A performance appraisal (PA), also referred to as a performance review, performance evaluation, (career) development discussion, or employee appraisal is a method by which the job performance of an employee is documented and evaluated. Performance appraisals are a part of career development and consist of regular reviews of employee performance within organizations.
- 1 Main features
- 2 Applications of results
- 3 Who conducts them
- 4 When they are conducted
- 5 Methods of collecting data
- 6 Organizational citizenship behavior
- 7 Interviews
- 8 Employee reactions
- 9 Legal implications
- 10 Cross-cultural implications
- 11 Developments in information technology
- 12 Rater errors
- 13 See also
- 14 References
A performance appraisal is a systematic and periodic process that assesses an individual employee’s job performance and productivity in relation to certain pre-established criteria and organizational objectives. Other aspects of individual employees are considered as well, such as organizational citizenship behavior, accomplishments, potential for future improvement, strengths and weaknesses, etc.
To collect PA data, there are three main methods: objective production, personnel, and judgmental evaluation. Judgmental evaluations are the most commonly used with a large variety of evaluation methods. Historically, PA has been conducted annually (long-cycle appraisals); however, many companies are moving towards shorter cycles (every six months, every quarter), and some have been moving into short-cycle (weekly, bi-weekly) PA . The interview could function as “providing feedback to employees, counseling and developing employees, and conveying and discussing compensation, job status, or disciplinary decisions”. PA is often included in performance management systems. PA helps the subordinate answer two key questions: first, "What are your expectations of me?" second, "How am I doing to meet your expectations?" 
Performance management systems are employed “to manage and align" all of an organization's resources in order to achieve highest possible performance. “How performance is managed in an organization determines to a large extent the success or failure of the organization. Therefore, improving PA for everyone should be among the highest priorities of contemporary” organizations.
Some applications of PA are compensation, performance improvement, promotions, termination, test validation, and more. While there are many potential benefits of PA, there are also some potential drawbacks. For example, PA can help facilitate management-employee communication; however, PA may result in legal issues if not executed appropriately, as many employees tend to be unsatisfied with the PA process. PAs created in and determined as useful in the United States are not necessarily able to be transferable cross-culturally.
Applications of results
A central reason for the utilization of performance appraisals (PAs) is performance improvement (“initially at the level of the individual employee, and ultimately at the level of the organization”). Other fundamental reasons include “as a basis for employment decisions (e.g. promotions, terminations, transfers), as criteria in research (e.g. test validation), to aid with communication (e.g. allowing employees to know how they are doing and organizational expectations), to establish personal objectives for training” programs, for transmission of objective feedback for personal development, “as a means of documentation to aid in keeping track of decisions and legal requirements” and in wage and salary administration. Additionally, PAs can aid in the formulation of job criteria and selection of individuals “who are best suited to perform the required organizational tasks”. A PA can be part of guiding and monitoring employee career development. PAs can also be used to aid in work motivation through the use of reward systems.
There are a number of potential benefits of organizational performance management conducting formal performance appraisals (PAs). There has been a general consensus in the belief that PAs lead to positive implications of organizations. Furthermore, PAs can benefit an organization’s effectiveness. One way is PAs can often lead to giving individual workers feedback about their job performance. From this may spawn several potential benefits such as the individual workers becoming more productive.
Other potential benefits include:
- Facilitation of communication: communication in organizations is considered an essential function of worker motivation. It has been proposed that feedback from PAs aid in minimizing employees’ perceptions of uncertainty. Fundamentally, feedback and management-employee communication can serve as a guide in job performance.
- Enhancement of employee focus through promoting trust: behaviors, thoughts, and/or issues may distract employees from their work, and trust issues may be among these distracting factors. Such factors that consume psychological energy can lower job performance and cause workers to lose sight of organizational goals. Properly constructed and utilized PAs have the ability to lower distracting factors and encourage trust within the organization.
- Goal setting and desired performance reinforcement: organizations find it efficient to match individual worker’s goals and performance with organizational goals. PAs provide room for discussion in the collaboration of these individual and organizational goals. Collaboration can also be advantageous by resulting in employee acceptance and satisfaction of appraisal results.
- Performance improvement: well constructed PAs can be valuable tools for communication with employees as pertaining to how their job performance stands with organizational expectations. “At the organizational level, numerous studies have reported positive relationships between human resource management (HRM) practices" and performance improvement at both the individual and organizational levels.
- Determination of training needs: “Employee training and development are crucial components in helping an organization achieve strategic initiatives”. It has been argued that for PAs to truly be effective, post-appraisal opportunities for training and development in problem areas, as determined by the appraisal, must be offered. PAs can especially be instrumental for identifying training needs of new employees. Finally, PAs can help in the establishment and supervision of employees’ career goals.
