1. MODELING DYNAMICS OF REAL TIME APPRAISAL ;
INDIAN ARMY
NAME : COL SANJEEV BHATTACHARJEE
COURSE : INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
GROUP : M3 ( M)
ROLL NO : 21

2. 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all my mentors in Bharatiya Vidya
Bhawan who have provided me an opportunity to work on this project which has been
a great learning experience.
2. I would also like to thank Mr Shubhinder Singh , Managing Director Reebok ,
Mr Sajjad Shamim , Director Marketing Adidas India , Mr P Suri , Regional Manager
Marketing - Nike who spared their valuable time to discuss and guide me on my
project. I would also like to thank Ms Reeta Bhattacharjee , Director HR Reebok India
who has been an excellent guide and mentor for helping me appreciate and
understand the importance of consumer behaviour and its relevance in positioning
strategy and advertisements.
3. I would be failing in my duty , if do not mention my sincere gratitude to the
branch mangers of branded sports accessories and apparel companies in Kolkata ,
for allowing me access to their facilities and their numerous sales and outlet staff in
helping me with my survey.

3. 3
"This world rests on the arms of heroes like a son on those of his
sire. He, therefore, that is a hero deserves respect under every
circumstance. There is nothing higher in the three worlds than
heroism. The hero protects and cherishes all, and things depend
upon the hero".

4. 4
INDEX
SER NO CHAPTER TOPIC PAGE NO
1. CHAPTER NO 1 : INTRODUCTION 7-9
2. CHAPTER NO 2: OBJECTIVES , HYPOTHESIS & SCOPE 10 - 14
3. CHAPTER NO 3 : LIMITATIONS 15 - 24
4. CHAPTER NO 4 : THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE 25 - 48
5. CHAPTER NO 5 : METHODOLOGY & PROCEDURE
OF WORK 49 - 56
6. CHAPTER NO 6 : FINDING & INFERENCES 57 - 66
7. CHAPTER NO 7: RECOMMENDATIONS 67- 69
8. CHAPTER NO 8: CONCLUSION 70 - 81
9. CHAPTER NO 9 : SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT REPORT 82 - 86
10. ANNEXURES :
i) PROPOSAL 87 - 94
ii) REFERENCES 95 - 96

5. 5
CHAPTER NO 1 : INTRODUCTION
1. A significant development in the field of organization, in recent times, is the increasing
importance towards management of human resources. Performance appraisal has been one of the
most debated management practices for several decades. It has generated a wide variety of
viewpoints. Much attention is being paid to the motivational aspects of human personality,
particularly the need for self-esteem, group belonging and self-actualization. This new awakening of
humanization all over the globe has, in fact, enlarged the scope of applying various principles of
human resource management in organizations. The development of human resource elements, their
competencies, and the process development of the total organization are the main concerns of human
resource management.
2. The history of appraisal is quite brief. Its roots originated the early 20th century. This can be
traced to Taylor's pioneering ‘Time and Motion’ studies. But such a reference may not be that helpful,
for the same may be said about almost everything in the field of modern human resources
management. As a distinct and formal management procedure used in the evaluation of work
performance, appraisal dates from the time of the Second World War - not more than 70 years ago.
Yet in a broader sense, the practice of appraisal is a very ancient art, which in the scale of things
might well lay claim to being the world's second oldest profession!
3. There is a basic human tendency to make judgments about those one is working with, as
well as about oneself. Appraisal, it seems, is both inevitable as well as universal. In the absence of a
carefully structured system of appraisal, raters tend to judge the work-performance of others,
including subordinates, naturally, informally and arbitrarily. The human inclination to judge does
create serious motivational, ethical and legal problems in the workplace. Without a structured
appraisal system, there is little chance of ensuring that the judgments made will be lawful, fair,
defensible and accurate.
4. Appraisal system began informally as a simple method of income justification. That is,
appraisal was used to decide whether or not the salary or wage of an individual ratee was justified.

6. 6
The process was firmly linked to material outcomes. If a ratee’s performance was found to be less
than ideal it was then decided that a cut in pay would follow. On the other hand, if their performance
was better than what the rater expected, a pay rise was in order. Little consideration, if any, was given
to the developmental possibilities of appraisal. If was felt that a cut in pay, or a rise, should provide
the only required impetus for an ratee to either improve or continue to perform well. Sometimes this
basic system succeeded in getting the results that were intended; but more often than not, it failed.
5. Uneasiness or resistance to adopting appraisal is linked to appraisal attitudes and knowledge.
Recent research, together with considerable anecdotal evidence, suggests that many organisations and
their senior raters still regard appraisal as a mechanistic annual ritual which is a necessary evil. It is
opined that it has little relevance to their ‘bottom line’. Overall, there has been minimal recognition
and understanding of the power of appraisal practice. This phenomenon is not surprising given the
findings of earlier studies indicating that raters, generally, neither have a full appreciation of the role
of human resource management in their organisation nor do these raters see human resource
management as particularly strategic in nature. The appraisal of ratee performance, as well as the
appraisal of its collective contribution to organisational effectiveness, has often been perceived as a
combination of informal and formal techniques. Nevertheless, there is an emerging consensus that
these techniques together have the potential to motivate individual ratees, their work groups and to
evaluate the efficacy of all human resource management functions. This would provide organisations
with a strategic advantage in their ongoing pursuit of competitive goals/objectives and imperatives.
6. The functional principles of management, from the point of view of appraisal revolve around;
the nature of appraisal, managing appraisal, managing the ratee/ the rater and finally, the structure and
responsibilities of the organization. There is available today the knowledge and the experience
required for successful practice of appraisal. But, there is probably no field of human endeavour or
organizational efforts where the tremendous gap between the knowledge and performance of the rater
vis-à-vis the knowledge and performance of the ratee is widening or becoming more intractable.
There is widespread agreement that success or failure in appraisal depends on at least four criteria;
organizational philosophy, the attitudes and skills of those responsible for its implementation,
acceptance, commitment and ownership of appraisers/ appraisees and the endorsement of the notions
of ‘procedural fairness’ and ‘distributive justice’. Procedural fairness refers to the ratees’ perception

7. 7
of the program’s overall process equity. Distributive justice is linked to perceptions of the fairness of
associated rewards and recognition out comes.
7. Advocates of real-time based appraisal systems argue that appraisal programs are the logical
and preferable means to appraise, to develop and to effectively utilise the ratees’ knowledge and
capabilities. Of course, all of these outcomes will only be possible when the end user, the rater, is
educated in the effective processes of real-time based appraisal and persuaded of the potential benefits
of getting it right. Another school of thought is less supportive as regards the perspective of the merits
of appraisal. For instance, studies suggest that appraisal and appraisal ‘nourishes short-term
performance, annihilating long-term planning, building fear, demolishing teamwork and nourishing
rivalry and politics’’. Some have critiqued the practical difficulties of appraisal systems whilst
supporting the underlying principles. Comparative analyses of both the schools of thought reveal that
there is a lack of universal agreement as regards the effectiveness of appraisal programs.
8. Despite the diversity of these views, appraisal programs, if effectively implemented, can
benefit both organisations and their ratees (this infact forms the hypothesis of the present research
problem). Arguably, the system has the potential to provide individual feedback and collated
organisational data. This can be used for the purposes of human resource management planning and
program evaluation purposes. Moreover, collated data can assist planning, human resource
development programs and remuneration schemes. Individual appraisal outputs include opportunities
for remedial skills development, retention, career development and training and up skilling programs.

8. 8
CHAPTER NO 2 : OBJECTIVES , HYPOTHESIS AND SCOPE OF THE
STUDY
OBJECTIVES OF APPRAISAL
9. The principal objectives of carrying out an appraisal are, to bring about better operational
results, meet ratee’s developmental needs, provide information useful for (staffing) planning by
identifying ratees with potential for advancement and with abilities yet to be used,(i.e. evaluating
on-the-job relationships for future ratee’s),to provide a basis for compensation action, form a basis
for promotions, transfers, form a platform for efficient/effective human resources development,
provide an adequate feedback to each ratee on his / her performance, serve as a basis for
improving / changing behavior towards more efficient/effective working habits (to help each ratee
handle his current job better), assist the superiors in acquiring an increased understanding of their
ratee work behavior, the work itself and their ratee strength / weaknesses thereby developing a team
work among the participants in an organizational setting (enhancing ratee’s
efficiency/effectiveness), remove work alienation and help ratee’s internalize the norms, values
and ethics of the organization, exercise control , develop interpersonal relationships and develop
database about the ratee’s job / career graph.
10. What Raters Need From Appraisals? Raters need comparative performance data for
making comparative decisions that affect both the ratee’s selected and the ones not selected. With
exception of a ‘termination for cause’, it is hard to imagine a personnel decision that is not
comparative. Some examples of decisions which are comparative are; Promotions, Downsizing,
Merit Rewards, Incentive Rewards Job Assignments and Training Programs .With comparative
decisions, if one is promoted others are not; if one receives a favorable job assignment, others do
not. In the case of decisions with negative consequences, such as downsizing, some are let go,
others are retained.Whenever ratee’s believe the outcome of a decision has negatively affected their
careers, their opportunities, their chances for advancement, they claim unfair treatment. The
organization can only defend itself from such a claim if they can show that the ratee selected was
not just qualified. The individual ratee’s, however, needs information about his or her performance
that provides feedback about how his or her performance is viewed by the organization and

