I put in my papers

I put in my papersPerformance appraisal. These two relatively unassuming words generally evoke an immediate and, at times, negative reaction from both managers and subordinates. Feelings of dread, anxiety, and frustration frequently accompany the appraisal process as facts of organizational life. Yet, every manager recognizes that, like it or not, performance appraisals are here to stay.For decades, employee evaluations have been used for a variety of different organizational purposes. Previously, the appraisal process was generally considered to be one of the more difficult and yet routine and narrow management practices. In contrast, it is now widely recognized as a significant vehicle for improving performance and productivity of both employees and organizations.That recognition and the awareness that the appraisal process, properly done, provides a way of improving employee and organizational performance probably best explains why appraisal is becoming a hot topic.. As an important part of this effort, organizations are working hard to upgrade, realign, refocus, and enhance their performance appraisal systems. Many organizations are placing greater emphasis on: (1) doing more effective performance planning; (2) developing more appropriate rating instruments; (3) giving more timely performance feedback; (4) providing more rater and ratee appraisal training; (5) using more employee self-appraisals and 360 degree feedback techniques; and (6) installing more streamlined information systems for managing performance appraisal data. (1) Thus, more of everything seems to be the watchword.The goal of all these efforts, of course, is to make the appraisal process contribute more to the organization's efficiency, effectiveness, and competitiveness. Yet, in spite of the many appraisal system refinements, few of these steps are aimed at addressing the age-old issue--the very human issue--of politics in performance appraisal. Appraisal 'politics' refers to superiors' deliberate manipulations of employee ratings to enhance or protect their self-or departmental interests.

The Human Side of Performance Appraisals

In theory, managers are called upon to be objective, rational, dispassionate, and unbiased in evaluating the performance of their employees.

In the current organizational climate of downsizing, do-more-with-less, and reengineering, managers have a whole host of practical concerns that often (usually?) are much more pressing than simply generating a painfully accurate assessment of an employee's most recent performance. accurate performance ratings might conceivably interfere with managers' desires to protect their people, encourage employee loyalty, minimize conflict, and create the "wiggle room" they need to achieve effectiveness through their employees (in spite of well-intended, but unacceptably constraining, bureaucratic guidelines about ratings).when astute managers conduct appraisals, they not only look at an employee's performance, but also at "other factors." It is precisely the attempt to account for these "other factors" that infuses the process with its potentially political character.

For fortune 500: In general, we found that managers were more likely toinflateemployee ratings (give higher ratings than deserved) than todeflatethem. Interpersonal tension, economic pressure, competition, resource shortages, and the corporate culture were all factors that increased the likelihood of rating manipulation. There also was strong consensus that the higher a person rose in the hierarchy, the more that factors other than actual performance affected the ratings received.

The goal of an enlightened, pragmatic manager should not be to eliminate politics in appraisals, but rather to understand and manage it to best effect.

Exploring the Politics of AppraisalThe Top Ten Reasons Why Managers Intentionally Manipulate Employee Ratings n = 249 managers Reasons PercentagesTo Avoid Conflict/Confrontation 58% With Employee 2. To Have a Positive Influence on 50% Employee Performance/Motivation 3. To Influence Employee Pay Raises 44% 4. Liking or Disliking a Subordinate 40% 5. Concern Over Creating Written 38% Documentation/Permanent Record 6. Organizational Pressure to Keep 35% Ratings Low 7. Unsure of Subordinate's Actual 31% Performance 8. To Make Themselves Look Good 29% 9. To Protect an Employee 25% 10. Wanting to be Liked/Increase 23% Employee Loyalty

. The table also suggests that there areupsidesand downsides to the use of politics in the rating process. Even acursorylook at these findings shows that politics is used to both a beneficial and detrimental effect.usefultypologyof rating behaviors,* Conflict Avoiders -- Managers who inflate employee ratings if they believe accurate ratings will cause unwanted conflict or confrontation with an employee.

* Manipulators -- Managers who inflate or deflate ratings either to try to influence employee behavior, loyalty and/or performance, or to influence employee pay-raise decisions.

* Feeling Types -- Managers who intentionally rate employees higher or lower on the basis of personal liking and disliking.

*CYARaters -- Managers who are cautious about employee ratings because they constitute a longterm record with legal implications that is accessible to review by others. Also includes managers who givelenientratings be cause they are unsure of an employee's actual performance.

* Go-With-The-Flow Raters - Managers who carefully assess an organization's current rating climate and adjust employee ratings accordingly.