Despite all the potential advantages of formal performance appraisals (PAs), there are also potential drawbacks. It has been noted that determining the relationship between individual job performance and organizational performance can be a difficult task. Generally, there are two overarching problems from which several complications spawn. One of the problems with formal PAs is there can be detrimental effects to the organization(s) involved if the appraisals are not used appropriately. The second problem with formal PAs is they can be ineffective if the PA system does not correspond with the organizational culture and system.
Complications stemming from these issues are:
- Detrimental to quality improvement: it has been proposed that the use of PA systems in organizations adversely affect organizations’ pursuits of quality performance. It is believed by some scholars and practitioners that the use of PAs is more than unnecessary if there is total quality management.
- Subjective evaluations: Traditional performance appraisals are often based upon a manager's or supervisor's perceptions of an employee's performance and employees are evaluated subjectively rather than objectively. Therefore the review may be influenced by many non-performance factors such as employee 'likeability', personal prejudices, ease of management, and/or previous mistakes or successes. Reviews should instead be based on data-supported, measurable behaviors and results within the performers control.
- Negative perceptions: “Quite often, individuals have negative perceptions of PAs”. Receiving and/or the anticipation of receiving a PA can be uncomfortable and distressful and potentially cause “tension between supervisors and subordinates”. If the person being appraised does not trust their employer, appraiser or believe that they will benefit from the process it may become a "tick box" exercise.
- Errors: Performance appraisals should provide accurate and relevant ratings of an employee’s performance as compared to pre-established criteria/goals (i.e. organizational expectations). Nevertheless, supervisors will sometimes rate employees more favorably than that of their true performance in order to please the employees and avoid conflict. “Inflated ratings are a common malady associated with formal" PA.
- Legal issues: when PAs are not carried out appropriately, legal issues could result that place the organization at risk. PAs are used in organizational disciplinary programs as well as for promotional decisions within the organization. The improper application and utilization of PAs can affect employees negatively and lead to legal action against the organization.
- Performance goals: performance goals and PA systems are often used in association. Negative outcomes concerning the organizations can result when goals are overly challenging or overemphasized to the extent of affecting ethics, legal requirements, or quality. Moreover, challenging performance goals can impede an employees’ abilities to acquire necessary knowledge and skills. Especially in the early stages of training, it would be more beneficial to instruct employees on outcome goals than on performance goals.
- Derail merit pay or performance-based pay: some researchers contend that the deficit in merit pay and performance-based pay is linked to the fundamental issues stemming from PA systems.
Although performance appraisals can be so easily biased, there are certain steps that can be taken to improve the evaluations and reduce the margin of errors through the following:
- Training - Creating an awareness and acceptance in the people conducting the appraisals that within a group of workers, they will find a wide range in difference of skills and abilities.
- Providing Feedback to Raters - Trained raters provide managers who evaluated their subordinates with feedback, including information on ratings from other managers. This reduces leniency errors.
- Subordinate Participation - By allowing employee participation in the evaluation process, there is employee-supervisor reciprocity in the discussion for any discrepancies between self ratings and supervisor ratings, thus, increasing job satisfaction and motivation.
Not everyone is in favor of formal performance appraisal systems. Many employees, especially those most affected by such ratings are not very enthusiastic about them. There are many critics of these appraisals including labor unions and managers.
Labor unions represent 11% (7% in the private sector) of the work force in the United States. In some cases they may require that seniority be taken as one of the main criteria for promotion. However, length of job experience may not always be a reliable indication of the ability to perform a higher level job. That is why some employers give senior people the first opportunity for promotion, but the employer may seek to further qualify the employee for that promotion because of their abilities (not solely because of length of service). Performance appraisals may provide a basis for assessment of employee merit as a component of these decisions.
Managers who have had unsatisfactory experiences with inadequate or poorly designed appraisal programs may be skeptical about their usefulness.
- Some managers may not like to play the role of a judge and be responsible for the future of their subordinates.
- They may be uncomfortable about providing negative feedback to the employees.
- This tendency can lead them to inflate their assessments of the workers’ job performance, giving higher ratings than deserved.
Who conducts them
Human resource management (HRM) conducts performance management. Performance management systems consist of the activities and/or processes embraced by an organization in anticipation of improving employee performance, and therefore, organizational performance. Consequently, performance management is conducted at the organizational level and the individual level. At the organizational level, performance management oversees organizational performance and compares present performance with organizational performance goals. The achievement of these organizational performance goals depends on the performance of the individual organizational members. Therefore, measuring individual employee performance can prove to be a valuable performance management process for the purposes of HRM and for the organization. Many researchers would argue that “performance appraisal is one of the most important processes in Human Resource Management”.
The performance management process begins with leadership within the organization creating a performance management policy. Primarily, management governs performance by influencing employee performance input (e.g. training programs) and by providing feedback via output (i.e. performance assessment and appraisal). “The ultimate objective of a performance management process is to align individual performance with organizational performance”. A very common and central process of performance management systems is performance appraisal (PA). The PA process should be able to inform employees about the “organization's goals, priorities, and expectations and how well they are contributing to them”.