9. 9
especially about areas of marginal or substandard performance. In addition to being a review of
performance, the data should also stimulate a dialogue between rater and ratee’s that anticipates
future performance, with an eye towards growth and development.
11. Career development implies continued growth-learning additional skills and overcoming
new challenges. Raters no longer need to feel they are grooming ratee’s just for promotion, either
within or outside of their departments. Instead, ratee’s may find job satisfaction by moving laterally
or by enriching their present positions with different responsibilities. Helping ratee’s develop their
skills and increase their knowledge strengthens the whole team. Ratee’s feel valued and are more
efficient when they perform more job functions. Raters who do not encourage career development
may lose productive ratee’s when positions are eliminated or ratee’s become dissatisfied. Thus, it is
crucial for raters to assume a coaching role and accept a few additional responsibilities. Because the
old career paths are gone, ratee’s need to take some more responsibility for managing their careers.
However, they need some assistance in that process. Successful organisations give them the
resources and it is up to raters to communicate that message by acting as career coaches.
12. Key objectives of appraisals include: validating selection and other management or cultural
practices, helping ratee’s understand and take responsibility for their performance and making
decisions about rewards or promotions. Important steps to obtaining useful traditional appraisals
include determining the type of data to be collected as well as who must conduct the appraisal,
establishing a rating philosophy, overcoming typical rating deficiencies, creating a rating
instrument, and engaging the ratee in making decisions on future performance changes. An effective
negotiated appraisal helps the ratee take additional ownership for both continuing effective
performance and improving weak areas. Ratee goals set through appraisals should be difficult but
achievable, as goals that are overly ambitious are doomed for failure. Some ratee’s tend to boycott
their own progress by setting impossible goals to achieve. Finally, ratee does want to know what
you think of their work. Letting ratee know that you have noticed their efforts goes a long way
towards having a more motivated workforce.
13. Appraisal is a vehicle to validate / refine organizational actions and provide feedback to
ratee’s with an eye on improving future performance. Ratee selection, training and just about any

10. 10
cultural or management practice (such as the introduction of a new pruning method or an incentive
rewards program) may be evaluated in part by obtaining ratee’s performance data. The evaluation
may provide ideas for refining established practices or instituting new ones. Some options include,
paying more attention to interpersonal skills when selecting new raters, encouraging present raters
to attend communication / conflict and providing the rater one-on-one counselling. Data from
appraisals can also help ratee’s plan for long-term staffing and ratee’s development, give rewards
raises or other rewards, set up a ratee counselling session, institute discipline or discharge
procedures.
14. Keeping all the above on a holistic platform, the principal aim of this study is to narrow the
gap between what can be done and what is being done by the rater and the ratee in the dynamics of
appraisal. An attempt has been initiated in examining real-time based appraisal, juxtaposed with
performance management, in organizations along with identification of the concepts and issues
involved in the process. The attempt aims at setting out the framework required to ensure
accountability for performance, emphasize the need for innovative mechanisms and highlight the key
parameters for a successful performance management system. The prime purpose would be to
compare the findings of earlier studies and to ascertain whether processes have evolved to provide a
more effective strategic tool in the human resource appraisal repertoire. The study would update data
on the goals, purposes, types, measures, and communication techniques of contemporary appraisal
systems. With this as the backdrop, the objective of this study is;
1. To assess the suitability of appraisal an instrument of individual and organizational
development,
2. To examine the mechanics of modeling appraisal,
3. To apply the model in the context of Indian Army, and
4. To offer constructive criticisms and recommend a set of functional package pertaining
to the dynamics of appraisal.
HYPOTHESIS
15. Real-time based appraisal facilitates individual and organizational development.

11. 11
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
16. The scope of the present study is to examine the various facets of real-time based appraisal and their
inter-relationships in a macro perspective. However, the scope the case study has been restricted to the
Officer’s cadre of the Indian Army. The organization harbors a vast pool of respondents who are
apprised and do the job of appraising at various levels on a different platform. This adds to the
diversifying nature of appraisal. The sole instrument for appraisal in the Army is the Annual
Confidential Report which is based on a rating scale system. There is a general resentment that the
appraisal system suffers from various lacunae and does neither meet the respondents’ needs nor the
organizational needs.
ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION
17. The issues under consideration are as under :
a) There is a need to review the extra-role contributions of appraisal correlates. This
would specify the appraisal referent that is tied to the extra-role contributions, a need for re-
formulation of the appraisal proposition and finally, establish the linkage between individual
and organizational development.
b) While analyzing the above issues there is a pressing need to examine the objectivity
and transparency of appraisal, the assessment of individual skills and individual
worth, the aspects of communication, motivation, performance satisfaction
,training ,superior - subordinate relationship working environment ,significance in
organizational setting and emphasis on the date-process .
JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE STUDY
18. Appraisal is attaining an increased order of importance from the point of view of achievement
of meaningful personal and system goals. There is a need to establish a frame-work wherein, the
appraisal
can target at improving skills, productivity, organization and excellence towards individual and
organizational development.
19. Appraisal programmes has not fared well in the eyes of the critics. It is often argued that such
instruments have not contributed any new ideas. The argument put forth is that most or all of the

12. 12
appraisals are not based on real-time dynamics. There is the inadequate status of present knowledge.
This necessitates adapting real-time based innovative mechanism with a survey of the conceptual and
empirical parameters.
20. Apparently the present arrangement in the Indian Army does not fully meet the organizational
requirements. Nor does it enjoy implicit faith of the Respondents reported upon. This needs to be
critically evaluated, examined and replaced with a more comprehensive and transparent system. This
is in order to ensure that the objectives of appraisal are recognized and respected in principle and
practice.
21. There is the need to re-examine certain select principles and practices of the appraisal
programmes. This would have to be done by establishing and interpreting human statistics. There is a
need to envision a more research focused and multi- disciplinary engagement with complex
fundamental issues that face organizations today. There are specific questions that would benefit from
deeper intellectual engagement given the array of appraisal criterion and methodologies being
adopted and followed by various organizations.
22. Appraisal criterion and methodologies are often inadequately described and not based on real-
time considerations. With some degrees of controlled exploration there is a possibility of prescribing a
standard bench-mark apparatus.
ASSUMPTIONS
23. The following are the assumptions to this study:
(a) That, the decision maker (rater) determines a solution to his routine or repetitive problem
of assessing his rates,
(b) That, the decision maker (rater) has the ability to examine a situation, for the multiple
variables, from various angles and simulating it.

13. 13
CHAPTER NO 3 : LIMITATIONS
COMPLEXITIES IN APPRAISAL
24. Recent trends and developments in the mechanism of appraisal have raised a package of
pertinent issues. The questions are; how to define a job, how to design an appraisal system ,how to
differentiate between performance and potential appraisal / development, whether appraisal should be
mixed / paired /absolute / 360-degree, how to assign weights to parameters , how to conduct a
performance audit , what are the significant errors , how to bring about statistical soundness, what
should be the nature and form of feed back, how to make the system of appraisal more pragmatic
and how to make the purpose of appraisal more development – oriented rather than punitive , to list a
few. All these require serious introspection on an inter-disciplinary basis.
25. Appraisal has many facets. It is an exercise in observation and judgment; it is a feedback
process and is an organizational intervention. It is a measurement process as well as an intensely
emotional process. Above all, it is an inexact human process. While it is fairly easy to prescribe as to
how the system should work, descriptions of how it actually works in practice are rather discouraging.
Most ratees want feedback as long as it mirrors their self-perception. When it does, they tend to like
it. When it doesn’t, they don’t.
COMMON PITFALLS
26. Obstacles to the success of formal appraisal programs are familiar to most raters, either from
painful personal experience or from the growing body of critical literature. Presented in the
successive paragraphs are the most troublesome and frequently cited drawbacks:
27. Appraisal programs demand too much from raters. Formal appraisals obviously require at
least periodic rater observation of subordinates' performance. However, the typical first-line rater
can hardly know, in a very adequate way, just what each of his subordinates are doing. Standards
and ratings tend to vary widely and, often, unfairly. Some raters are tough, others are lenient. Some
departments have highly competent ratee’s; others have less competent ratee’s. Consequently,
ratee’s subject to less competition or lenient ratings can receive higher appraisals than equally
competent or superior associates. Personal values and bias can replace organizational standards.

