Chapter 8 - Appraising and managing employee performance Flashcards
Purpose of Performance Management in Public Service - EOCALR
One of PM’s fundamental purposes is to promote EMPLOYEE development
It emphasizes the need for ONGOING training and skills development
This enhances employee CONTRIBUTIONS to institutional objectives
ALIGNS employee outcomes with the broader goals of the organization.
LINKING individual performance with institutional goals ensures that all employees are working toward unified goals.
This can be done through REWARDING performance by identifying outstanding performance
Performance management vs Performance appraisal - PRIBOP PIDO INS
PRABOP
PA refers to the PERIODIC evaluation of an employee’s performance within a job role.
It typically results in a RATING or score that reflects the employee’s effectiveness in their position.
PA’s documents INDIVIDUAL performance to serve as basis for decisions regarding promotions, rewards, and developmental needs
PM encompasses a BROADER, continuous process.
It involves providing ONGOING feedback and strategies for both personal and organizational development.
PM aims to create a PRODUCTIVE work environment that aligns individual performance with organizational goals
PIDO
The structure of PA is PERIODIC and often conducted once or twice a year
PM, INTEGRATES multiple phases such as appraisal
This structure is a DISTINCT part within the broader PM cycle and includes feedback sessions to ensure alignment with strategic objectives.
This ONGOING process ensures that employee goals align with organizational needs,
INS
The outcomes of PA focus primarily on INTERNAL HR decisions such as salary adjustments, promotions, and identifying skill gaps
PM outcomes extend beyond immediate HR NEEDS and aim to ensure that employees’ performance and development align with institutional objectives and customer satisfaction.
Thus, PM ultimately impacts SERVICE delivery through overall improved employee contributions .
regulatory framework that underpins performance management
Constitution PHOAP
Constitution sets out PRINCIPLES that mandate a public administration that is accountable and responsive to the public’s need
These principles ensure HIGH performance and responsiveness from public institutions
Constitution mandates HRM practices that OPTIMIZE employee potential
emphasizes ACCOUNTABILITY through implementing systems like PM to monitor and evaluate public officials’ performance systematically
outlines the role of the PUBLIC Service Commission (PSC) in proposing and enforcing measures to ensure the effective performance of public institutions
Public Service Act - GLADD
provides detailed GUIDELINES for administering the public service through managing employee performance
This establish LEGAL framework that regulates the terms of employment and performance management,
mandates an APPRAISAL criteria for heads of department in employment contracts which is directly linked to performance management
Additionally, the PSA emphasizes DISCIPLINARY measures for poor performance, as outlined in Section 13(5)(b).
This provision allows for the DISMISSAL of employees who fail to meet performance standards, establishing a strict accountability measure to promote high standards in public administration.
White Paper on Human Resource Management in the Public Service - LROED
It emphasizes the responsibility of LINE managers in actively managing employee performance to improve institutional outcomes.
it stipulates that managers should RECOGNIZE and reward outstanding performance, while also addressing poor performance.
OUTLINES five principles that PM systems should observe: results orientation, training and development, rewarding excellence, managing poor performance, and promoting fairness and transparency.
These principles ensure that PM promotes an EQUITABLE work environment where employees feel valued and motivated
This emphasis on DEVELOPMENT and transparency ensures that public institutions are accountable to the public
Common problems associated with performance appraisal and management
- Rating Errors in Performance Appraisals
Rating errors are a significant issue in performance appraisals, as they compromise the objectivity and accuracy of employee evaluations. Because performance appraisals heavily rely on subjective judgment, various biases can influence ratings, leading to unfair or inaccurate assessments. The document identifies several types of common rating errors:
PERSONAL Bias: This occurs when an appraiser allows personal feelings, favoritism, or prejudice to influence the rating. Such bias can result from factors unrelated to performance, such as an employee’s age, race, gender, or personal rapport with the appraiser. Personal bias creates discrimination and diminishes the accuracy of appraisals, often leading to resentment and disengagement among employees.
STEREOTYPING: Stereotyping happens when an appraiser generalizes an employee’s behavior or capabilities based on preconceived notions or group characteristics, such as ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic background. This generalization can lead to inaccurate evaluations, where employees may receive lower ratings due to stereotypes rather than actual performance.
HALO and Horn Effects: These effects occur when an appraiser’s perception of an employee’s performance in one area influences their ratings in other areas. In the halo effect, an employee’s strength in one area causes the appraiser to overlook weaknesses in other areas. Conversely, the horn effect occurs when a single negative trait influences lower ratings across all performance areas. Both effects skew the accuracy of performance evaluations.