When they are conducted
Performance appraisals (PAs) are conducted at least annually, and annual employee performance reviews appear to be the standard in most American organizations. However, “it has been acknowledged that appraisals conducted more frequently (more than once a year) may have positive implications for both the organization and employee.” It is suggested that regular performance feedback provided to employees may quell any unexpected and/or surprising feedback to year-end discussions. In a recent research study concerning the timeliness of PAs, “one of the respondents even suggested that the performance review should be done formally and more frequently, perhaps once a month, and recorded twice a year.”
Other researchers propose that the purpose of PAs and the frequency of their feedback are contingent upon the nature of the job and characteristics of the employee. For example, employees of routine jobs where performance maintenance is the goal would benefit sufficiently from annual PA feedback. On the other hand, employees of more discretionary and non-routine jobs, where goal-setting is appropriate and there is room for development, would benefit from more frequent PA feedback. Non formal performance appraisals may be done more often, to prevent the element of surprise from the formal appraisal.
Methods of collecting data
There are three main methods used to collect performance appraisal (PA) data: objective production, personnel, and judgmental evaluation. Judgmental evaluations are the most commonly used with a large variety of evaluation methods.
The objective production method consists of direct, but limited, measures such as sales figures, production numbers, the electronic performance monitoring of data entry workers, etc. The measures used to appraise performance would depend on the job and its duties. Although these measures deal with unambiguous criteria, they are usually incomplete because of criterion contamination and criterion deficiency. Criterion contamination refers to the part of the actual criteria that is unrelated to the conceptual criteria. In other words, the variability in performance can be due to factors outside of the employee’s control. Criterion deficiency refers to the part of the conceptual criteria that is not measured by the actual criteria. In other words, the quantity of production does not necessarily indicate the quality of the products. Both types of criterion inadequacies result in reduced validity of the measure. Regardless of the fact that objective production data is not a complete reflection upon job performance, such data is relevant to job performance.
Happy-productive worker hypothesis
The happy-productive worker hypothesis states that the happiest workers are the most productive performers, and the most productive performers are the happiest workers. Yet, after decades of research, the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance produces only a weak positive correlation. Published in 2001 by Psychological Bulletin, a meta-analysis of 312 research studies produced an uncorrected correlation of 0.18. This correlation is much weaker than what the happy-productive worker hypothesis would predict.
The personnel method is the recording of withdrawal behaviors (i.e. absenteeism, accidents). Most organizations consider unexcused absences to be indicators of poor job performance, even with all other factors being equal; however, this is subject to criterion deficiency. The quantity of an employee’s absences does not reflect how dedicated he/she may be to the job and its duties. Especially for blue-collar jobs, accidents can often be a useful indicator of poor job performance, but this is also subject to criterion contamination because situational factors also contribute to accidents. Once again, both types of criterion inadequacies result in reduced validity of the measure. Although excessive absenteeism and/or accidents often indicate poor job performance rather than good performance, such personnel data is not a comprehensive reflection of an employee’s performance.
Judgmental evaluation appears to be a collection of methods, and as such, could be considered a methodology. A common approach to obtaining PAs is by means of raters. Because the raters are human, some error will always be present in the data. The most common types of error are leniency errors, central tendency errors, and errors resulting from the halo effect. Halo effect is characterized by the tendency to rate a person who is exceptionally strong in one area higher than deserved in other areas. It is the opposite of the Horns effect, where a person is rated as lower than deserved in other areas due to an extreme deficiency in a single discipline. These errors arise predominantly from social cognition and the theory in that how we judge and evaluate other individuals in various contexts is associated with how we “acquire, process, and categorize information”.
An essential piece of this method is rater training. Rater training is the “process of educating raters to make more accurate assessments of performance, typically achieved by reducing the frequency of halo, leniency, and central-tendency errors”. Rater training also helps the raters “develop a common frame of reference for evaluation” of individual performance. Many researchers and survey respondents support the ambition of effectual rater training. However, it is noted that such training is expensive, time consuming, and only truly functional for behavioral assessments.
Another piece to keep in mind is the effects of rater motivation on judgmental evaluations. It is not uncommon for rating inflation to occur due to rater motivation (i.e. “organizationally induced pressures that compel raters to evaluate ratees positively”). Typically, raters are motivated to give higher ratings because of the lack of organizational sanction concerning accurate/inaccurate appraisals, the rater's desire to guarantee promotions, salary increases, etc., the rater's inclination to avoid negative reactions from subordinates, and the observation that higher ratings of the ratees reflect favorably upon the rater.
The main methods used in judgmental performance appraisal are:
- Graphic Rating Scale: graphic rating scales (see scale (social sciences)) are the most commonly used system in PA. On several different factors, subordinates are judged on 'how much' of that factor or trait they possess. Typically, the raters use a 5- or 7-point scale; however, there are as many as 20-point scales.