14. 14
28. An appraiser may not lack standards, but the standards he uses may be sometimes the wrong
ones. For example, unfairly low ratings may be given to valued subordinates so they must not be
promoted out of the rater’s department. More often, however, outright bias dictates favored
treatment for some ratee’s. Because of lack of communication, ratee’s may not know how they are
rated. The standards by which ratee’s think they are being judged are sometimes different from
those their superiors actually use.
29. No appraisal system can be very effective for management decisions, organization
development, or any other purpose until the ratee’s being appraised know what is expected of them
and by what criteria they are being judged. Appraisal techniques tend to be used as performance
panaceas. If a ratee’s lacks the basic ability or has not been given the necessary training for his job,
it is neither reasonable to try to stimulate adequate performance through appraisals, nor fair to base
salary, dismissal, or other negative decisions on such an appraisal.
30. Poor performance represents someone else's failure. In many cases, the validity of ratings is
reduced by rater’s resistance to making the ratings. Rather than confront their less effective
subordinates with negative ratings, negative feedback in appraisal interviews, and below-average
salary increases, raters often take the more comfortable way out and give average or above-average
ratings to inferior performers. Appraisal ratings can boomerang when communicated to ratee’s.
Negative feedback (i.e., criticism) not only fails to motivate the typical ratee, but also can cause him
to perform worse .Only those ratee’s who have a high degree of self-esteem appear to be stimulated
by criticism to improve their performance. Appraisals interfere with the more constructive coaching
relationship that should exist between a superior and his subordinates. Appraisal interviews tend to
emphasize the superior position of the rater by placing him in the role of judge, thus countering his
equally important role of teacher and coach. This is particularly damaging in organizations that are
attempting to maintain a more participative organizational climate.
31. The organization must not get trapped into the various pitfalls that come along with
administration of appraisal system. The question that arises here is how to avoid these pitfalls? A
necessary condition for the effective management of appraisal system in any organization is the
need to clarify and communicate to all concerned, the objectives that the system intends to achieve.

15. 15
Everyone in the organization especially the key decision makers should be fully aware of precisely
what objectives the system of appraisal is expected to achieve, and the priorities within these
objectives.
BARRIERS TO APPRAISAL
32. The widely recognized barriers to an efficient/effective appraisal are;
a) Faulty Assumptions (that, appraisers naturally wish to make fair and accurate
appraisal of ratee is untenable, that, appraisers take a particular appraisal system as perfect
and continue with that format for ever, that, personal opinion is better than formal appraisal
and that, ratee’s eagerness to know their position is not valid).
b) Psychological Blocks (appraisers feeling of insecurity, appraisal as an extra burden,
degree of being excessively modest or sceptical, disliking of resentment by ratee, treatment
of ratee failure as deficiency of own and disliking of communication of poor performance to
ratee).
c) Technical Pitfalls (Criterion problem which is difficult to define, ambiguous, vague
and generalization, distortions that include halo effect, central tendency, constant errors and
appraisers’ degree of liking / disliking and shifting standards that include first impression,
latest behaviour, horn effect and spill-over effect ).
33. Many researchers are skeptical about the use of self-ratings. They believe that problems
associated with informant fallibility strongly contaminate the results from questionnaires asking
ratee’s to report on themselves and their performances. It has been observed that inaccurate recall in
retrospective reporting can result from inappropriate rationalizations, oversimplifications, faulty
attributions and simple lapses of memory. Besides, ratee’s are naturally motivated to present
themselves in a favorable light; that is, self-assessment suffers from enhancement or inflation bias.
This tendency, referred as the ‘leniency-effect’, is related to notion that ratee’s are motivated by
drives of self-enhancement, which lead to the emphasizing of merits and de-emphasizing of faults.
Nevertheless, despite doubts on the validity of self-ratings and its utilization in applied research

16. 16
settings, there is reason to believe that individual ratee’s are in a good position to make a valid
assessment of their own professional knowledge and skills. They possess the greatest familiarity
with the job and provide ratings that are reliable and have fewer errors. Who else has a better
understanding of a job and one’s functioning in it than the one who has access to wide samples of
behaviors under varying situations and periods of time.
34. Empirical studies by various agencies and authors during the last decade highlight issues like, non-
conducive work culture, lack of appreciation towards appraisal dynamics, lack of interest by top
brass for adoption, fear and apprehension about the outcome, lack of confidentiality, interference by
unions and associations, lack of proper system / procedure, lack of accountability, lack of clarity,
lack of proper skills in the rater towards performance analysis, constraint of time availability,
personal bias on the part of the rater and subjectivity, non-uniformity in the criteria of appraisal,
lack of trust and openness between ratee and rater, heterogeneous interest, low motivation, target
achievement oriented system and non-recognition of the effort in subordinate development as
certain burning issues in the dynamics of appraisal.
35. To tackle barriers, attempts must be directed at,
a) Barrier Smashing (recognize the benefit of removing barriers in the systems and
processes of the everyday work flow, identify types of flowcharts that can be used to
examine work flow, determine if critical ratee’s and core resources are performing to the
fullest extent in a scenario and identify ways to eliminate waste that occurs in the work
flow).
b) Performance Standards and Measurement ( recognize the value of utilizing
standards and measurement as a means of improving performance and removing barriers to
achievement , identify factors for consideration prior to measurement , identify the various
categories of indicators that can be used to provide measurement data and determine if a
rater appropriately develops and implements performance standards in a scenario ).
c) Tracking Improvement ( recognize the benefits of challenging the traditional
appraisal approach to ratee evaluation , identify the truths behind most appraisals ,

17. 17
determine if a rater uses appropriate strategies for managing performance in a given scenario
and use appropriate methods for providing direction to ratee’s in a given scenario ).
d) Risk-taking and Experimentation (recognize the critical importance of taking risks
and experimenting when developing as a leader, identify reasons why risk-taking is
important and beneficial, encourage ratee’s to take risks in a given scenario and
demonstrate commitment to risk-taking in a given situation ).
36. To overcome the above barriers, the standard prescriptions towards a rational appraisal are,
go for satisfactory level of reliability only, focus on objective analysis of performance, appraisal
system be so designed to minimize undesirable effects, ratee and rater organization to monitor the
appraisal system, ratings be reviewed with the ratee, appraisal system should be backed by a
feedback mechanism and organization should have a supportive management logic.
LEGAL ASPECTS
37. Legal aspects on performance accountability can provide a framework through which ratees
and organizations are required to set strategic goals, measure performance and report periodically
on the degree to which goals are met. Such legal aspects require the development of multi-year
strategic plans focused on long-term goals and annual performance plans with specific indicators to
measure performance. The legal aspects create a process to be used by the ratees and organizations
in measuring their annual performance by identifying four key distinct performance indicators
which are, output, outcome, efficiency and effectiveness. Ultimately, such objective
measurement means that decisions are based on programme effectiveness rather than supposition.
This ultimately provides policy makers with better information for allocating resources. A rational
performance model must include features
like: performance accountability system, a comprehensive performance accountability system for all
organizations, two-fold accountability; internal accountability (accountability to internal processes)
and external accountability .
38. Organizations need to submit reports to the appropriate authority at periodical intervals.
Focus on consolidating and analysing performance of organizations and preparation of reports.

18. 18
Reports should incorporate grading of performance according to the criteria prescribed and followed
by the organization. Periodic evaluation of performance of organizations and feedbacks on their
implementation should be assessed. Results of such evaluation should be reflected in the annual
performance report of the concerned organization.
39. SUGGESTIONS : (for Limiting Appraisals’ Unwanted Effects)
a) That, employment is understood to be at will;
b) That, the rater expressly reserves the right to discharge the ratee at any time for any
reason with or without cause and with or without notice;
c) That, nothing in the rater’s policies, practices, or procedures, including appraisals,
should be construed to confer any right upon the ratee to continued employment;
d) That, the rater expressly reserves the right to unilaterally alter the terms and
conditions of employment, including the manner in which performance is or is not
appraised;
e) That, the rater is under no obligation to appraise performance;
f) That, neither the fact that appraisals are or are not conducted, nor the manner in
which they may be conducted, should be construed to give rise to a ‘just cause’
requirement for terminating the employment relationship.
g) That, appraisals and other evaluation procedures should in no way be considered in
any other manner in determining the existence or nature of any employment relationship
that may be found to exist between the parties.
40. PROCEDURES (for Legally Sound Appraisals). Appraisal procedures:
a) Should be standardized and uniform for all ratee’s within a job group;
b) Should be formally communicated to ratee’s;

19. 19
c) Should provide notice of performance deficiencies, and opportunities to correct them;
d) Should provide access for ratee’s to review appraisal results;
e) Should provide formal appeal mechanisms that allow for ratee input;
f) Should use multiple, diverse, and unbiased raters;
g) Should provide written instructions and training for raters;
h) Should require thorough and consistent documentation across raters that include
specific examples of performance based on personal knowledge;
i) Should establish a system to detect potentially discriminatory effects or abuses of the
system overall.
41. LEGAL GUIDELINES : Performance ratings must be job-related.
a) Ratee’s must be given a written copy of their job standards in advance of appraisals.
b) Raters who conduct the appraisal must be able to observe the behaviour they are
rating.
c) Raters must be trained to use the appraisal form correctly.
d) Appraisals should be discussed openly with ratee’s and counselling or corrective
guidance offered.
e) An appeal procedure should be established to enable ratee’s to express disagreement
with the appraisal.
ISSUES IN APPRAISAL
42. Certain issues need to be tackled while dealing with the appraisal mechanism. These are
what to asses, which rater should assess performance, which appraisal technique needs to be used,
how to communicate appraisal output and how to train appraisers for efficient/effective appraisal?

