CH.9

After reading Chapter 9:

Answer the Discussion Question that:

How can past appraisals of performance influence the outcomes of employment-related legal actions?

Respond to three other discussion(I’ll uploaded letter after you done the Discussion ). (Your response must

be of significance, more than just yes or no)

You will need to post your comment as respond to the 3 comments by no more than 2-3 Complete Sentences. I

Looking on the depth, not the length of your comments

Comment to: (Please no more than 2-3 Complete Sentences.)

FROM TEXTBOOK :

Fallon L., & McConnell C. (2014). Human resource management in health care. (2nd ed). Jones & Bartlett

Publishers. Sudbury, MA. ISBN: 978-1-449-68883-7.

CHAPTER 9

Performance Appraisals

Chapter Objectives

After reading this chapter, readers will be able to:

•

Know the reasons for having an up-to-date performance appraisal process

• Understand the primary objectives of performance appraisal

• Recognize traditional approaches to performance appraisal

• Appreciate common obstacles to performance appraisal

• Avoid the problems presented by appraisal instruments that require evaluators to render personality judgments

• Understand that sound position descriptions are the essential starting point for an effective appraisal process

• Know the kinds of standards and measurements that can be applied in appraising performance

• Define the critical differences between the terms standard and average as they are used in performance appraisals

• Know the two most common approaches to appraisal timing

• Schedule and conduct a performance appraisal interview

• Know when and how self-appraisal can be a constructive element of the performance appraisal process

• Appreciate important legal implications of performance appraisal

• Recognize the features of practical performance appraisal forms

• Know the role of human resources in performance appraisal, including the times in the process when a department

manager becomes involved

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Performance appraisals are important to employees and organizations. They provide structured opportunities for

supervisors and employees to talk about progress and performance. Knowledgeable organizations use structured forms

for all employees and use written protocols to provide guidance for the process.

Poor or obsolete forms hinder the appraisal process. Useful forms are objective, easy to understand and use, and

relatively brief. They rate performance, not personal characteristics or attitudes. The best appraisal forms are aligned

with position descriptions and ask for evaluations that can be supported by data. Employees should be evaluated in

terms of standards rather than averages.

A written appraisal must be followed by a personal interview to discuss the evaluation and the opportunity for employee

input. Self-appraisals or team evaluations are used as appropriate. Human resources (HR) should oversee employee

appraisal programs.

Case Study: An Appraisal Conversation

“This is stupid and a waste of time,” lamented Stu Johnson. “I supervise these people every day and know their working

habits well. Upper management pays me to get work done, not to write out appraisals every year.”

“Ah, even ignoring the fact that regular appraisals are required by policy, your employees look forward to them,” replied

Marcia Stannis, a colleague of Stu.

“Humph. If they want to know how they are doing, all they have to do is walk into my office and ask me. I’ll be glad to

tell them.”

“How often does that happen?” asked Marcia.

“Maybe once every year or so,” replied Stu.

“Do you walk around the office?” asked Marcia.

“Sometimes, when I have time,” was the reply.

“How often is sometimes?”

“Every few weeks,” said Stu. “You know that we’ve been busy this past year.”

“Did you know that Julie has completed her degree?” asked Marcia.

“No.”

“Or that Jeff is applying for a promotion?” Marcia continued.

“Huh? When did he do that?”

“Last month. Remember Jim, the problem employee?”

“How could I forget him? He was so lazy,” Stu recalled.

“He lost his lawsuit for wrongful dismissal.”

“That seems appropriate.”

How would you describe Stu’s management style? In your opinion, was he as knowledgeable about his employees as he

thought? Why? Why do you think Jim lost his lawsuit?

………………………

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL DEFINED

A performance appraisal is a structured event. It involves a periodic examination of performance to ascertain how well a

particular employee is performing relative to what is expected. Performance appraisal is based on two documents, a

position or job description and a performance appraisal form. A permanent record is usually created and retained in an

employee’s personnel file.

Different organizations may use different names for the performance appraisal process. The more common titles are

performance evaluation, performance review, and performance assessment. A newer term is performance

management. Performance management purports to encompass not only evaluation but also the overall development

and improvement of an employee as a producer. When completed correctly, however, performance appraisals include

everything that performance management claims to include.

The Need for Performance Appraisal

Performance appraisal is used to facilitate improvement in employee performance, provide formal or official feedback

to employees concerning their job performance, and collect information for decisions concerning compensation and

other personnel transactions such as promotions and transfers.