- Employee-Comparison Methods: rather than subordinates being judged against pre-established criteria, they are compared with one another. This method eliminates central tendency and leniency errors but still allows for halo effect errors to occur. The rank-order method has raters ranking subordinates from “best” to “worst”, but how truly good or bad one is on a performance dimension would be unknown. The paired-comparison method requires the rater to select the two "best" subordinates out of a group on each dimension then rank individuals according to the number of times each subordinate was selected as one of the "best". The forced-distribution method is good for large groups of ratees. The raters evaluate each subordinate on one or more dimensions and then place (or ”force-fit”, if you will) each subordinate in a 5 to 7 category normal distribution. The method of top-grading can be applied to the forced distribution method. This method identifies the 10% lowest performing subordinates, as according to the forced distribution, and dismisses them leaving the 90% higher performing subordinates.
- Behavioral Checklists and Scales: behaviors are more definite than traits. The critical incidents method (or critical incident technique) concerns “specific behaviors indicative of good or bad job performance”. Supervisors record behaviors of what they judge to be job performance relevant, and they keep a running tally of good and bad behaviors. A discussion on performance may then follow. The behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) combine the critical incidents method with rating scale methods by rating performance on a scale but with the scale points being anchored by behavioral incidents. Note that BARS are job specific. In the behavioral observation scale (BOS) approach to performance appraisal, employees are also evaluated in the terms of critical incidents. In that respect, it is similar to BARS. However, the BOS appraisal rate subordinates on the frequency of the critical incidents as they are observed to occur over a given period. The ratings are assigned on a five-point scale. The behavioral incidents for the rating scale are developed in the same way as for BARS through identification by supervisors or other subject matter experts. Similarly, BOS techniques meet equal employment opportunity because they are related to actual behavior required for successful job performance.
Peer and self assessments
While assessment can be performed along reporting relationships (usually top-down), net assessment can include peer and self-assessment. Peer assessment is when assessment is performed by colleagues along both horizontal (similar function) and vertical (different function) relationship. Self-assessments are when individuals evaluate themselves. There are three common methods of peer assessments. Peer nomination involves each group member nominating who he/she believes to be the “best” on a certain dimension of performance. Peer ratings has each group member rate each other on a set of performance dimensions. Peer ranking requires each group member rank all fellow members from “best” to “worst” on one or more dimensions of performance.
- Self-assessments: for self-assessments, individuals assess and evaluate their own behavior and job performance.
- Peer assessments: members of a group evaluate and appraise the performance of their fellow group members. There it is common for a graphic rating scale to be used for self-assessments. Positive leniency tends to be a problem with self-assessments. Peer assessments from multiple members of a group are often called crowd-based performance reviews, and solve many problems with peer assessments from only one member.
- 360-degree feedback: 360-degree feedback is multiple evaluations of employees which often include assessments from superior(s), peers, and one’s self.
- Negotiated performance appraisal: The negotiated performance appraisal (NPA) is an emerging approach for improving communication between supervisors and subordinates and for increasing employee productivity, and may also be adapted to an alternate mediation model for supervisor-subordinate conflicts. A facilitator meets separately with the supervisor and with the subordinate to prepare three lists. What employees do well, where the employee has improved in recently, and areas where the employee still needs to improve. Because the subordinate will present his or her lists first during the joint session, this reduces defensive behaviors. Furthermore, the subordinate comes to the joint session not only prepared to share areas of needed improvement, but also brings concrete ideas as to how these improvements can be made. The NPA also focuses very strongly on what employees are doing well, and involves a minimum of twenty minutes of praise when discussing what the employee does well. The role of the facilitator is that of a coach in the pre-caucuses, and in the joint sessions the supervisor and subordinate mostly speak to each other with little facilitator interference.
In general, optimal PA process involves a combination of multiple assessment modalities. One common recommendation is that assessment flows from self-assessment, to peer-assessment, to management assessment - in that order. Starting with self-assessment facilitates avoidance of conflict. Peer feedback ensures peer accountability, which may yield better results than accountability to management. Management assessment comes last for need of recognition by authority and avoidance of conflict in case of disagreements. It is generally recommended that PA is done in shorter cycles to avoid high-stakes discussions, as is usually the case in long-cycle appraisals.
Normalization of performance appraisal
Normalization is the process of review of the ratings each group as a whole to ensure the ratings are as per the recommended norms and the percentages are generally decided by management.
Organizational citizenship behavior
Also referred to as contextual behavior, prosocial behavior, and extra-role behavior, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) consists of employee behavior that contributes to the welfare of the organization but is beyond the scope of the employee’s job duties. These extra-role behaviors may help or hinder the attainment of organizational goals. Research supports five dimensions of OCB: altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. Researchers have found that the OCB dimensions of altruism and civic virtue can have just as much of an impact on manager’s subjective evaluations of employees’ performances as employees’ objective productivity levels. The degree to which OCB can influence judgments of job performance is relatively high. Controversy exists as to whether OCB should be formally considered as a part of performance appraisal (PA).