20. 20
43. Forms of change requirements that necessitate incorporation are, need to be more realistic
about limitations of human ability, need for development of a rational and scientific foundation in
the appraisal dynamics, need to recognize vital aspects of total human existence, need to incorporate
ethical aspects, exploring whether to go in for a ‘run-of-the-mill’ system developed elsewhere in
response to certain unfortunate legal demands (given the fact that it is of little, if any, utility
value),information collected from a variety of sources should be balanced and a heterogeneous
blend of ‘excellent-good-average-poor-hopeless’, how does the rater propose to deal with it, what
quality of conclusions can an appraiser reasonably draw from such a clumsy feedback, what range
of personnel-related decisions does a rater intend to take through the instrumentality of
cumbersome, time-consuming, yet contextually useless documentation in the face of high mobility
rates (this is the result of a marked shift from the traditional long-term loyalty to job-hopping), what
developmental purpose must such a frustrating, multi-rater feedback possibly serve and finally, is
there the need of an ‘alibi’ in the shape of a stack of junk forms for applying negative sanctions
which that be necessary or even indispensable in an organisation that has been characterized by a
‘hire-and-fire-at-must’ mindset.
44. Performance - based budgeting serves as a strategic planning tool towards improving the
clarity and consistency of scheme of appraisal designs. This facilitates a common understanding and
better communication between organization and ratee’s in the desired results of scheme of
appraisals. Performance - based budgeting allows organizations to attain a unified sense of purpose
and direction. Moreover, through the measurement of performance in achieving defined results,
performance - based budgeting provides feedback to scheme of appraisals on how well they are
doing and creates a strong incentive for adopting best practices and efficiencies in use of resources.
This improves the quality of services and other outputs.
45, Performance - based budgeting has also been proposed as a means to release raters from
overly restrictive input and/or central controls and to accord them more discretion in determining
the right mix of human-technical-material - financial resources to meet expected results. In
performance - based budgeting, the increase of the accountability and responsibility of concerned
officials (a consequence of holding them responsible for achieving results) is designed to go hand in
hand with an amplified authority for managing all resources , including human resources.

21. 21
46. To overcome the demerits and subjectively further there are laid down ethics. If followed
religiously, it would not only give a true picture of the Rates but reveal the strength of their time
tested system. One issue that merits attention here is regarding the ‘Ethical Dilemma’ in reporting.
Can, or should a rater go strictly by his convictions / ethical standards and grade an ratee low
despite being aware of the general inflationary trends in reporting in the environment, when he is
certain that the ratee is better than another ratees, who is perhaps graded better that this ratees.
There is no answer for the riddle. There as initiating raters and future reviewing raters will have to
resolve this issue by themselves. It can summed up by making a statement here that perhaps it is a
false sense of regimentation, that has been a major contributor of the present inflationary trends the
system.
ISSUES OF DIVERSITY
47. This section provides information regarding the issues of diversity in appraisal. For purpose
of this, ethnicity is considered part of the overall ‘diversity’ issue.
a) Religion: Although religion should not be considered in the appraisal process, it
would be prudent to be sure that all raters or ratee’s to cognizant of the religious customs
and practices of ratee’s they supervise. This must make sure that ratee’s are not held liable
for actions inappropriately.
b) Gender Issues: Psychoanalysts and psychoanalytically-oriented organizational
practitioners have made considerable progress over the last four decades in the exploration
and interpretation of organizational behaviour. Their efforts have resulted in an in-depth
understanding of the complexities of contemporary organizations and the complications they
can create for employees. Theory, research, and application have been quite illuminating,
particularly in the areas of management, leadership, personality characteristics, group
dynamics, stress, and executive emotional health. However, not surprisingly, most of what
has been learned about organizations has come from the study of men and their work in
male-dominated institutions. Exploration of the experience and meaning of professional

22. 22
work for women has only received serious consideration in the past fifteen years and has
been researched largely from social and organizational psychology and management theory
perspectives.
48. Evaluate the ratee on work related elements, which have been made clear and do not
evaluate on differences in communication style. Ensure that appraisal criteria focuses on the
objective results and targets achieved. If there is a low ratio of women to men then the ladies
should not be given any undue privileges. There is a need to discourage any disparity of
functioning and appraisal.
49. When conducting appraisals, raters should clearly convey work expectations and make sure
that ratee’s understand expectations. This can be accomplished by incorporating equal performance
standards for all ratee’s. Equally important is realizing that some raters expect some ratee’s to be
superstars and from others they must expect very little. Raters should re-examine judgments to make
sure that poor performance is not overlooked due to being uncomfortable about providing feedback to
those different than self. If raters provide feedback often and equally to all members then this issue
should not prevail. Failure to give legitimate feedback because of being feared labelled as sexist,
racist or discriminatory can demean the importance of the ratee’s career goals and expectations.
An attempt has been done towards modeling appraisal on a real-time basis. From the operational
research point of view modeling may not actually represent the core ‘real universal problem’ in which
decisions are made.
50. Modeling efforts are complex and the results so obtained through real – time efforts are
difficult to be explained to the Rater. This may fail to gain their support and confidence. Raters are
required to be quite explicit about their objectives, their assumptions and their way of visualizing their
constraints. There may be problems of quantifying in real terms.

23. 23
CHAPTER NO 4: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
VIEWS OF PETER DRUCKER
51. Drucker (1946) proclaimed peak performance by the ratee as a goal. This was by asserting
that appraisal should go beyond human relations and inter-ratee aspects. Insistence on high goals and
high performance requires that an individual’s ability to set high goals and attain them must be
systematically appraised. Appraisal is judgment and this always requires a definite standard that
should always be based on proven performance. To judge means to apply a set of standard values.
Value judgments without clear and sharp standard are irrational and arbitrary. An appraisal that
focuses on potential, on personality, on promise etc. on anything that is not proven is an abuse. The
greatest mistake is to build on weaknesses.
52. Any real-time based appraisal must involve and systematically evaluate comparison of
performance parameters of ratees holding similar areas of work responsibilities, their performance on
the job and their potential for development. This would thereby determine their worth for the
accomplishment of organizational goals by reducing important discrepancies between the desired /
required conditions and the present / anticipated conditions.
REAL-TIME CONCEPTUALISATION
53. Focus on real-time based performance introspection has recently emerged as a critical
instrument for improving the delivery of services and infrastructure to the ratee .To ensure
accountability for results, the organization and agencies at various levels must implement a
performance measurement and management system that would establish a link between development
goals, policies, priorities, plans, strategy, vision, mission, programmes, projects, action plans and
performance towards achieving the desired aims and objectives. Balances of quantitative and
qualitative, financial and non-financial indicators are necessary to measure the effectiveness and
efficiency of organization programmes and functions.

24. 24
TECHNIQUES OF APPRAISAL:
54. The various techniques of appraisal usually practiced by various organisations are, written
appraisal method, field review method, critical incident method, adjective type method, forced
choice method, graphic rating scale method, ranking method, grading method, paired comparison
method, forced distribution method, check list method, essay method, results or objectives method,
behaviourally anchored rating method and appraisal technique, to list a few.
55. Essay appraisal: In its simplest form, this technique asks the rater to write a paragraph or
more covering an individual's strengths, weaknesses, potential, and so on. In most selection
situations, essay appraisals from former employers or associates carry significant weight. The
assumption seems to be that an honest and informed statement, either by word of mouth or in
writing, from someone who knows the ratee well, is fully as valid as more formal and more
complicated methods. The biggest drawback to essay appraisals is their variability in length and
content. Moreover, since different essays touch on different aspects of a man's performance or
personal qualifications, essay ratings are difficult to combine or compare. For comparability, some
type of more formal method, like the graphic rating scale, is desirable.
56. Graphic Rating Scale: This technique may not yield the depth of an essay appraisal, but it
is more consistent and reliable. Typically, a graphic scale assesses a ratee on the quality and
quantity of his work (is he outstanding, above average, average, or unsatisfactory?) and on a variety
of other factors that vary with the job but usually include personal traits like reliability and
cooperation. It may also include specific performance items like oral and written communication.
The graphic scale has come under frequent attack, but remains the most widely used rating method.
In a classic comparison between the ‘old-fashioned’ graphic scale and the much more sophisticated
forced, choice technique, the former proved to be fully as valid as the best of the forced, choice
forms, and better than most of them. It is also cheaper to develop and more acceptable to raters than
the forced, choice form. For many purposes there is no need to use anything more complicated than
a graphic scale supplemented by a few essay questions.

