Journals Study: Performance Appraisal

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 161
  • Published : May 19, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
JOURNAL STUDY
By: Juan Skavani Mahaganti

-------------------------------------------------
Journal Details:
-------------------------------------------------
Performance Appraisal: Two Steps Forward, One Step Beck?
-------------------------------------------------
Alan R. Nankervis and Pricilla Leece
-------------------------------------------------
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 1997; 35; 80

Summary of the Journal

The Journal is a report of data gathered by the survey conducted in 1995, describing the practice of performance appraisal in Australian industry. The survey was distributed to 1500 human resource management specialist randomly, from totally 614 companies of various industry background and sizes. “The surprisingly high response rate to this survey suggest that performance appraisal is a popular current employment issue” (page 82), despite numbers of critics to performance appraisal practice and adoption of TQM that focuses on teams performance (rather than individual, that assessed by performance appraisal). Writer of the journal also use previous survey conducted by CCH/AGSM of September 1995 and the Nankervis and Penrose 1989, as comparative.

In brief, statistics revealed by the journal can be presented in table below: Nankervis and Leece, 1997| CCH/AGSM, 1995| Nankervis and Penrose, 1989| * 614 responds received, response rate of 41% * 85% organizations use formal PA schemes * Surprisingly, only 36.5% of respondents use some form of TQM system * Interestingly, 33 respondents report using both PA and TQM systems, incorporating individual and team evaluations * 94% use appraisal result for evaluation of current employees’ performance * 85% use PA to determine training and development needs for the present job * 67% use PA to plan future work, 64% utilize it to motivate employees in their current job * PA schemes designed by HR specialists (44% of respondents), or in combination with other parties (13%). Other responds it was designed by ‘other’ (not specified – 16.4%), consultative committees (13.5%), consultants (6%) or overseas parent companies (4%) * PA conducted by employees’ immediate supervisors is practiced by 87.4% of the organizations, 1.8% by both supervisor and team/peers, only 1.2% by team/peer alone. * 71%, reported that all full-time employees are appraised. 75% of 454 responses indicated that part-time employees were appraised. * 69% appraise their employees annually, 23% conducting six monthly appraisals * Only 14% indicate that their PA scheme was part of an enterprise agreement. * PA system was combined with other methods, management by objectives (67%), job competencies (61%), and rating scales (52%). * Change in PA, sourced in organizational strategy (39%), adoption of TQM (13%), job content (12%), and restructuring (10), enterprise agreements (9%), unfair dismissal legislation (7%), and ‘others’.| * 86% organizations use formal PA Schemes * 89%, reported using PA for training and development, higher than to use PA for evaluation of performance, 43% for planning, 43% for promotion discussions, and the validation of HR practices (21%) * 73% of PA schemes, designed by HR specialist, higher than latter study. 13% using consultants * 91% report that supervisor conduct the appraisal. * 75% organizations appraise part time staff. * 77% organizations conducted annual appraisal, compare to 22% twice yearly appraisals| * Response rate of 53% (106) * 86% organizations use formal PA Schemes * 17.5% reported that they had inherited their appraisal schemes from overseas parent companies, and had often found it unsuccessful * 79% of organization conducted annual appraisal. Lower than assigned journal.|

From the compared data, researchers then try to figure the changing pattern of PA adoption and practices in Australian companies. They found that for many organizations, PA is still seen important and crucial for...
tracking img