The performance appraisal (PA) interview is typically the final step of the appraisal process. The interview is held between the subordinate and supervisor. The PA interview can be considered of great significance to an organization’s PA system. It is most advantageous when both the superior and subordinate participate in the interview discussion and establish goals together. Three factors consistently contribute to effective PA interviews: the supervisor’s knowledge of the subordinate’s job and performance in it, the supervisor’s support of the subordinate, and a welcoming of the subordinate’s participation.
Numerous researchers have reported that many employees are not satisfied with their performance appraisal (PA) systems. Studies have shown that subjectivity as well as appraiser bias is often a problem perceived by as many as half of employees. Appraiser bias, however, appears to be perceived as more of a problem in government and public sector organizations. Also, according to some studies, employees wished to see changes in the PA system by making “the system more objective, improving the feedback process, and increasing the frequency of review.” In light of traditional PA operation defects, “organizations are now increasingly incorporating practices that may improve the system. These changes are particularly concerned with areas such as elimination of subjectivity and bias, training of appraisers, improvement of the feedback process and the performance review discussion.”
According to a meta-analysis of 27 field studies, general employee participation in his/her own appraisal process was positively correlated with employee reactions to the PA system. More specifically, employee participation in the appraisal process was most strongly related to employee satisfaction with the PA system. Concerning the reliability of employee reaction measures, researchers have found employee reaction scales to be sound with few concerns through using a confirmatory factor analysis that is representative of employee reaction scales.
Researchers suggest that the study of employees’ reactions to PA is important because of two main reasons: employee reactions symbolizes a criterion of interest to practitioners of PAs and employee reactions have been associated through theory to determinants of appraisal acceptance and success. Researchers translate these reasons into the context of the scientist-practitioner gap or the “lack of alignment between research and practice.”
 Schultz & Schultz notes that opposition to performance appraisals generally don't receive positive ratings from anyone involved. "So employees that will be directly affected by the Performance Appraisals are less than enthusiastic about participating in them".  When an employee knows that their work performance has been less than perfect it’s nerve racking to be evaluated. Most workers just don’t appreciate constructive criticism or any criticism. Employees tend to be hostile knowing they could be given bad news on their performance. Schultz, Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen (2009). Psychology and work today (10th ed., International ed. ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education. pp. 108–109. ISBN 9780205705870. More than one of |author= and |last= specified Schultz, Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen (2009). Psychology and work today (10th ed., International ed. ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education. p. 109. ISBN 9780205705870. More than one of |author= and |last= specified
There are federal laws addressing fair employment practices, and this also concerns performance appraisal (PA). Discrimination can occur within predictions of performance and evaluations of job behaviors. The revision of many court cases has revealed the involvement of alleged discrimination which was often linked to the assessment of the employee’s job performance. Some of the laws which protect individuals against discrimination are “the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).” Lawsuits may also results from charges of an employer’s negligence, defamation, and/or misrepresentation. A few appraisal criteria to keep in mind for a legally sound PA is to keep the content of the appraisal objective, job-related, behavior-based, within the control of the ratee, and related to specific functions rather than a global assessment. Some appraisal procedure suggestions for a legally sound PA is to standardize operations, communicate formally with employees, provide information of performance deficits and give opportunities to employees to correct those deficits, give employees access to appraisal results, provide written instructions for the training of raters, and use multiple, diverse and unbiased raters. These are valuable but not exhaustive lists of recommendations for PAs. The Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines apply to any selection procedure that is used for making employment decisions, not only for hiring, but also for promotion, demotion, transfer, layoff, discharge, or early retirement. Therefore, employment appraisal procedures must be validated like tests or any other selection device. Employers who base their personnel decisions on the results of a well-designed performance review program that includes formal appraisal interviews are much more likely to be successful in defending themselves against claims of discrimination.
Performance appraisal (PA) systems, and the premises of which they were based, that have been formed and regarded as effective in the United States may not have the transferability for effectual utilization in other countries or cultures, and vice versa. Performance “appraisal is thought to be deeply rooted in the norms, values, and beliefs of a society”. “Appraisal reflects attitudes towards motivation and performance (self) and relationships (e.g. peers, subordinates, supervisors, organization), all of which vary from one country to the next”. Therefore, appraisal should be in conjunction with cultural norms, values, and beliefs in order to be operative. The deep-seated norms, values and beliefs in different cultures affect employee motivation and perception of organizational equity and justice. In effect, a PA system created and considered effectual in one country may not be an appropriate assessment in another cultural region.