25. 25
57. Field Review: When there is reason to suspect rater bias, when some raters appear to be
using higher standards than others, or when comparability of ratings is essential, essay or graphic
ratings are often combined with a systematic review process. The field review is one of several
techniques for doing this. A member of the personnel or central administrative staff meets with
small groups of raters from each ratery unit and goes over each employee's rating with them to ,
identify areas of inter, rater disagreement, help the group arrive at a consensus and determine that
each rater conceives the standards similarly. This group, judgment technique tends to be fairer and
more valid than individual ratings and permits develop an awareness of the varying degrees of
leniency or severity, as well as bias, exhibited by raters in different departments. On the negative
side, the process is very time consuming.
58. Forced Choice Rating: Like the field review, this technique was developed to reduce bias
and establish objective standards of comparison between ratee’s, but it does not involve the
intervention of a third party. Although there are many variations of this method, the most common
one asks raters to choose from among groups of statements those which best fit the individual being
rated and those which least fit him. The statements are then weighted or scored, very much the way
a psychological test is scored. Ratee’s with high scores are, by definition, the better ratee’s; those
with low scores are the poorer ones. Since the rater does not know what the scoring weights for
each statement are, in theory at least, he cannot play favorites. The rationale behind this technique is
difficult to fault. It is the same rationale used in developing selection test batteries. In practice,
however, the forced, choice method tends to irritate raters, who feel they are not being trusted. They
want to say openly how they rate someone and not be second-guessed or tricked into making
‘honest’ appraisals. An additional drawback is the difficulty and cost of developing forms.
Consequently, the technique is usually limited to middle, and lower, management levels where the
jobs are sufficiently similar to make standard or common forms feasible. Finally, forced, choice
forms tend to be of little value, and probably have a negative effect, when used in appraisal
interviews.

26. 26
59. Critical incident appraisal: The discussion of ratings with ratee’s has, in many
organizations, proved to be a traumatic experience for raters. Some have learned from bitter
experience who receive honest but negative feedback are typically not motivated to do better , and
often do worse , after the appraisal interview. Consequently, raters tend to avoid such interviews, or
if forced to hold them, avoid giving negative ratings when the ratings have to be shown to the rater.
One stumbling block has no doubt been the unsatisfactory rating form used. Typically, these are
graphic scales that often include rather vague traits like initiative, cooperativeness, reliability, and
even personality. Discussing these with a rater can be difficult. The critical incident technique looks
like a natural to some ratee’s for performance review interviews, because it gives a ratee actual,
factual incidents to discuss with an employee. Raters are asked to keep a record, a ‘little black
book,’ on each ratee and to record actual incidents of positive or negative behavior. There are,
however, several drawbacks to this approach. It requires that raters jot down incidents on a daily or,
at the very least, a weekly basis. This can become a chore. Furthermore, the critical incident rating
technique need not, but may, cause a rater to delay feedback to raters. And it is hardly desirable to
wait six months or a year to confront an employee with a misdeed or mistake. Finally, the rater sets
the standards. If they seem unfair to a subordinate, might he not be more motivated if he at least has
some say in setting, or at least agreeing to, the standards against which he is judged?
60. Management by objectives: To avoid, or to deal with, the feeling that they are being judged
by unfairly high standards, raters in some organizations are being asked to set, or help set, their own
performance goals. It should be noted, however, that when MBO is applied at lower organizational
levels, raters do not always want to be involved in their own goal setting. Many do not want self,
direction or autonomy. As a result, more coercive variations of MBO are becoming increasingly
common, and some critics see MBO drifting into a kind of manipulative form of management in
which pseudo, participation substitutes for the real thing. Raters are consulted, but management
ends up imposing its standards and its objectives. Some organizations are introducing a work,
standards approach to goal setting in which the goals are openly set by management. In fact, there
appears to be something of a vogue in the setting of such work standards in white-collar and service
areas.

27. 27
61. Work-Standards approach: Instead of asking raters to set their own performance goals,
many organizations set measured daily work standards. In short, the work standards technique
establishes work and staffing targets aimed at improving productivity. When realistically used, it
can make possible an objective and accurate appraisal of the work of raters and raters. To be
effective, the standards must be visible and fair. Hence a good deal of time is spent observing raters
on the job, simplifying and improving the job where possible, and attempting to arrive at realistic
output standards. It is not clear, in every case, that work standards have been integrated with an
organization's appraisal program. However, since the work, standards program provides each
employee with a more or less complete set of his job duties; it would seem only natural that raters
will eventually relate appraisal and interview comments to these duties. The use of work standards
should make performance interviews less threatening than the use of personal, more subjective
standards alone. The most serious drawback appears to be the problem of comparability. If ratee’s
are evaluated on different standards, how can the ratings be brmustgether for comparison purposes
when decisions have to be made on promotions or on salary increases? For these purposes some
form of ranking is necessary.
62. Ranking methods: For comparative purposes, particularly when it is necessary to compare
people who work for different raters, individual statements, ratings, or appraisal forms are not
particularly useful. Instead, it is necessary to recognize that comparisons involve an overall
subjective judgment to which a host of additional facts and impressions must somehow be added.
There is no single form or way to do this. Comparing ratee’s in different units for the purpose of,
say, choosing a service rater or determining the relative size of salary increases for different raters,
requires subjective judgment, not statistics. The best approach appears to be a ranking technique
involving pooled judgment. The two most effective methods are alternation ranking and paired
comparison ranking.
63. Alternation ranking: In this method, the names of raters are listed on the left-hand side of a
sheet of paper, preferably in random order. If the rankings are for salary purposes, a rater is asked to
choose the ‘most valuable’ employee on the list, cross his name off, and put it at the top of the
column on the right-hand side of the sheet. Next, he selects the ‘least valuable’ employee on the list,
crosses his name off, and puts it at the bottom of the right-hand column. The ranker then selects the

28. 28
‘most valuable’ person from the remaining list, crosses his name off and enters it below the top
name on the right-hand list, and so on.
64. Paired- comparison ranking: This technique is probably just as accurate as alternation
ranking and might be more so. But with large numbers of raters it becomes extremely time
consuming and cumbersome. Both ranking techniques, particularly when combined with multiple
rankings (i.e., when two or more ratee’s are asked to make independent rankings of the same work
group and their lists are averaged), are among the best available for generating valid order, of, merit
rankings for salary administration purposes.

29. 29
65. Assessment centers: What about the assessment of future performance or potential? In any
placement decision and more so in promotion decisions, some prediction of future performance is
necessary. How can this kind of prediction be made most validly and most fairly? One widely used
rule of thumb is that ‘what a man has done is the best predictor of what he will do in the future.’ But
suppose you are picking a person to be a rater and this person has never held raters responsibility?
Suppose a person is selected for a job from among a group of candidates, none of whom has done
the job or one like it? In these situations, many organizations use assessment centre to predict future
performance more accurately. Typically, ratee’s from different departments are brmustgether to
spend two or three days working on individual and group assignments similar to the ones they will
be handling if they are promoted. The pooled judgment of observers, sometimes derived by paired
comparison or alternation ranking, leads to an order, of, merit ranking for each participant. Less
structured, subjective judgments are also made. There is a good deal of evidence that those ratee’s
chosen by assessment centre methods work out better than those not chosen by these methods. The
centre also makes it possible for ratee’s who are working for departments of low status or low
visibility in an organization to become visible and, in the competitive situation of an assessment
centre, show how they stack up against ratee’s from more well-known departments. This has the
effect of equalizing opportunity, improving morale, and enlarging the pool of possible promotion
candidates.
METHODOLOGY FOR RATERS
66. Strategic Plan: Each and every organizations need to submit a strategic plan for all its
activities, along with an annual performance plan, and performance budget to the appropriate
authority. The plan has to detail in specific terms the goals and objectives and how these goals and
objectives are programmed to be achieved. ‘Who We Are – Mission Statement’ are designed to
guide organizations/agencies into sharper focus, explain why and what for the organization exists,
explain what it is doing and describe how it is doing along with the constructive criticisms.
Strategic goals are an outgrowth/development/progress of clearly stated mission and aligning of
activities to support mission-related goals and making linkages between levels of funding and their
anticipated results are a welcome sign in the dynamics of real-time appraisal.

