Traditionally, performance appraisal has been seen as purely an event, the tedious yearly task where the manager rates the performance of their employees over the past 6 to 12 months. Operating autonomously, the performance appraisal system was seldom related directly to the organisations stated mission or to any other programs and processes created to increase an individual’s efforts and intellectual capital.
Performance appraisal rating systems rely on the capability of the employer to group or arrange employee performance into a restricted number of categories as described by Sashkin (1981), in the particular rating scale on the performance appraisal form. The quantity of categories usually ranges from three categories to seven, but despite the numbers used, Murphy et al (1991) found that they are general categorizations and infrequently are linked to individual employee behaviors.
Any employee work performance issues should have been addressed and dealt with as soon as those issues occurred. Kleiman et al (1981) is adamant that nothing then should come as a surprise to the employee in the actual performance appraisal discussion. Kleiman et al (1981) has found that surprises will appear to the employee if the employer has not effectively been responsible in their duty and thus the employer is not being fair. It is OK to re-mention the past incidences in the discussion, but the employee should have heard about them before the performance appraisal. A regularly planned feedback session has been identified by Mathis et al (1994), regardless of being done half yearly or annually, to allow employees a planned and anticipated occasion to address key issues with their employer. It also allows a time for the employer to interact with their employees one-on-one to appraise their strengths, weaknesses and developmental capability. This discussion as mentioned by Schuler et al (1993), provides the occasion to discuss prospective financial bonuses and promotions,...