For example, some countries and cultures value the trait of assertiveness and personal accomplishment while others instead place more merit on cooperation and interpersonal connection. Countries scoring high on assertiveness consider PA to be a way of assuring equity among employees so that higher performing employees receive greater rewards or higher salaries. Countries scoring low on assertiveness but higher in interpersonal relations may not like the social separation and pay inequity of higher/lower performing employees; employees from this more cooperative rather than individualistic culture place more concern on interpersonal relationships with other employees rather than on individual interests. High assertive countries value performance feedback for self-management and effectiveness purposes while countries low in assertiveness view performance feedback as “threatening and obtrusive”. In this case, the PA of the high assertive countries would likely not be beneficial for countries scoring lower in assertiveness to employ. However, countries scoring lower in assertiveness could employ PA for purposes of improving long-term communication development within the organization such as clarifying job objectives, guide training and development plans, and lessen the gap between job performance and organizational expectations.
Developments in information technology
Computers have been playing an increasing role in PA for some time (Sulsky & Keown, 1998). There are two main aspects to this. The first is in relation to the electronic monitoring of performance, which affords the ability to record a huge amount of data on multiple dimensions of work performance (Stanton, 2000). Not only does it facilitate a more continuous and detailed collection of performance data in some jobs, e.g. call centres, but it has the capacity to do so in a non-obvious, covert manner. The second aspect is in mediating the feedback process, by recording and aggregating performance ratings and written observations and making the information available on-line; many software packages are available for this. The use of IT in these ways undoubtedly helps in making the appraisal process more manageable, especially where multiple rating sources are involved, but it also raises many questions about appraisees' reactions and possible effects on PA outcomes. Mostly, the evidence so far is positive.
Mistakes made by raters is a major source of problems in performance appraisal. There is no simple way to completely eliminate these errors, but making raters aware of them through training is helpful. Ratter errors are based on the feelings and it has consequences at the time of appraisal.
Varying standards 
- Problem: When a manager appraises (evaluates) his or her employees and the manager uses different standards and expectations for employees who are performing similar jobs.
- Example: A professor do not grade the exams of all students in the same standards, sometimes it depends on the affection that the professor has towards others. This affection will make professor give students higher or lower grades.
- Solution: The rater must use the same standards and weights for every employee. The manager should be able to show coherent arguments in order to explain the difference. Therefore, it would be easier to know if it is done, because the employee has done a good performance, or if it because the manager perception is distorted.
- Problem: When the manager, according only to the last performance, that has been quite good, rates higher.
- Example: When a professor gives the course grade based just in the performance of the student, only in the last week.
- Solution: In order to avoid that, the manager should use some methods as documenting both in positive and negative aspects.
- Problem: When the person who evaluates gives more weight according to information the manager has received first.
- Example: It could be a silly example. When we are watching a TV quiz and conquest have to remember a list of things, they only remember the first ones. This is apply also in remembering human performance.
- Solution: performance. When manager has to take some decision, is better not to do it according to what he or she remembers. It is better to based on real actions that has happened and are recorded.
- Problem: When the manager evaluate every employees within a narrow range, as the average because he or she is dismissing the differences in the performance that employees have done.
- Example: When a professor because the average of the class tends to grade harder. Therefore, if the performance of the class average is quite high, the professor will evaluate them more high. In the contrary, if the average of the class is lower, he or she would appraise lower.
- Problem: Rating of all employees are at the high end of the scale.
- Example: When the professor tends to grade harder, because the average of the class.
- Problem: When a manager uses only the lower part of the scale to rate employees.
- Example: When the professor tends to grade lower, because the average of the class.
- Solution: try to focus more on the individual performance of every employee regardless the average results.
- Problem: Rater’s when the manager rates according to his or her values and prejudices which at the same time distort (distorsionar) the rating. Those differentiations can be made due to the ethnic group, gender, age, religion, sex, appearance...
- Example: Sometimes happen that a manager treats someone different, because he or she thinks that the employee is homosexual.
- Solution: If then, the examination is done by higher-level managers, this kind of appraising can be corrected, because they are supposed to be more partial.
- Problem: When a manager rates an employee high on all items because of one characteristic that he or she likes.
- Example: If a worker has few absence but the supervisor has a good relationship with that employee, the supervisor might give to the employee a high rating in all other areas of work, in order to balance the rating. Sometimes it happens due to the emotional dependability based on the good relationship they have.
- Solution: Training raters to recognize the problem and differentiating the person with the performance they do.
- Problem: This is the opposite to the Halo effect and Horns effect occurs when a manager rates an employee low on all items because of one characteristic that he or she dislikes.
- Example: If a worker does a good performance and in some resting times he or she loves telling jokes, but his or her supervisor hates jokes, the supervisor might give to the employee a lower rating in all other areas of work, because they do not have that conexion. Sometimes it happens when they do not have a close relationship and manager do not like the person her/him-self.