30. 30
67. Annual Performance Plans: Each organization/agency must submit a well-designed, a
well- defined and a concrete annual performance plan. Direct linkage to be programmed between
the strategic goals outlined in the strategic plan and what the organization appraisers and ratee’s are
actually doing. Annual performance goals need to be identified so as to gauge the progress toward
accomplishing strategic goals and identifying performance measures. Ratings provided in
‘administrative purpose with severe consequences’ condition must be more lenient than those
provided in ‘training purpose’ (and administrative purpose with less severe consequences’)
condition. Decisions in ‘administrative purpose with severe consequences’ condition must be more
lenient than decisions in ‘training purpose’ (and ‘administrative purpose with less severe
consequences’) condition. Purpose and self-monitoring must interact to affect leniency. Ratings
provided by high self-monitors be most lenient in the’ administrative purpose with severe
consequences’ condition.
68. Performance Management Indicators: Performance management system has to be
introduced in all organizations. This is by taking into account the availability of resources and the
inherent constraints. Promotion of culture with respect to performance management and focus on
results among its political structures, political office bearers and in its administration has to be
ensured.
69. Appropriate performance indicators needs to be introduced in each organization as a
yardstick for measuring performance. Measurable performance targets must be introduced. Monitor
measure and review performance against the performance indicators and targets set in. Initiate steps
to improve performance with regard to those development priorities and objectives where
performance targets are not met. Establish a process for regular reporting of performance-related
information to the appropriate authority.
70. Be honest and fair in evaluating all ratee’s. Be certain that the rater has reviewed all
ratee’s in an objective and consistent manner as ratee’s and relative to other ratee’s in the group.
The purpose of performance evaluations is to take a realistic snapshot of the ratee's performance. Do
not endorse that the ratee is improving if (s) he is not performing well.

31. 31
71. Be consistent in approach. Do not subscribe to a situation where it appears that the rater
can create excuses for one ratee while holding another ratee accountable. Define your criteria for
each level of ranking and use the same criteria for every ratee. Don't set separate criteria for certain
ratee’s.
72. Give comments. A ranking or number used to rank a ratee's performance is useless without
a written comment. Comments are required for any ranking that is less than 4 or meets expectations
and also for the highest ranking of 9 or exceed expectations. Comments may confirm achievements
or be constructive depending on the nature of the ranking. Make the comments consistent with
rankings. Don't give ratee’s a ‘meets expectations’ ranking if comment describes a substandard
performance. There is a need to be realistic. Don't inflate ratings. Inflation of ratings only inflates a
ratee's expectations.
73. Rate the ratee's performance, not the ratee's ‘attitude.’ Keep comments job related and
based on the ratee's ability to perform his job. Avoid phrases like ‘bad attitude,’ ‘he's not a team
player,’ and other subjective type comments. Explain the behavior that is a result of the ‘attitude.’
74. Set goals with the ratee. Don't just criticize a deficient performer; set goals for follow up
and for improvement or development. Work together to create a plan of action to help the ratee in
deficient areas and to establish goals for the coming year. Set a follow up period and be sure to
reevaluate the ratee at the appropriate time.
75. Performance evaluation should motivate a ratee to improve. The ratee should feel
excited about the challenges and his ability to meet them. If ratee’s hear only about their failures
and weaknesses, they'll start to believe they can't succeed. If ratee’s get support and encouragement
from their rater, they'll gain the desire and confidence to keep trying. When the rater’s suggestions
for improvement bring results - and recognition - ratee’s are even more likely to listen to future
suggestions.
76. No surprises. The evaluation should be a review of the past year's performance. Through
previous counseling and other communications, the ratee should be aware of any concerns you

32. 32
might have about their job performance. The annual evaluation should not be the first time the ratee
learns of your concerns.
77. One tool that may be used is to ask the ratee to review his or her own performance and
expectations for the future by preparing a self-appraisal. They can complete the evaluation form that
the rater uses, draft a memo or list reviewing performance strengths, weaknesses and future goals.
Having the ratee undergo the same exercise may make it easier for him / her to understand the value
of evaluation. The limited usefulness of self-appraisals as an evaluation tool has elicited doubts
about the use of self-ratings in the appraisal process.
JOB PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
78. An essential part of the Appraisal Program is the Job Performance Summary, which is
completed by the rater for each ratee at the end of the work planning/appraisal cycle. This summary
includes the following, overall rating and summary statement, comments by rater and ratee and next
level rater review.
a) Overall Performance Rating :The overall rating for each ratee is determined at the end
of the work cycle. The rater reviews performance information (examples: notes, records and
reports) collected during the work cycle against the expectations for each key responsibility/
result and dimension. These are then rated expectations in order to record the actual
performance on the work plan form. The rater combines actual performance of the
individual key responsibilities/results and dimensions into a single overall rating and records
it on the overall summary page of the work plan form. If 50 percent or more of the
individual performance ratings are at the same level of performance, the overall rating is
most likely to be at that level of performance. In determining the overall rating consideration
must be given to, the priority order of the key responsibilities/results and dimensions, the
impact of not performing the primary job factors and relationship of the key responsibilities/
results plus dimensions to accomplishment of the entire job. The statement supporting the
overall rating must be entered in the raters comments section of the work plan form. The
rater signs the job performance summary page and obtains the signatures of the ratee and the
next level rater.

33. 33
b) Summary Statement and Comments :The summary statement explaining the raters
Overall Performance Rating should indicate how the actual performance was compared to
the performance expectations described. In the comments section, ratee’s and raters may
make statements regarding the appraisal and the appraisal process.
c) Next Level Rater Review : The next level rater is required to review and sign the
performance rating completed by subordinate raters for ratee’s in their areas of responsibility
before the performance rating is discussed with the ratee. Comments are optional.
COMPETENCY OF APPRAISER
79. Performance rater uses a specific set of competencies to help ratee’s identify and resolve
human performance problems. These competencies are embedded in the human performance
technology process and include the skills of problem analysis, solution design, development, change
management, impact evaluation and remediation. Analysis skills are fundamental, covering both
organizational and cause analysis, and are supported by strong relationship-building ability. Design
skills demand strength in intervention selection, solution development and coordination.
Implementation skills are rooted in organizational management and change resistance abilities.
Evaluation skills are rooted in reliable measurement of intermediate plus final results across the
entire performance analysis and improvement process. Acquiring core competencies of the
performance professional is a question of formal and informal skill acquisition. Observation and
practice in real-time performance improvement scenarios and close attention to and improvement of
one’s emotional skill set is of prime importance. If such a factor is necessary for an appraiser to
develop credible assignment results, the appraiser is responsible for having the appraisal to address
that factor or for following the steps outlined above to satisfy this appraisal rule.
80. The background and experience of appraisers varies wide. Lack of knowledge or experience
can lead to inaccurate or inappropriate appraisal practice. The appraisal rule requires an appraiser to
have both the knowledge and the experience required to perform a specific appraisal service
competently. Trying to find real quantitative data to appraise your knowledge ratee and avoid
subjective ratings? If quantitative data about performance is available that are neither trivial nor

34. 34
contaminated, it makes perfect sense to use them for evaluating performance. But our most
important and valuable ratee — our executives, raters, and knowledge ratee — generally perform
jobs that require subjective skills such as analysis, problem solving, creativity, and judgment. Even
when there appear to be ‘bottom line’ results such as profits or sales, the performance picture will
always be incomplete without subjective evaluations.
81. If an appraiser is offered the opportunity to perform an appraisal, but lacks the necessary
knowledge or experience to complete it competently, the appraiser must disclose his or her lack of
knowledge or experience to the ratee before accepting the assignment. Then necessary or
appropriate steps to complete the appraisal service competently can be undertaken. This may be
accomplished in various ways, including but not limited to, personal study by the appraiser,
association with an appraiser reasonably believed to have the necessary knowledge or experience, or
retention of others who possess the required knowledge or experience. In an assignment where
appraisal is necessary, an appraiser preparing an appraisal in an unfamiliar setting must spend
sufficient time to understand the nuances involved. Such understanding should not be imparted
solely from a consideration of specific data. Although this requires an appraiser to identify the
problem and disclose deficiency in competence prior to accepting an assignment, facts or conditions
uncovered during the course could cause an appraiser to discover that he or she lacks the required
knowledge or experience to complete the assignment competently.
82. Applying templates from the performance criterion literature, there is a need to implement a
construct-based approach to the investigation of errors in appraisal ratings. Context effects in
appraisals have been operationalized at a personal level phenomenon. The need is to investigate
context effects at the instrument level by examining: the influence of rating contextual items on
subsequent ratings of task items and influence of rating task items on subsequent ratings of
contextual items.
83. ‘Item response’ theoretical methods of differential item functioning detection can be applied
to investigate the influence of context on item ratings of task and contextual performance. The
order in which task and contextual items can be presented would to some extent influence rating
responses. Specifically, when task items are preceded by contextual items, the relatedness between

35. 35
task items and their underlying construct can be reduced. These observed slope effects, as
conceptualized within the item response theory framework, does demonstrate an advantage of item
response theory methods over traditional approaches for detecting the influence of context on
responses to appraisal questions.
84. The rater personality study needs to examine the relationship between levels of rater agreeableness,
conscientiousness and ratings of task and contextual performance. Use of a more precise
operationalization of performance would be capable of detecting complex relationships between
personality and ratings on task and contextual performance. While rater agreeableness and
conscientiousness are both related to task performance ratings, conscientiousness does moderate the
relationship between rater agreeableness and contextual performance ratings. Overall, high
agreeable raters tend to give higher ratings than low agreeable raters. However, these difference a
researched to be greatest among low conscientious raters but minimized among high conscientious
raters.
RATING SCALE
85. Outstanding Performance: Performance is far above the defined job expectations. The ratee
consistently performs outstanding work, regularly above and beyond what is expected of ratee’s in
this job. Performance that exceeds expectations is due to the effort and skills of the ratee. Any
performance not consistently exceeding expectations is minor or due to events not under the control
of the ratee.
a) Very Good Performance: Performance meets the defined job expectations and in
many instances, exceeds job expectations. The ratee generally is doing a very good job.
Performance that exceeds expectations is due to the effort and skills of the ratee.
b) Good Performance (Meets Expectations) : Performance meets the defined job
expectations. The ratee is performing the job at the level expected for ratee’s in this position.
The good performance is due to the ratee’s own effort and skills.