(Bad year -> lower ratings; Good year -> higher ratings)

* PR Types - Managers who consciously use the performance ratings to make themselves or their employees look good.

* Godfathers - Managers who use the rating process to protect valued employees who are struggling for various reasons. Inflated ratings provide cover.

Probs that arise with politicisatnYet, reflective managers should realize that although they have the discretion to employ these tactics, their use is not without costs at the individual and/or organizational level. Managers identified a series of problems that could come back to haunt them from politically-influenced ratings.Problems Percentage Reward/Reinforce Less-Than-Desired Performance 46% 2. Avoid Addressing Performance Problems/Deficiencies 42% 3. Violate Trust/Breed Cynicism, Bad Attitudes 37% 4. Put Pressure on Accurate Raters to Inflate Ratings 34% 5. Demotivate High Performers/Devalue High Ratings 32% 6. Raise Employee Expectations for Future Ratings 30% 7. Could Create Legal Problems for the Organization 27% 8. Stifle Employee Improvement/Development 22% 9. Can Create Problems With Secondary Raters/Reviewers 25% 10. Managers Develop "You Owe Me" Attitude Toward 19% EmployeesWorse, perhaps, is that the prevalence of political ratings violates a fundamental sense of trust and fairness among employees and, consequently, breeds widespread cynicism not only in the appraisal system but the organization more generally. The detrimental effects can also come full circle when, over time, managers suffer the consequences of their own practices: when subordinate performance ultimately declines as a result of politics, managers themselves become cynical about the cynical rating process they have enacted.To help managers conduct more effective and less political ratings, two issues are paramount. (3) The first is the manager's willingness to render accurate and fair ratings. The generation of an accurate appraisal must be an attractive option. Second, the rater's ability to provide accurate ratings must be enhanced. Ability is a function of the manager's skill at:

* clarifying and communicating the subordinate's job description, goals, and performance standards;

* observing the subordinate's actual performance on a regular basis and providing ongoing feedback:

* storing and later recalling relevant performance data;

* rendering good evaluative judgment in completing the appraisal form; and

* conducting an open and honest appraisal interview.

Manager's Performance Rating Ability StrongWeakWeakStrongInaccurate performance ratingsPolitically driven ratingsUnintentionally inaccurate performance ratingsAccurate performance ratingsManagers intent for fairnessdeepuPolitical behaviors are more likely to occur in work environments characterizedby high ambiguity, and the ambiguous nature of many performance appraisalsituations provides fertile ground for the emergence of politicsThe study hypotheses received support so far as the personal bias andpunishment motive variable was used to indicate performance appraisalpolitics. When employees perceived performance ratings to be manipulated foraffective reasons such as personal liking and for the purpose of punishingemployees, they experienced reduced job satisfaction. These perceptions alsoinfluenced employees intention to quit, albeit indirectly, through reduced jobsatisfaction. Manipulations of ratings due to personal bias or aimed at punishingemployees are likely to be viewed as unjustified and unfair, thus resulting in lowjob satisfaction and high turnover intention. Whether or not this is indeed thecase can only be determined in future research that integrates relevant theoriessuch as organizational justice theory into studies of this nature.In contrast, when employees perceived performance ratings to bemanipulated for the purpose of rewarding employees (or avoiding negativeoutcomes for them) and promoting a positive workgroup climate (e.g. byavoiding situations that would create resentments and conflicts), their jobsatisfaction and turnover intention were not affected. An interesting questionfor future research is whether or not employees view the manipulations ofperformance ratings for motivational purposes to be legitimate behaviorsbecause such manipulations represent managerial discretion exercised toensure the attainment of certain goals (e.g. task-performance goals,interpersonal goals, and strategic goals) and have the potential to benefitindividual employees and the organization as a whole. Another question thatneeds to be answered is whether or not rating manipulations that are perceivedas legitimate would actually work as a motivational tool; if the answer is yes,another issue that needs to be addressed is the costs and benefits of accurateratings versus higher levels of employee motivation.The findings of this study suggest that differing effects of perceptions ofperformance appraisal politics are associated with the nature of the politicalmotives. Whereas manipulations of performance ratings arising from personalbias and punishment motives have negative effects on job satisfaction andturnover intention, manipulations of performance ratings for motivationalpurposes have no such effects. Therefore, future studies examining the effectsof performance appraisal politics would need to conceptualize this variable ascomprising of at least two distinct components with potentially differentcorrelates.

