According to Farndale and Kelliher (2013), redesigning of employee performance appraisal plays a crucial role in the enhancement of the frameworks and measures put in place by an organization to ensure that its employees are more competent in performing the roles and responsibilities. In this respect, the organization finds it more convenient to track the individual performance and contribution of it its employees based on its goals and objectives. Essentially, the organization becomes better placed to understand the unique capabilities, effectiveness, and productivity of each of its employees. The utilization of a more efficient system of performance appraisal on employees is critical in the identification of areas that require improvements and training among the employees. Besides, Farndale and Kelliher (2013) emphasize that a performance evaluation tool is vital in assisting an organization to identify the strengths of individual employees as well as opportunities for further enhancements in the future.
The observations by Boice and Kleiner (2017) indicate that one of the most critical considerations to the redesigning of the employee performance evaluation tool for an organization is the need to achieve effectiveness. In that respect, Boice and Kleiner (2017) maintain that effective systems of performance appraisals in any organization play a considerable role in attaining a more committed and motivated workforce. For a system of employee performance evaluation to be more efficient and effective in conducting its functions, the commitment, and support of the top management in an organization is essential. Besides, this kind of commitment often translates into the desire to ensure that the goals and objectives of the organization are appropriately aligned to those of individual members of the workforce. One of the critical benefits of redesigning and improving systems employee performance evaluation is that it forms the basis of employee training.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Battle (2013) posits that the need for the redesigning of system and tools used in evaluating the performance of employees in an organization is to encourage its frequent review. Such an exercise is necessary regular review of performance, keeping of accurate records concerning achievements and contributions of employees to the organization, and facilitating the establishment of a clearly defined system of measuring performance. In this respect, Battle (2013) clarifies that the performance of individual employees in an organization is essential in establishing whether their achievements are consistent with the attainment of critical requirements attached to the positions or roles in the organization.
The argument by Frederiksen, Lange, and Kriechel (2017) in supporting the redesigning of tools and systems of employee performance evaluation in an organization is that it helps in improving the roles and responsibilities played by individual workers. Besides, this exercise focuses on ensuring that the different levels of performance in the organization are reliable as well as consistent with value addition to the workforce. Frederiksen, Lange, and Kriechel (2017) add that improvements and adjustments in specific areas of performance are mostly dependent on the outcomes of an appropriately redesigned system of evaluating individual performance of employees. In this respect, urgent sustained enhancements would be necessary to address the issue of performance failing to meet its levels of expectations.
Kim and Holzer (2014) place more emphasis on the existence of a significant level of acknowledgment that organizations can substantially benefit from redesigning their tools and systems of conducting the employee performance evaluation. However, there is a concern that some of the employees in the organization may have negative perceptions and reactions regarding the whole process of trying to evaluate their performance to establish their productivity and contribution to the organization. To that end, Kim and Holzer (2014) maintain that the intention of designing or redesigning the tools of employee performance evaluation by an organization should primarily focus on identifying areas of improvement through training. Besides, the consideration of the cognitive aspect has a critical role to play in addressing the contradictions that may be perceived or experienced by employees towards this particular process. Redesigning of performance appraisals for employees assists in a consistent and clear demonstration of exceptional and extraordinary accomplishments in various areas of responsibility. In some situations, such performance evaluation tools can establish that the performance of a particular individual employee is above expectations in the existing environment and conditions.
Allen, Turner, and Turner (2018) clarify that redesigned performance evaluation systems for employees may or may not focus on the need of establishing monthly or yearly ratings since their primary concern is the determination of whether individual performance is aligned to the achievement of the organization's goals and objectives. Besides, most of the enhancements included in the process of designing or redesigning a performance evaluation tool are often expected to place more emphasis on coaching, training, development, agile objective setting, and regular feedback. Allen, Turner, and Turner (2018) argue that focus should not just be directed towards the attainment of ranking distributions among member of the workforce in an organization but should have the intention of correcting any identified inadequacies and weaknesses. This process would assist the human resource department to conduct adequate planning for training programs and sessions. Besides, the individual employees would be in a better position to understand their areas that require their commitments to improving the performance.
According to Khan (2016), there are varied perceptions amongst employees regarding the role of performance evaluations and the need to redesign them. There may be significant costs attached to the conduction of the process of redesigning employee performance and appraisal systems. Besides, the aspect of the participation of employees in redesigning the performance evaluation tools is a vital consideration in trying to address some of the negative perceptions that employees usually hold against the whole process of performance appraisal. Some of the employees typically believe that the significant role of performance appraisal tools is only meant to raise accusations against them. There are circumstances where the process of redesigning a performance evaluation system by an organization can be beneficial to employees. Khan (2016) adds that employees are most likely to benefit from different training and coaching program courtesy of a process that places more emphasis on effective redesigning of their performance tool and systems.
References
Allen, J., Turner, A., & Turner, J. (2018). Employee Performance and Engagement for
Performance Improvement. Performance Improvement Quarterly , 30 (4), 225-230.
doi: 10.1002/piq.21272
Battle, S. (2013). Issues to Consider in Planning Employee Assistance Program Evaluations.
Employee Assistance Quarterly , 3 (3-4), 79-93. doi: 10.1300/j022v03n03_07
Boice, D., & Kleiner, B. (2017). Designing effective performance appraisal systems. Work
Study , 46 (6), 197-201. doi: 10.1108/00438029710367622
Farndale, E., & Kelliher, C. (2013). Implementing Performance Appraisal: Exploring the
Employee Experience. Human Resource Management , 52 (6), 879-897. doi:
10.1002/hrm.21575
Frederiksen, A., Lange, F., & Kriechel, B. (2017). Subjective performance evaluations and
employee careers. Journal Of Economic Behavior & Organization , 134 , 408-429. doi:
10.1016/j.jebo.2016.12.016
Khan, A. (2016). Employees Perception on Performance Appraisal System in a public limited
company in Pakistan. International Journal Of Learning And Development , 6 (3). doi:
10.5296/ijld.v6i3.10039
Kim, T., & Holzer, M. (2014). Public Employees and Performance Appraisal. Review Of
Public Personnel Administration , 36 (1), 31-56. doi: 10.1177/0734371x14549673
