This definition of performance management, consistent by and large with the definition provided by Armstrong (2006), is also coherent with the definition of performance management provided by Clark (2005) who suggests that PM aims to “establish a framework in which performance by human resources can be directed, monitored, motivated and refined, and that the link in the cycle can be audited”. PM is forward-looking, the aim of the relationship based on it being to coach and to contribute to the development and growth of individuals. PA can, instead, be considered as a retrospective journey in the individual’s previous working year, where managers, very often perfunctorily, “judge” the performance of their staff. So that, whilst PM is inspired to the concept of “management by agreement or contract”, PA is instead based on the concept of “management by command” (Armstrong, 2006) In general, performance appraisal can be considered a process aiming to assess and rate (Armstrong, 2006) or review (Torrington et al, 2008) employees’ performance . Appraisal is, usually, annually carried out by the relevant manager, whilst the design of the system and the documentation habitually filled during performance review meeting by managers is prepared by the HR Function. Since PA is usually associated with pay, this is the occasion in which managers are supposed to play the role of judge, accounting for the process to be deemed as a top-down process
Performance Management VS Performance Appraisal
In the management process, one of the basic components of carrying out the process of organization is the final step, which is the evaluation method. In every institution, the evaluation process is one vital method to make such institution prosper and move towards the gateway to success. Two most commonly exercised tools in the performance of the evaluation process are the performance management and performance appraisal. By their names per se, it is quite obvious that, performance management and performance appraisal are two distinct methods of evaluation. For one, performance management focuses on carrying out managing procedures while performance appraisal is more concerned with establishing standards. Apart from being distinct in definition, performance management and performance appraisal also differ in function. Performance management is carried out to basically meet the desired goals being set, at the time the planned implementations are being performed. Performance appraisal, on the other hand, functions through the standards and policies. Such standards are created basing only on those performances and implementations being done before. More so, while performance management is done during the implementation of the planned procedures, performance appraisal is done only after such procedures have been performed. In this light, it can be claimed that performance management evaluates what is being currently performed while performance appraisal evaluates performances of employees that has already been done. Most importantly, performance management differs from performance appraisal in terms of their scope. Performance management typically involves the daily activities of employees and functions in a continuous manner. Performance appraisal, on the contrary, is one limited process that is highly dependent on the performances of the past. However, despite their obvious divergences, performance management and performance appraisal remain to be vital tools in successfully carrying out evaluation of the management process.
Characteristics of an unsuccessful versus a successful performance appraisals system An effective performance appraisal contains the following elements: Clear objectives- employees cannot be expected to adhere to standards that they are not aware of. As such, a good appraisal should be clear about what is expected. Workforce endorsed - the consensus should agree that the appraisals are good before they...