Jump to content

Talk:Performance appraisal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Durrson (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 15 April 2008 (→‎Regarding merging with the article "Performance measurement"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBusiness Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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. durrson (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durrson (talkcontribs) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would be more appropriate would be a merge with Evaluation (workplace), which has popped up, has no links in, but does have a nice description of the evaluations/appraisals/reviews. --Marcinjeske (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation implies that work or people are being monitored only. There's a section on that page which briefly explains that a payrise is implemented after an evaluation. One of the the points of appraisal however is to demonstrate that someone has met their objectives and work on more challenging ones. Not withstanding, appraisal is only a small part of the larger Performance Management topic generally, which I'd like to clarify. - Any more thoughts? durrson (talk)