RECENCY Error: Appraisers sometimes focus on recent events rather than evaluating performance over the entire appraisal period. This can lead to positive or negative ratings that do not accurately reflect the employee’s overall performance, which is particularly problematic in annual appraisals where recent events may overshadow past contributions.
DISTRIBUTIONAL Errors: Distributional errors include strictness, leniency, and central tendency biases. Strict appraisers may rate employees lower than deserved, lenient appraisers may rate employees too generously, and appraisers prone to central tendency may avoid extreme ratings, placing all employees at an “average” level. These errors obscure genuine differences in performance, hindering fair appraisals.
Poorly Developed Performance Standards - CICSS
failure to establish CLEAR, relevant, and measurable performance standards
Standards serve as benchmarks for assessing employee performance;
This leads to INCONSISTENCIES and misunderstandings.
One of the main reasons for inadequate standards is a lack of COLLABORATION between supervisors and employees
Effective performance standards should follow the SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound), ensuring they are clear and attainable for employees.
poorly developed standards often lead to SUBJECTIVE appraisals,
Challenges in the Appraisal Process and System
INADEQUATE Training for Appraisers: Supervisors and managers responsible for conducting appraisals may lack the necessary skills to objectively evaluate performance, provide constructive feedback, and apply rating criteria consistently. This lack of training leads to errors, inconsistencies, and, in some cases, bias. Without adequate training, appraisers may fail to distinguish between different levels of performance accurately, reducing the utility of the appraisal system.
RESISTANCE to Appraisal Systems: Employees and managers alike often view performance appraisals with skepticism, as they are sometimes perceived as punitive rather than developmental. Resistance to the appraisal system can result in minimal engagement, lack of cooperation during the process, and attempts to manipulate ratings. Additionally, if appraisals are not tied to meaningful outcomes, such as career advancement or rewards, employees may see them as unimportant or irrelevant.
Workplace POLITICS : The document highlights that workplace politics can influence performance appraisals, with ratings sometimes used as a means to settle personal scores or to favor certain employees. This manipulation of ratings for personal or political purposes undermines the objectivity of the appraisal process and can create distrust among employees, leading to disengagement and resentment.
Lack of DISPUTE Resolution Mechanisms: When disagreements arise over appraisal ratings, it is essential to have a structured dispute resolution process. Without this mechanism, employees may feel they have no recourse if they believe their appraisal was unfair. The document notes that unresolved grievances regarding appraisals have been a persistent issue in the South African public service, emphasizing the need for transparent and efficient dispute resolution processes.
Steps that are involved in the performance appraisal system - PIK CAO JKS PIS JAA
- PREPARING in Advance
Ensure an INFORMED and objective evaluation.
involes KEY performance areas (KPAs), to gather performance data and agreed upon goals that were established at the beginning of the appraisal process
- CREATING a Suitable Appraisal Environment
ANXIETY can affect the appraisal meeting as they can be stressful for employees
This can also affect the OPENNESS and receptiveness to feedback of the employee
> employers should outline that it is a two way conversation
- JOINTLY Appraising Actual Performance Against Standards
This step involves both the appraiser and the employee discussing the employee’s performance in relation to the KPAs and performance criteria set at the start of the performance cycle
employee is invited to present a SELF-ASSESSMENT or discuss their perceptions of their performance first. This allows the employee to contribute their perspective
- PROVIDING Feedback and Gaining Consent
Guide employees on how they can IMPROVE their performance
covering both STRENGTHS and areas needing improvement.
- JOINTLY Deciding on the Overall Performance Rating
Involves AGREEING on an overall performance rating
An ACCURATE and agreed-upon rating is essential as it influences various administrative decisions, including promotions, financial rewards, and developmental opportunities.
6.8.3 Why affirmative action programmes sometimes fail
Lack of Strategic Planning: Effective implementation requires a well-defined strategy, full commitment from top leaders, and support at all organizational levels. Without this, programs are poorly executed.
Insufficient Knowledge and Training: Employees may lack understanding of how to implement affirmative action initiatives, and outdated training methods fail to provide the necessary skills.
Negative Attitudes: Prejudices persist, particularly when control remains with white managers who may view black employees as less capable.
Poor Communication: Inadequate two-way communication leads to unresolved issues and unaddressed concerns, limiting program effectiveness.
Low Commitment from Management: When senior leaders are not genuinely invested in the success of these programs, it signals to others that meeting affirmative action targets isn’t a priority.
Inadequate Objectives and Timelines: Clear, communicated goals and deadlines are essential. When these are missing, the program’s purpose becomes unclear.
Outdated Recruitment Practices: Methods aren’t adapted to attract and assess black candidates effectively, and assumptions about job requirements may unjustly exclude potential hires.
