In 1983, I wrote the book 'How To Improve Performance Through Appraisal And Coaching'. It was published by the American Management Association (AMACOM) and was a good seller until 2003 when it was discontinued. It received the 'best book of the year' award from the American Society For Personnel Management (ASPA), now called the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). The 2nd edition of the book has just been published. It is called Improving Performance Through Appraisal and Coaching. The concepts, principles and techniques are as applicable today as they were then. In addition, I wrote a Management Inventory On Performance Appraisal And Coaching (MIPAC) which was widely used as a training tool.

Following are ten items from the MIPAC to challenge your thinking and provide 'Ten Tips For Effective Performance Appraisals'.

1. Nearly all employees want to improve their performance.
2. Less than maximum performance of employees is often due to factors over which they have no control.
3. Most performance appraisal programs relate directly to salary administration with little emphasis on improved performance.
4. A clear understanding of what's expected by employees is a necessary prerequisite to appraising their performance.
5. A clarification of 'what's expected' should include a clear explanation of duties and responsibilities as well as standards of performance.
6. Asking the employee for a self appraisal is a bad idea.
7. In the 'appraisal interview' where boss and subordinate get together to discuss the subordinate's performance, they should each talk about 50% of the time.
8. In the 'appraisal interview', strengths as we'll as weaknesses should be determined.
9. The 'appraisal interview' should end with a 'Performance Improvement Plan' which details what the boss as well as the subordinate should do to improve the performance of the subordinate.
10. Follow up coaching by the boss is essential in getting the subordinate to improve performance.

 
Here are my answers.

1. (A) Hardly anyone disagrees with this statement. It is a prerequisite for improved performance. There may be exceptions, but they would be few.
2. (A) This is a very important concept. Most employees have little control over miscommunication by the boss, the condition of the equipment with which they work, the deadlines for getting work done, reliance on other employees, working conditions, and other factors.
3. (A) Many times the boss is under pressure to appraise a certain way because higher management has already decided what kind of an increase (merit or otherwise) the subordinate will receive. And often the interview ends up with the subordinate being unhappy with the decision. In most cases, if a weakness is pinpointed, the boss will simply say that the subordinate has to improve his/her performance.
4. (A) I am sure that everyone got the 'correct answer' for this. But, it is one of the biggest problems in appraising performance. Often, the boss will criticize the subordinate for not doing something, and the subordinate will say, or at least feel, that he/she did not know that it was what was supposed to be done. I consider this one of the most critical problems related to unsatisfactory performance. It is the situation where the boss appraises on the basis of what he/she expects instead of what the employee understands is expected.
5. (A) I am sure that all readers will agree with this. But it is done too infrequently. A job description usually spells out what should be done but seldom spells out how well it should be done.
6. (DA) I am sure there will be a split decision on this. I personally think it is a very good idea. The subordinate has a chance to prepare for the interview and is happy to do it. I learned from George Odiorne, a friend and author who stated that 'if you want somebody to accept something, give that person a feeling of ownership'. And that applies to this as well as all decisions of management. It also makes it easier for the boss to conduct the interview. He/she can find out where the two agree and where they disagree.
7. (A) I suspect a split in the vote on this one. I think this is a good average which allows both boss and subordinate to provide input. (I suspect that the actual average is more like 90% boss and 10% subordinate.) In some cases where there is a timid employee, the ratio might be 90% boss and 10% subordinate. In other cases where the subordinate loves to talk, it might be 20% boss and 80% subordinate. But the concept of 50-50 allows for both to have their say.
8. (A) A few may disagree, but this is an important concept. Give positive feedback where the subordinate has performed well. This will help to get the subordinate to listen to criticism and weaknesses.
9. (A) I think most every reader will agree. But, it is unusual for a typical performance to end this way. The typical ending is something like 'We have agreed on your areas to be improved and I will be looking for you to do it'. A 'Performance Improvement Plan' should include with an agreement of what the boss and organization can do to help the subordinate improve as well as what the subordinate can do. This goes back to item 2 which recognizes that there are many factors over which the employee has little or no control. Ending the interview with the joint development of a 'performance improvement plan' means ending the interview on a positive tone.
10. (A) In business organizations as well as in sports, it is necessary for the boss to become a coach. It isn't enough to agree on the performance improvement and hope each does what he/she agrees to do, it is essential that the boss prepares a coaching plan to follow up and see that the agreed on things are really done.

These statements contain 'Ten Tips'. I hope I have confirmed some of your beliefs about performance appraisals and reviews. If you don't agree with my 'correct answers', I hope I have encouraged you to take another look.

 

By Don Kirkpatrick