36. 36
c) Below Good Performance: Performance may meet some of the job expectations but
does not fully meet the remainder. The ratee generally is performing the job at a minimal
level, and improvement is needed to fully meet expectations. Performance is less than good.
Lapses in performance are due to the ratee’s lack of effort or skills. Requires guidance and
supervision.
d) Unsatisfactory Performance: Performance generally fails to meet the defined
performance expectations or requires frequent, close supervision and/or the redoing of work.
The ratee is not performing the job at the level expected for ratee’s in this position.
Unsuccessful job performance is due to the ratee’s own lack of effort or skills.
CONSTRUCTING AN APPRAISAL MODEL
86. The appraisal summary rating for each ratee is used to support other personnel decisions such as
promotions, demotions, disciplinary actions, reductions-in-force, etc. Each ratee must have a current
appraisal on file and the appraisal must be consistent with the action to be taken. There is a need to
monitor recommended actions and require justification by raters for any actions requested which are
inconsistent with the rating. This may be accomplished through meetings and/or written information
87. Studies on designing configurations for appraisal reflect upon the following key parameters for a
successful appraisal;
a) Leadership is critical in designing and deploying efficient/effective performance
measurement and management systems. Clear, consistent, and visible involvement by senior
organization officials and appraisers is a necessary part of the successful performance
measurement and management systems. Senior leadership should be actively involved in
both the creation and implementation of the organizational systems.
b) A conceptual framework is needed for the performance measurement and
management system. Every organization/agency needs a clear and cohesive performance
measurement framework that is understood by all levels of the organization. This framework
should support its objectives and reflection of results.

37. 37
c) Efficient/effective internal and external communications are the keys to successful
performance measurement. Such communication with ratee’s, appraisers, process owners
and participants is vital to the successful development / deployment of performance
measurement and management systems. It is the ratee’s and appraisers who ultimately judge
how well it has achieved its goals and objectives. Those within the organization entrusted
with / expected to achieve performance goals and targets should be clear as to how success
is defined. They must be aware as to what their role in achieving that success is. Both
outsiders and insiders need to be part of the development / deployment of performance
measurement systems.
d) Accountability for results must be clearly assigned and well-understood. High-
performance organizations clearly identify on what it takes to determine success. It must
make sure that all appraisers and ratee’s understand what they were responsible for in
achieving organizational goals. Accountability is typically a key success factor, but one with
multiple dimensions and multiple applications.
e) Compensation rewards and recognition should be linked to performance
measurements. Linking performance evaluations and rewards to specific measures of
success and tying incentives directly to performance, sends a clear and unambiguous
message to the organization as to what is important, relevant and significant.
f) Performance measurement systems should be positive and not punitive. Most
successful performance measurement systems are not punitive systems but learning systems.
This helps organizations identify as to what works and what does not so as to continue with
and improve those. Performance measurement is a tool that lets the organization track its
progress and direction towards the strategic goals and objectives. It should not lead to
perverse incentives with a clandestine view to fudge figures or manipulate performance
achievements. Results and progress toward programme commitments should be openly
shared with ratee’s. While sensitive information generally must be protected, performance
measurement system information should be openly and widely shared.

38. 38
g) A progressive transformation from good performance monitoring and measurement
system towards good appraisal is called for. Performance management is a tool as well as a
means for real-time appraisal. The biggest challenge of an organization is to create a system
of good, equitable, rational, just optimal appraisal which promotes supports and sustains
human development. Good appraisal is among other things participatory, transparent,
accountable, efficient/effective and equitable. It promotes the role of human resource
development (management) and ensures that political, social-economic and cultural
priorities are based on a broad consensus. There is a requirement to design an optimal and
comprehensive agenda, keeping in view the individual and organisational objectives in
which appraisal architecture/monitoring/regulation/ administration form key components.
88. While building the above architecture, the following aspects need to be looked into:
indicator-wise base data (to learn about recent levels and patterns of performance in order to gauge
subsequent policy/programme/scheme of appraisal impact), clarity (as to data sources: primary and
secondary, data collection method :review, interview, field visit, survey, census, field
experiment),how and who must collect data(frequency and cost of data collection), practical
difficulties (in collecting data, setting indicator targets, clear understanding of baseline starting
point, funding and level of personnel resources expected throughout the target period), quantum of
outside resources (expected to supplement efforts) and only one target (for each indicator).
DIFFICULTIES WITH TRADITIONAL APPRAISAL SYSTEMS
89. For many, the term 'appraisal system' embodies the major difficulties with these traditional
approaches. The appraisal itself suggests assessment of the past rather than improvement in the
future. An appraisal system suggests a tightly controlled, formal, procedure which limits the scope
of the discussion and activities of the rater and ratee. Consequently both parties tended to view the
appraisal interview with apprehension (at best) or at worst judge the process a waste of valuable
time.
90. A focus on the past: Most appraisal systems are based upon assessment of the past. Whilst
it is much easier to assess the past than the future, viewing the appraisal as a control and
maintenance system does little to realise future performance improvement. A consideration of
future potential, opportunities and development needs is an essential aid for both organisations and

39. 39
ratees. Future performance improvement needs organisational investment in development but this,
together with succession planning, is often very poorly managed if at all. Learning objectives,
learning potential, opportunity to apply learning and the means by which learning can be acquired
all need identification, and all need close support of line raters. Hence, the evolvement of
performance review and development systems.
91. Use of quantifiable measures: Rating scales and quantifiable measures do not always
reflect the true value of a ratee. Depending on the role, non-quantifiable behaviours (such as
motivation, ability to learn and quality of work) should represent important factors within the
appraisal process. Once a list of quantifiable factors becomes established, ratee’s must often modify
their behaviour to maximise their performance in those areas.
92. Traits are inputs to work, not outputs: Traits describe a person's characteristics and
approaches to work. They represent what somebody puts into the job. They do not necessarily
predict or reflect the outcome or results of a person's work. The problem is similar to the difference
between effort and achievement. Organisations which put a premium on effort in the appraisal may
not necessarily yield high performance improvement. Those which put all appraisal emphasis on
results may appear to be insensitive towards ratee’s' personal contributions. But where appraisal
systems value achievement, the degree of change, self determination and then the consequential
developmental cultural must produce high value results for both the individual and organisation.
Trait based measurements are inherently subjective and require judgment on the part of appraiser.
The difficulty here is that any appraisal system utilising judgment criteria must generate markedly
different results between different appraisers. The outcome of an appraisal may therefore depend
more upon who is the appraiser than upon actual performance. A particular problem identified in
this area is the 'Halo' and 'Horns' effects.
93. Conservative use of scales : It has been researched that with all appraisal rating scales there
is a very high tendency to only give middle range scores .The consequence is that both high and low
performers are not recognised and managed (rewarded or punished) accordingly and therefore the
appraisal system is ineffective. Appraisees have an awareness of how well they are performing
compared with their colleagues, they do talk to each other about their appraisal results and unless
the appraisal process fairly utilises the full rating range the appraisal system itself must rapidly

40. 40
become discredited. Performance review and development systems focus on self realisation of
individual potential and not some arbitrary comparison with colleagues that often results in conflict.
94. Rewards/ awards 'unrelated' to appraisal : In systems where there is a time lapse between
the appraisal interview and the rewards award itself, there can grow a concern either that
performance has not been fully recognised or that the calculation is somehow fudged. In addition,
ratee’s still know that the appraisal does have a bearing on the rewards award, however hidden.
Many organisations today prefer a more open and honest approach.
95. Emphasizes formal procedures: For the rater to take full responsibility, they have to
continually monitor, review, feedback, discuss performance improvement during frequent and
informal meetings with each ratee. A formal annual appraisal can falsely suggest that this effective
informal process can be replaced by the formal annual meeting. Documentation supporting the
appraisal interview often reinforced this by describing the formal procedure in great detail, with
only a passing reference to informal meetings and continuous development.
96. The limits of only two appraisal views: Where the appraisal only required input from the
appraiser and the appraisee then the appraisal process must potentially miss the rich sources of
feedback that can be offered by peers and subordinates, hence 360 degree appraisal. This
information can often reveal problems in perceptions of roles and the quality of working
relationships, including that between the appraiser and appraisee and the need for the appraiser to
accept criticism. In organisations where team working and open management are encouraged, the
appraisal process must recognise the value of the information gained from these sources.
97. May impede wider discussion: Completing a appraisal form can easily become the task
object, rather than a performance improvement review. In addition, appraisals forms are often
generated by personnel departments and do not always cover the real performance improvement
issues between a rater and ratee. The one appraisal form cannot deal effectively with organisational
diversity.
98. Not always measurable: Much criticism has been made, by ratee’s, of the use of appraisal
objectives. Raters who cannot set SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-
based) objectives are accused of changing the goal-posts, creating confusion and increasing the
appraisal standard without performance related rewards recognition or increase in grade. This is

