Talk:Performance appraisal: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Suggest NOT merging with Performance Measurement |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Mark Shaw |
Mark Shaw |
||
[[Special:Contributions/60.241.34.189|60.241.34.189]] ([[User talk:60.241.34.189|talk]]) 10:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
[[Special:Contributions/60.241.34.189|60.241.34.189]] ([[User talk:60.241.34.189|talk]]) 10:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
===Regarding merging with the article "Performance measurement"=== |
|||
I suggest that Performance Appraisal should be kept separate to the Performance Measurement article as Performance Appraisal is a recognised Human Resource tool and procedure. Many books have been written on the subject and it is part of the curriculum of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). |
|||
I feel that the article "Performance appraisal" could use an overhaul as it's lacking lots of information and references. If there's no objections I'll do this in a couple of weeks once I get my facts correct. |
Revision as of 19:16, 5 April 2008
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Business Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Performance appraisal
The most popularly listed methods of Performance Appraisal are defined as MBO, 360, BOS and BARS. But these are all premised on one key assumption: Appraisal occurs ONCE per year (or twice in some companies). What if the assumption is wrong? I believe the assumption is wrong. My view is appraisal of staff occurs EVERY DAY. So what occurs once (or twice) per year? I consider it is a summary of the past and an opportunity to plan for the next review period.
Therefore I have shown many people that ther is a NEW approach to 'performance appraisal' - a Dual Approach based on RISK and KISS. I.e. if there is no risk of a down side, 'keep it simple simon (KISS)' and based on communications. BUT if the employee situation is considered high RISK, then apply a different approach based on complicance.
My practical application identifies that if approached correctly, feedback to staff can be positive without becoming bureaucratic. But it takes a willingness to think differently; based on RISK and KISS rather than following a one-shoe-fits-all philosophy.
Mark Shaw 60.241.34.189 (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding merging with the article "Performance measurement"
I suggest that Performance Appraisal should be kept separate to the Performance Measurement article as Performance Appraisal is a recognised Human Resource tool and procedure. Many books have been written on the subject and it is part of the curriculum of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).
I feel that the article "Performance appraisal" could use an overhaul as it's lacking lots of information and references. If there's no objections I'll do this in a couple of weeks once I get my facts correct.