The primary purpose of an appraisal is to improve employee performance in the present job. A secondary purpose is to

maintain the performance at an acceptable level. The process contributes to two developmental objectives for an

employee. It delineates an employee’s progress toward advancement and assuming greater responsibilities. It helps

senior managers to identify employees who are capable of advancement. Performance appraisals periodically remind

employees about what their employers expect from them. From the perspective of individual employees, performance

appraisals should enable them to know how they are performing. It also helps them to know what is needed to improve

their

performance.

Performance appraisal in health care is mandated by organizations and agencies that accredit and regulate healthcare

facilities. In some instances, mandated evaluation has led to the development of performance appraisal systems that are

little more than a formality. Such evaluation systems have minimal value.

Conducting a Performance Appraisal

Many methods have been employed to assess employee performance. The most often used ones employ rating scales.

These are based on comparing an employee’s performance with a scale that represents expectations. Other approaches

are sometimes used. Under particular circumstances each of the following has been effectively used.

Essay

A supervisor periodically describes employee performance at whatever length is considered necessary. After the

contents are discussed with the employee, the essay is signed by both parties. The employee is given a copy and a copy

is placed in the personnel file.

Critical Incident

Any positive or negative event that occurs outside of the ordinary is written up and retained for the next formal

performance discussion.

Employee Comparison

Employees in a group are compared with each other and rank ordered from the best performer to the poorest

performer. A different variation has supervisors placing their employees into a three-part distribution. A predetermined

percentage is rated above average, a similar percentage must be rated below average, and the remaining employees are

rated in the middle.

Checklist

In this approach, an evaluating manager must describe employee performance by choosing from among a number of

prepared statements. A variation of this method asks supervisors to select, from a group of prepared statements, the

one that best and another that least describes each employee.

Management by Objectives

This is a participative approach commonly used with higher-level technical or professional employees and managers.

The individual is evaluated on achievement of or progress toward specific objectives developed by the individual with

the manager’s concurrence.

Although every appraisal system has shortcomings, a rating-scale approach is most useful and equitable when it is

applied correctly. It is neither appropriate nor fair to appraise the work of employees by comparing the performance of

one to another. The most useful comparison that can be made via appraisal is the evaluation of individual employee

performance over time; in other words, the only comparison experienced by an employee is with his or her own past

performance. Successive evaluation periods provide the basis for meaningful long-term assessment. Evaluators and

employees must have similar expectations of how their organization’s system works. This approach does not rely on the

specifics of any particular rating system.

Managers and Rating

Appraisals occur so infrequently it is difficult to consider performance appraisal as a regular part of a manager’s job.

Thus, managers often view the process as extraneous and intrusive. Appraisals become extra work. They require

supervisors to make difficult judgments about subordinates. As a result, employee appraisals are often dreaded or

disliked. Managers are often uneasy about criticizing employees, especially on a performance appraisal that results in a

permanent record in an employee’s file and that could affect the person’s pay, job future, and career.

One common approach to evaluate anxiety or fear is to ignore the appraisal requirement. When that option is

disallowed, supervisors often accomplish the task in a hurry and avoid making any substantive evaluation decisions. Such

an approach has no utility. In business in general as well as in health care, periodic appraisals are a necessity. The best

way to address appraisal anxiety is with knowledge, preparation, and practice. Remember that neither employees nor

managers enjoy

appraisals.

OBSTACLES TO PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Other obstacles to performance appraisals exist in addition to managers’ and employees’ dislike of the process. If

evaluation is not taken seriously by an organization, then managers will view performance appraisal as little more than a

paper-pushing activity that has little relevance. The length and complexity of forms can deter department managers.

Appraisal results may be converted to scores when used to determine pay increases. When this occurs, a performance

appraisal becomes a scorecard and the process becomes competitive.

Ensuring that all managers apply appraisals in a consistent manner is a common problem. Person-to-person consistency

is important, especially when evaluation scores determine the amount of pay increases. Differences do exist. Some

managers rarely give outstanding ratings. Others consistently give employees high ratings. Some managers cluster their

ratings and group most employees in a narrow band around the middle of the scale. Different supervisors emphasize

different parts of the system. One may emphasize quality of output while another stresses interpersonal relationships.

After mergers occur, managers often have extremely large units with many employees. Some supervisors feel they do

not have sufficient time to do justice to so many evaluations. Initial appraisals are thorough, while later ones are likely to

be rushed. Managers with large numbers of employees may not be equally familiar with all aspects of every employee’s

work. Older performance appraisal systems were often based on personality ratings. Even though such systems have

changed, longtime managers often continue to render personality judgments when appraising performance.

Personality-Based Evaluations

Older systems of performance appraisal often relied heavily on assessing personality characteristics. This yielded

evaluations that were highly subjective. They did not focus on how an employee performed relative to an objective

standard. Exhibit 9-1 contains examples taken from an old rating form. Supervisors checked the statement that best

described the employee being evaluated. Comments have been added to demonstrate the weaknesses of personality-

based

appraisals.

Exhibit 9-1 is typical of a performance appraisal that relies on subjective evaluations. Managerial uneasiness with such

an appraisal is understandable. A subjective assessment is merely an opinion when expressed by someone who is not

qualified in the particular area of judgment. Few managers are qualified to render meaningful decisions about

personality. Using documents similar to Exhibit 9-1, managers were required to make judgments they were not qualified

to make and could not possibly defend. Making matters worse, they knew such judgments could affect people’s

employment.

Such appraisals were as unsettling to employees as they were to managers. Few employees will willingly or readily

endorse negative assessments. These performance appraisals were common in environments where authoritarian

management prevailed. In such a situation, an evaluator could freely use personal opinions, unsupported judgments,

and personal biases on evaluations. Employees who wanted to keep their jobs had no recourse other than checking their

anger and returning to work.

Performance Appraisals

The appropriate way to appraise performance is to base the evaluation on what an employee does rather than on what

an employee is or knows. For decades, managers rated employees on job knowledge. In addition to being subjective,

such an assessment provided little or no value. Job knowledge is immaterial. What really matters is how knowledge is

applied or what results are achieved.

The correct approach to appraisal is to base an evaluation on how well employees are performing the jobs they are

expected to do. Preparation for appraisal begins by considering the specific tasks that make up the job being performed.

Solid Position Descriptions

A sound performance appraisal begins with a solid position description. A position description is usually written by a

department manager with assistance from HR. The person in the job should provide input.

Up-to-date position descriptions are necessary for several reasons, an important one being their use in performance

appraisal. To evaluate employees on what they actually do requires a clear picture of what is expected of each

employee. The tasks to be performed and the results to be achieved provide a baseline against which to compare

observed performance. These are often referred to as competencies. Criteria refer to the requirements of a job or

position, while competencies refer to mastery of applied knowledge and skills that fulfill the requirements of a position

description.

Exhibit 9-1 Example of a Personality-Based Rating System

I. ATTENDANCE

1. Punctuality

— Always on time

— Occasionally late

— Requires occasional reminding

— Often tardy; treats job as unimportant

— Always tardy

Commentary: In old evaluation systems, attendance was often the only quantifiable item. Above, subjectivity has been

introduced. Occasional and often are undefined. Treats job as unimportant is a conclusion that cannot be verified.

Always and never are very dangerous words. Rarely are they absolutely true.

2. Dependability

— Perfect since last rating

— Rarely absent

— Frequently absent, but for cause

— Poor record, requires counseling

— Unsatisfactory; work suffers

Commentary: Each of these statements is completely subjective. Again there are words, such as rarely and frequently,

that have no absolute meanings. Evaluating whether an employee’s absences are for cause cannot be done factually

without violating an employee’s privacy. As long as the employee has called in according to policy, the manager must

take each absence at face value.

II. PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS

1. Appearance

— Neat and in good taste

— Neat but occasionally not in good taste

— Sometimes careless about appearance

— Untidy

— Unsuitable for job

Commentary: All five items are highly subjective. What is good taste and who defines it? When does untidy become

casual? This entire subsection is out of line. If used in an evaluation, appearance should be brought up only in reference

to an understood dress code or set of professional standards of conduct.

2. Personality

— Exceptionally pleasing, a decided asset

— Makes good impression, wears well

— Makes good first impression only; does not wear well

— Makes fair impression only

— Creates unfavorable impression

Commentary: Each of the five statements contains imprecise terminology. The entire subsection is completely irrelevant

to an employee performance appraisal.

III. ATTITUDE TOWARD JOB

1. Interest

— Shows intense enthusiasm and interest in all work

— Shows interest; enthusiasm is not sustained

— Passive acceptance; rarely shows enthusiasm

— Shows little or no interest

— Dislikes work

Commentary: Although often attempted, no one can appropriately evaluate or discipline attitude. These imprecise

statements are useless in appraising an employee. The final one is an unwarranted and insupportable conclusion.

2. Cooperation

— Goes all out to cooperate with management and coworkers

— Promotes cooperation and good will

— Moderately successful in cooperating with others

— Cooperates reluctantly and sometimes causes dissension

— Uncooperative; often breeds trouble

Commentary: How do the first two statements differ? The rest of the statements cannot be successfully defended.