- Solution: Is the same as in the Halo Effect. Training raters to recognize the problem and differentiating the person with the performance they do.
- Problem: The tendency to rate people relative to other people rather than to the individual performance he or her is doing.
- Example: At school, if you are sat down where all the chatty people are and you are silent but you do not pay attention and you do not do your homework, because you are drawing; when teacher gets angry with the group, you might be excluded of the bad behavior they have just because you are silent; but not because you are doing a good performance. Therefore, according to the group, you are not that chatty, but you are either doing the proper performance. However the rater will only get the idea that your behavior is not as bad as other, thus, you will be rate higher.
- Solution: The rating should reflect the task requirement performance, not according to other people attitude.
Similar-to-Me / Different-from-Me
- Problem: Sometimes, ratters are influenced by some of the characteristics that people show. Depending if those characteristics are similar or different to ratters' one, they would be evaluated differently.
- Example: A manager with higher education degree might give subordinates with higher education degree a higher appraisal than those with only bachelor’s degrees.
- Solution: Try to focus on the performance the employee is doing regardless the common characteristic that you have
- Problem: When the rater evaluates the performance of an employee relying only on a small percentage of the amount of work done.
- Example: An employee has to do 100 reports. Then, the manager take five of them to check how has the work been made, and the manager finds mistakes in those five reports. Therefore the manager will appraised the work of the employee as a "poor" one, without having into account the other 95 reports that the manager has not seen, that have been made correctly.
- Solution: To follow the entire track of the performance, not just a little part of it.
We have been looking one by one the possible solutions to each of the situations, which are also complicated to put into practice, thus here we have a general solution that could be apply to all the possible rating errors. It is difficult to minimized rater errors, since we are humans and we are not objective. Moreover, sometimes, we are not aware of our behavior of having preferences towards people but there are some tools in order to have a more objective information as using available technology to track performances and record it which enables manager to have some objective information about the process.
- Performance rating (work measurement)
- Performance paradox
- Industrial and organizational psychology
- Behavioral risk management
- Employee motivation
- Employment law
- Human resource development
- Human resource management
- Industrial sociology
- Organizational socialization
- Personnel psychology
- Quality of working life
- Systems psychology
- Association of Business Psychologists
- Work motivation
- Job analysis
- Personnel selection
- Employment integrity testing
- Job satisfaction
- Organizational commitment
- Cultural psychology
- Muchinsky, P. M. (2012). Psychology Applied to Work (10th ed.). Summerfield, NC: Hypergraphic Press.
- MIT Human Resources
- Often also called employee performance appraisal, employee performance review, etc.
- Manasa, K. & Reddy, N. (2009). Role of Training in Improving Performance. The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 3, 72-80.
- Abu-Doleh, J. & Weir, D. (2007). Dimensions of performance appraisal systems in Jordanian private and public organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(1), 75-84.
- Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Psychology applied to work (8th ed). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
- Broady-Preston, J. & Steel, L. (2002). Employees, customers, and internal marketing strategies in LIS. Library Management, 23, 384-393.
- Cederblom, D. (1982). The performance appraisal interview: A review, implications, and suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 7(2), 219-227.
- Josh Bersin. "Time to Scrap Performance Appraisals". Retrieved 6 May 2013.
- Richard Charles Grote (2002). The Performance Appraisal Question and Answer Book: Survival Guide for Managers." 28-29.
- Muczyk, J. P. & Gable, M. (1987, May). Managing sales performance through a comprehensive performance appraisal system. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 7, 41-52.
- DeNisi, A. & Pritchard, R. (2006, July). Performance appraisal, performance management, and improving individual performance: A motivational framework. Management and Organization Review, 2(2), 253-277.
- Schraeder, M. Becton, J., & Portis, R. (2007, Spring). A critical examination of performance appraisals. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 20-25.
- Sudarsan, A. (2009). Performance appraisal systems: A survey of organizational views. The Icfai University Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 54-69.
- Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Spinks, N., Wells, B., & Meche, M. (1999). Appraising appraisals: computerized performance appraisal systems. Career Development International, 4(2), 94-100.
- Pettijohn, L., Parker, R., Pettijohn, C., & Kent, J. (2001). Performance appraisals: usage, criteria, and observations. The Journal of Management Development, 20, 754-771.
- Jenks, J. M. (1991). Do your performance appraisals boost productivity? Management Review, 80(6), 45-47.
- Kanfer, R. & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657-690.
- Mayer, C. M. & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874-888.
- Kikoski, J. F. (1999). Effective communication in the performance appraisal interview: Face-to-face communication for public managers in the culturally diverse workplace. Public Personnel Management,28(2), 301-322.
- Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M. Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 615-633.
- Twomey, D. & Harris, D. (2000). From strategy to corporate outcomes: Aligning human resource management systems with entrepreneurial intent. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 10, 43-55.