41. 41
often because appraisal objectives are not related to the goals and direction of the business or the
department. Hence, the movement towards performance review and development systems.
99. Different schemes for different ratee’s: Diverse appraisal systems are often introduced
because of the need to measure different factors and reward in different ways. However, different
appraisal systems risk being divisive and causing resentment. If the use of different appraisal
systems generate 'us and them' attitudes they must be divisive, in which event it is unlikely that the
appraisal process must be much more than a meaningless paper exercise. Better to differentiate
between roles, and attendant competence definitions, using the 'level of work' principle, than having
separate appraisal systems.
100. A common practice is to set goals that must force the organization to ‘stretch’ in order to
exceed its past performance. By benchmarking such measures, an organization can validate the fact
that the designed goals are still attainable. It is also important to provide information on
performance goals / results to ratee’s and appraisers. This increases their understanding of the
organization’s mission / goals and unifies the workforce behind them. It also helps emphasise team
logic rather than fostering individual competition.
101. The key objectives of a performance monitoring and evaluation system is to provide real-
time based crucial information about performance to the ratees, provide a view over time on the
status of a scheme of appraisal/programme /policy, promote credibility and ratee’s confidence by
reporting on the results, help formulate and justify requests, plan interventions, identify potentially
promising programmes/practices and help building a performing organization.A sound performance
monitoring system needs to be guided by the following principles; ownership/management need to
realize that movement of performance information be both horizontal and vertical, identify demand
for performance information, clarify responsibilities at each level to each ratee and rater ,data
collection/collation/analysis/measurement /reporting, should not be limited or under a set of
constraints but cater to the requirement ( precise, reliable, consistent, valid, and timely).
102. A well-designed performance monitoring system tracks implementation (input/output and
activities), results (outcomes and impacts) and monitors whether a scheme of appraisal, programme
or policy is cruising along the desired path towards achieving the desired goals or results.

42. 42
Implementation monitoring involves tracking the means and strategies used to achieve goal ably
supported by the use of management tools. Developing the system requires, conduct ‘readiness
assessment’, agree on performance outcomes, select key performance indicators to monitor
outcomes, gather baseline data, plan for improvement in setting targets, build a monitoring system,
analyse and publish findings, undertake evaluation, use findings to institutionalize monitoring and
evaluation. While designing a appraisal instrument, the focus should be towards goals and
results(objective), be conducted under the surveillance of a responsible rater, appraisal be
consistently pursued, should include the interaction of personal and situational variables, be
regularly reviewed and modified when required, appraisals to reinforce commitment with
satisfaction among organizational membership/employment and it should for provide a continuity
of relationships from one appraisal stage to the next.
PRACTICAL APPROACHES
103 Trying to find real quantitative data to appraise your knowledge ratee and avoid subjective
ratings? If you've got quantitative data about performance that are neither trivial nor contaminated,
it makes perfect sense to use them for evaluating performance. But our most important and
valuable ratee — our executives, raters, and knowledge ratee — generally perform jobs that require
subjective skills such as analysis, problem solving, creativity, and judgment. Even when there
appear to be ‘bottom line’ results such as profits or sales, the performance picture will always be
incomplete without subjective evaluations.
104. Appraisal is not about a single event, such as completing a standard review form, but rather
a process that is ongoing. Appraisal activities, as an ongoing process, should connect the process to
organizational functioning and focus on ratee and rater improvement, not simply wage adjustment
and/or disciplinary action.
105. An approach is the Conventional Rating Scale. These scales use words or phrases to
describe the degree to which certain behaviours or characteristics are displayed. Categories for
behaviourally anchored scales can be created from job descriptions. If there are no appropriate
behaviours or characteristics within job descriptions, raters should work with ratee and rater to
determine what behaviours and characteristics would be most useful in an appraisal setting.

43. 43
106. Another approach is the Behaviourally Anchored Scale. In this approach, broad categories
of practice are identified, ideally through collaborations between raters and staff. Specific job
behaviours are then linked to the categories. Measures of ratee behaviour are rated on a scale in
relation to specific behaviour items, such as ‘understands department functions.’ Job-dimensions
usually yield similar broad categories, such as planning, setting priorities, and responsiveness to
supervision. Categories such as these may be useful in framing evaluation criteria in this approach
to appraisal.
107. Another means of approaching behaviour-based appraisal is the Behavioural Frequency
Scale. Here, desired behaviours are described and the ratee is evaluated on how often those
behaviours occur.
108. The Weighted Checklist is another appreciable way of approaching behaviour-based
appraisal. This method provides a list of performance related statements that are weighted. Ratee’s
are judged on a scale indicating the degree to which the statement accurately describes performance.
109. A final approach to behaviour-based appraisal is the forced-choice method. Here, a list of
performance related statements about job performance are evaluated on how well they discriminate
among ratee and rater and how important they are to unit or institutional performance.
Discrimination and desirability statements are placed on a grid in clusters that differ on
discrimination but are closely related in desirability. Discrimination and desirability are multiplied
to yield a total scale score.
110. There are both advantages and disadvantages to the above approaches. On the positive side,
they produce short and long-term results in the context of original performance and organizational
objectives, are generally perceived as fair, tend to generate high levels of commitment to the
organization, and they encourage a high level of participation and are thus defensible. On the
negative side, they can be overly results oriented and they may be inflexible.
111. What raters need from appraisals ?Raters need (and the law encourages) comparative
performance data for making comparative decisions — decisions that affect both the person selected
and the ones not selected. With the exception of a ‘termination for cause’, it is hard to imagine a

44. 44
personnel decision that is not comparative. With comparative decisions, if one ratee is promoted,
others are not; if one receives a favorable job assignment, others do not. In the case of decisions
with negative consequences, such as downsizing, some are let go, others are retained.
112. Whenever ratee’s believe the outcome of a decision has negatively affected their careers, or
their opportunities, or their chances for advancement, they can claim unfair treatment. The
organization can only defend itself from such a claim if they can show that the person selected was
not just qualified, but better qualified than the others not selected.
113. If raters determine that the advantages outweigh disadvantages, it can then be recommended
that the results-focused approaches be incorporated. There are two general techniques of enacting
results-focused approaches: Management by Objectives (MBO) and Accountabilities with
Measures. To avoid, or to deal with, the feeling that they are being judged by unfairly high
standards, ratee’s in some organizations are being asked to set (or help set) their own performance
goals.
114. Accountabilities and Measures approaches involve the rater and ratee agreeing on
accountability and performance factors and including them in the job description. Performance is
then forecast for each factor to enable quantifiable measures for each factor. An Accountabilities
and Measures form can be created, with performance factor categories.
INTEGRATING THE STAFFING MODEL
115. Staffing should be viewed as a process and not creation of ubiquitous standards. The
overriding purpose is to help ratee’s and raters to improve and, thus improve organizational
effectiveness. Appraisal therefore addresses institutional needs as well as ratee needs, abilities,
motivation, and expectancies. Staffing is obviously closely associated with organization structure
and climate, as well as ratee-systems like career development, succession planning, self-help and
coaching, training, compensation and other functions. These provide the convergent influences that
lead to the retention of ratees by their employer-organization.

45. 45
116. The key to successful staffing is to ensure that these two elements (the personal and the
corporate) are orchestrated to be as convergent as possible, thus creating an optimal use of
organizational resources. The integrated staffing model suggests two integrated functions toward
this purpose: the evaluation of ratee and rater relative to job requirements and the development of
ratee and rater for improved performance. Thus, appraisal and ratee and rater development are
closely related and should operate in concert with one another. The integrated staffing model also
suggests that staffing practices occur within a larger context of institutional culture. Thus,
judgments about appraisal, as well as the design and implementation of appraisal systems, should be
considered contextually. Effective appraisal systems should address clarity, openness, fairness;
recognize productivity through rewards and be cognizant of appraiser leadership qualities.
117. ‘The Dynamics of Successful Staffing’ suggests a sequential flow which includes the
following.
a) The organization structure and design is the product of an evolution that can be
charted; over the same time frame the organization can chart changes in organizational
climate; and the individuals who go to make up the human resources of the organization
have each their life and career histories that bring them to where they are now.
b) Successful staffing can only take place as part of the dynamic interaction of several
organizational systems. It must be planned and systematically orchestrated over time. The
payoff of successful staffing is keeping the right people for the right reasons, and losing the
ones we lose for the right reason too: how many organizations seem to land up with the
wrong people for the wrong reasons? And getting it right adds greatly to an organization's
effectiveness (optimizing what it can achieve with the resources it has) and will considerably
reduce overhead costs over time.
APPRAISAL SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES: