Performance Appraisal

The layout of the paper is not displayed correctly, and there are also graphics in the paper that cannot be uploaded on this site.

Performance Appraisals
August 28, 2007
Table of Contents

Table of Contents……………………………………………….…………...pg 02
Abstract………………………………………………………….…………..pg 03
Introduction…………………………………………………….……………pg 03
Real Methodology…………………………………………….……………..pg 06
Ideal Methodology…………………………………………….…………….pg 08
Results……………………………………………………………………….pg 10
Conclusions………………………………………………………………….pg 16
Recommendations…………………………………………………………...pg 17
References…………………………………………………………………...pg 19
Appendix A………………………………………………………………….pg 22

Abstract

Performance appraisals can be executed in variety of manners; however, we decided to examine what type of performance appraisal system appeared most fair and accurate to those being evaluated.   Our hypothesis centered on the assumption that a multi-rater performance appraisal is perceived by employees to be a more accurate and fair assessment of performance than appraisal methods conducted by one evaluator.   In addition, we believe that after a certain optimal level of evaluators performance appraisals become less accurate, less fair, cumbersome, and inefficient.   We used a non-probability convenience sampling technique and handed out paper questionnaires to group member’s co-workers, friends, relatives, CSUEB’s graduate students, train commuters, and several banking customers.   Before handing out the questionnaire we prescreen the respondents to ensure that they were currently working and have received a formal performance appraisal sometime in their career.   The major findings our research indicates is that employees felt their review was more accurate and fair if multiple sources were used in the evaluation and that most respondents believed the optimal level of evaluators was three.   It was also surprising to note that positive appraisals appear to be more motivating for increased productivity than... [continues]

Read full essay