solnsPolitical ratings happen ... They are a fact of organizational life ... The key is to get managers to look at the long-term impact of how they use the rating process ... If they took along-term approach, I believe they would tend to be more candid and objective.To reduce app pol (deepu)HR initiavedsOrganizations must first work toward changing the social and politicalcontext in which the appraisal takes place in such a way that raters aremotivated to provide accurate appraisals or at least refrain frommanipulating ratings to meet their personal agendas. This is no easy taskand would require changes in contextual factors such as the reward andpunishment system, purpose of performance evaluations, evaluation norms,and trust climate (Cleveland and Murphy, 1992). For example, organizationscharacterized by a high level of trust among members are less likely to bepolitically charged. Fostering a high trust climate, if one does not alreadyexist, however, is a long-term process. A more immediate strategy would beto alter the reward and punishment system. If organizations are serious inimproving the quality of their performance appraisals, there should bemanagerial consequences (e.g. rewards for turning inaccurate appraisals andpenalties for failure to do so) to the quality of appraisals. This would requireorganizations to incorporate the quality of appraisals as one of the criteriafor evaluating raters job performance.Other strategies for reducing rater bias include, using alternativeapproaches to evaluation such as forced distribution (Rynes et al., 2002) orusing additional sources of evaluation. The latter strategy has the addedbenefit of increasing perceptions of fairness as well as diffusing the perceivedresponsibility of a sole rater when unfavorable ratings need to be given. Ratersmay be more willing to rate accurately when there is no clear target foremployees anger. Finally, rating manipulations are less likely to occur if ratersare made to feel accountable for the ratings they give by having to justify them,such as providing specific documentation of events and actual job behaviors toaccompany performance ratings.solnsCreate a climate for effective performance appraisal at the top.

* Weed outpolicies and proceduresthat create politicalstumblingblocks for managers.

The importance of doing appraisals well should be demonstrated through the actions of top management. In many organizations, managerial appraisals are notorious for being poorly conducted and politically driven. If this is true at the top of the organization, it will be emulated at lower levels of the organization, as well. Executives must be models and must demonstrate fair and effective rating practices if the rest of the organization is to follow.

* Turn the ratings tabooupsidedown.Discussion of appraisal reviews and ratings is often a formally- or informally-forbidden topic in organizations, and the taboo typically applies to discussions about the process itself. That taboo is dysfunctional. The goal of the organization should be to increase the degree to which people trust and support an appraisal system. The organization benefits when discussions about the policies and procedures concerning appraisal are open to all concerned. Consider installing a User Feedback Team to actively solicit managers' input on how to improve the process. The human resource department should conduct periodic roundtable discussions aimed at improving the corporate process and, perhaps of equal importance, keeping the issue of effective appraisal in t he forefront of managerial consciousness. Such efforts can go a long way toward enhancing a manager's willingness to make the system work effectively.

Organizations must think about policies and procedures that might reduce the manager's willingness to generate accurate ratings. This suggestion can be something as simple as reducing the number of people who have access to specific appraisal information or as intricate as taking extreme care in formulating (and perhapspublicizing) merit increase percentages and policies. Forcing managers to rate all of their subordinates in an unreasonably short period of time, asking managers to use inappropriate or outdated rating forms, and implementing policies such as "we've had a bad year so there will be no outstanding performance ratings this year" are all potential examples of organizations that diminish a manager's willingness to generate accurate ratings.

* Teach realistic appraisal practices in the context of effective management/leadership training.

Managers need focused training on how to conduct good appraisals. Equally important are topics such as performance planning, effective supervision, providing feedback, conflict resolution, and communication. Performance appraisal training must be conducted within the context of management effectiveness training, not in isolation. Skills training should be intertwined with training designed to improve the motivation to provide accurate appraisals. The goal is to enhance the manager's sense of self-efficacy and confidence in conducting appraisals.

Beforthrightabout the temptations and potentials for politics in appraisal.

Training programs frequently discuss rating errors such ashalo effect, central tendency andleniencyas unintentional rater errors. Managers should be asked to discuss issues that tap the political domain, as well. Questions like "Why do managers intentionally increase or decrease employee performance ratings?" and "What are the problems associated with a lack ofcandor, honesty and objectivity in the performance appraisal process?" get at such issues. Pocus groups can provide a safe environment for such discussions that canheightenmanagers' awareness of the issue. In addition, training should also include organizational "horror stories" about how political ratings can come back and bite organizations through poor morale, ineffective performance. and evenlitigation, to encourage managers to think through the consequences of their actions.

concl