- Selden, S. C., Ingraham, P. W., & Jacobson, W. (2001). Human resource practices in state government: Findings from a national survey. Public Administration Review, 61(5), 598-607.
- Soltani, E. (2005). Conflict between theory and practice: TQM and performance appraisal. The International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 22, 796-818.
- Daniels, Aubrey C. Designing a Compensation Program That Motivates and Produces a Profit-Driven Workplace. PMeZine.com
- McGivern, G. & Ferlie, E. (2007) ‘Playing Tick Box Games: Interrelating Defences in Professional Appraisal’, Human Relations, 60 (9) 1361-1385.
- Amsterdam, C. E., Johnson, R. L., Monrad, D. M.,& Tonnsen, S. L. (2005). A collaborative approach to the development and validation of a principal evaluation system: A case study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(3), 221-242.
- Martin, D. C. & Bartol, K. M. (1998). Performance appraisal: Maintaining system effectiveness. Public Personnel Management, 27(2), 223-230.
- Schweitzer, M E., Ordonez, L., & Douma, B. (2004) Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 422-432.
- Schultz & Schultz, Duane (2010). Psychology and work today. New York: Prentice Hall. p. 153. ISBN 0-205-68358-4.
- Trade Union Density per OECD. StatExtracts. Retrieved 17 November 2011.
- Union Members Summary per Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 27, 2012. Retrieved 26 February 2012
- Michael Yates, Why Unions Matter. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1998. ISBN 0-85345-929-0
- DeNisi, A. (2000). Performance appraisal and performance management: A multilevel analysis. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowki (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 121-156). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Molleman, E. & Timmerman H. (2003). Performance management when innovation and learning become critical performance indicators. Personnel Review, 32(1).
- Den Hartog, D., Boselie, P., & Paaiwe, J. (2004). Performance management: A model and research agenda. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(4), 556-560.
- Cummings, L. L. & Schwab, D. P. (1978). Designing appraisal systems for information yield. California Management Review, 20, 18-25.
- Katz, Ralph. Motivating Technical Professionals Today. IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 1, March 2013, pp. 28-38
- Staw, B. M. (1986). Organizational psychology and the pursuit of the happy/productive worker. California Management Review, 28(4), 40-53.
- Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407. doi:I0.1037//0033-2909.I27.3.376
- Evaluationforms.org. "Performance Appraisal". Retrieved 17 April 2013.
- Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B., and Cardy, R. L. (1998). Managing human resources (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
- Smart, B. D. (2005). Topgrading: How leading companies win by hiring, coaching, and keeping the best players. New York, New York: Penguin Group.
- Rehn, Karen. "What are Crowd Based Performance Reviews? Why use them?". HHStaffing. Retrieved 21 January 2015.
- Party-Directed Mediation: Facilitating Dialogue Between Individuals (Chapters 12-14, on-line 3rd edition, 2014), by Gregorio Billikopf, University of California.
- Party-Directed Mediation (Chapters 12-14, on-line 3rd edition, 2014), from Internet Archive (3rd Edition, multiple file formats including PDF, EPUB, Kindle, and others)
- LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52-65.
- MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991, October). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluation of salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 123-150.
- Keeping, L. M. & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions: Measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 708-723.
- Malos, S. B. (1998). Current legal issues in performance appraisal. In J. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State-of-the-art methods for performance management, (49-94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Schultz & Schultz, Duane (2010). Psychology and work today. New York: Prentice Hall. p. 129. ISBN 0-205-68358-4.
- Seddon, J. (1987). Assumptions, cultures and performance appraisal. Journal of Management Development, 6, 47-54.
- Chiang, F. & Birtch, T. (2010, November). Appraising performance across borders: An empirical examination of the purposes and practices of performance appraisal in a multi-country context. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7), 1365-1393. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00937.x
- Sparrow, P., Schuler, R., & Jackson, S. (1994). Convergence or divergence: Human resource practices and policies for competitive advantage worldwide. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5, 267-299.
- Sully de Luque, M. & Sommer, S. (2000). The impact of culture on feedback-seeking behavior: An integrated model and propositions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 829-849.
- Cardy, R. & Dobbins, G. (1994). Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
- Fletcher, Clive. Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology74 (Nov 2001):p.482.
- Patricia. Performance appraisal rater errors. Retrieved 24th April, 2014, from http://smartchurchmanagement.com/performance-appraisal-rater-errors/
- Robert L.Mathis & John H. Jackson. (2010). In Michele Rhoades, Susanna C. Smart, Ruth Belanger & Rod Ellington (Ed.), Human resources management
- Management Study Guide. Performance appraisal biases. Retrieved 24th April, 2014, from http://managementstudyguide.com/performance-appraisal-bias.htm
- The Office of Human Resources at Dartmouth College. (15th April 2010). Common rater errors. Retrieved 24th April, 2014, from http://www.dartmouth.edu/~hrs/profldev/performance_management/rater_errors.html