It is likely to be more accurate in assessment of past performance, to be more acceptable as a basis for forward planning, and to provide in most cases a more helpful prognosis, since it takes more account of the individual’s capacity for growth.

2

The Use of Report Forms in Appraisal

OBTAINING RELIABLE ASSESSMENTS

Some definition of terms is necessary. Throughout this book we shall use the term ‘appraisal’ in what is now its generally accepted sense of an assessment procedure which includes a personal interview with the person being appraised. The term ‘assessment’ will cover any written means of acquiring and recording information about him. The term ‘Reporting Officer’ will be used for the person responsible for making the first, usually the main, assessment of a person’s performance. Normally this is his immediate supervisor. The term ‘Countersigning Officer’ will be used for the person responsible for checking and supplementing the Reporting Officer’s report. Normally this is the Reporting Officer’s own supervisor.

Appraisal must be founded on systematic information about each individual’s performance. This information must be reliable in order to command confidence, but it must also be related to practical uses, so need not be unnecessarily detailed or elaborate. It helps to distinguish clearly between factual information about the past, and more speculative assessments of how the person would fare in other kinds of job, or about his potential for future development.

Assessment of past performance should be related mainly to what the person has actually been doing, his main tasks and objectives. It should be related to the whole period under review (normally the previous year), not just recent events. And it should be founded on first-hand observation of performance in the job by the person best able to make this assessment, normally the immediate supervisor, who is the Reporting Officer.

Personal prejudice, especially from the person’s supervisor, can never be eliminated altogether, but it can be checked and controlled by consulting a second supervisor, if there is one familiar with the person’s work, or his manager, who usually is the Countersigning Officer. By one means or another, depending on the nature of the organisation’s assessment scheme, a further check may be made by consulting the individual himself.

REQUIREMENTS OF A REPORTING SYSTEM

Is a formal staff reporting system necessary at all? In a small organisation with less than fifty staff probably not, since the staff may be known personally by one man, the Managing Director (or simply ‘the boss’) who is responsible for making the best use of them. Even so, he might find it helpful to assist his memory by keeping written notes on the staff and consulting them from time to time. But in a large concern employing fifty or more staff, some kind of a formal reporting system is needed in order to achieve systematic assessments of which full account can be taken when people’s future careers are being considered. The report form must, however, command confidence and be easy to use. This implies that:

(1) It ties up closely with normal supervision rather than seeming an extraneous task.

(2) It should be quick to complete.

(3) It should be manifestly relevant to practical decisions. Such decisions include quality control, i.e. maintaining an even spread of age, experience and overall gradings for performance as between different branches; postings and promotion; training and development needs. Any information that, however interesting, is not relevant to any practical needs, should be ruthlessly cut out of the form.

(4) There should be a link between the form and the central staff information system which is understood by all concerned (even though the report forms themselves are confidential documents). The linkage should be such that report forms can readily be used, and therefore are likely to be used when practical decisions are being taken about people’s futures.

DESIGN OF REPORT FORMS

The design of report forms has followed cyclical fashions. In the early 1950s the free pen-picture was favoured by some organisations, the better ones providing a vivid description of the individual officer; but these pen-pictures tended to be highly subjective, telling one as much about the writer as about the subject of the report. An example is the form reproduced as Appendix 1, formerly used by Unilever for reporting on managers and specialists, which calls for a full pen-picture with only general guidance on the points to be covered. This was discussed by Anstey (1961), who commented that a really good pen-picture paints a more vivid picture of the individual than any rating scale can do, since the Reporting Officer is free to concentrate on the qualities most characteristic of the particular individual and relevant to the particular job. But it is difficult to compare different pen-pictures with each other, and an indifferent pen-picture is likely to overlook some important aspects of the individual, and to that extent at least will be misleading. On the whole, however, the pendulum was swinging towards increasingly structured report forms requiring separate ratings on a five- or six-point scale under a large number of different headings aimed at covering all important personality characteristics. For example, the Atomic Energy Authority staff report form also discussed by Anstey (1961) asked for ratings on a five-point scale under thirteen headings. Three were grouped under ‘Characte...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Foreword by Bernard Ungerson, C.B.E.
• Authors’ Preface
• Foreword by Bernard Ungerson, C.B.E.
• Authors’ Preface
• 1 The Need for Appraisal
• 2 The Use of Report Forms in Appraisal
• 3 Survey of Staff Appraisal Schemes
• 4 The Problems of Appraisal
• 5 Conditions for Successful Introduction of an Appraisal Scheme
• 6 The Approach to Staff Appraisal and Development in the British Civil Service
• 7 The Appraisal Interview or Job Appraisal Review
• 8 Training in Appraisal Interviewing
• 9 Evaluating Appraisal Interviews: Aims and Methods
• 10 Results of the Evaluation Studies
• 11 Significant Factors in the Success of Appraisal Interviews
• 12 Lessons from the Evaluation Studies
• 13 Beyond Appraisal: Career Development page
• 14 Towards the Future
• 15 Conclusions and Implications
• Appendices
• Glossary
• References
• Index