IV. JOB PERFORMANCE

1. Accuracy

— Rarely makes mistakes

— Above average

— Average

— Below average

— Highly inaccurate

Commentary: These statements are subjective without a quantified definition of average.

2. Neatness

— Takes pride in appearance of work; has sense of neatness

— Usually turns out neat work

— Apparently lacks sense of neatness; needs reminding

— Too often sacrifices neatness for quantity

— Majority of work must be done over

Commentary: All questions depend on a subjective definition of neat.

3. Quantity

— Unusually high output; meets emergency demands well

— Consistently turns out more than average

— Finishes allotted amount

— Does just enough to get by

— Amount of work done is inadequate

Commentary: Quantity is undefined, rendering it subjective.

A primary shortcoming of many position descriptions is the extent of detail their writers attempt to capture. A long and

detailed position description leads to excessive length and detail in a performance appraisal. Position descriptions

should be concise. For most entry-level jobs or nonprofessional positions, five to eight items describing the most time-

consuming tasks in descending order of time devoted to them is adequate. These should be able to capture 90% to 95%

of the job duties and time spent in a year. Excessive detail places a manager at risk of paying as much attention to minor

concerns as to major job requirements.

Exhibit 9-2 presents a sample description for the position of nursing assistant. The duties listed encompass more than

90% of the tasks an employee performs on a typical day throughout a year. Greater detail is possible but not desirable.

Evaluating supervisors who know the job and employees as they should will be able to provide competent and complete

appraisals.

A position description should be one of the first considerations when a new position is created. An existing position

description should be reviewed and updated when it becomes necessary to recruit for the position, when there are

obvious changes in the job such as new methods or equipment, or every two years, whichever occurs first. Another good

time to review position descriptions for currency is when preparing to conduct performance appraisals.

Exhibit 9-2 Sample Position Description

Department: Nursing

Position: Nursing Assistant, General Medical/Surgical

Grade: N-3Job Code: 607

Reports to: Unit Manager (will occasionally report to designated nurse in charge)

Principal Duties (listed in descending order of approximate percentage of time required):

1. Provides timely personal care of acceptable quality to patients in accordance with established policies, procedures,

standards, and approved individualized care plans in a manner mindful of patient privacy, comfort, and safety.

2. Performs routine treatments and other patient care duties as assigned, competently completing all assigned

treatments during the scheduled shift; assists RN or LPN with nursing care and treatments as needed.

3. Assists RN or LPN in gathering data for patient assessment, including vital signs and height, weight, intake and output,

and other measurements as applicable; demonstrates ability to recognize and report abnormal vital signs; demonstrates

proper ability to collect and accurately label specimens and samples.

4. Maintains positive interpersonal relationships with patients, visitors, and other staff while ensuring confidentiality of

patient information and protection of patient privacy.

5. Maintains conscientious work habits consistent with the standards of the Nursing Department specifically:

documenting clearly and completely, managing assignments with normal supervision, completing duties within the

assigned shift, accepting reassignment to other units as necessary, and responding favorably to reasonable requests to

remain beyond the shift when needed.

6. Operates equipment and performs work in a safe manner, demonstrating proper body mechanics in lifting, pulling,

pushing, and carrying.

7. Maintains the clinical and educational standards of the department: maintains CPR certification and demonstrates

effective performance during “code” procedures; participates in unit and department in-service education activities;

remains current with all continuing education requirements.

8. Undertakes other assignments as directed by the unit manager or officially designated charge nurse.

Once a position description is current, attention should turn to measuring performance against the task requirements or

assessing whether an employee’s results are acceptable. Objective measures can usually be applied to many elements of

most jobs.

Sources of Standards and Measures

Measures of performance should address four key dimensions: productivity, quality, timeliness, and cost. Sources of

performance standards include detailed time-study and methods analysis. Accurate standards can often be developed

using this approach, but the process is time consuming and costly. This approach is most suitable in the development of

standards for high-volume, highly repetitive activities that are infrequently encountered in health care.

Predetermined motion-time systems yield highly accurate standards, but these are also both costly and time consuming

and again most suitable for high-volume, repetitive activities.

Reasonably reliable standards can be established through work sampling. This is time consuming, but not nearly as

costly as the other two methods. Nevertheless, work sampling requires special skills and a person who can be dedicated

to developing standards. Work sampling is most applicable to moderately repetitive activities.

Benchmarks are indicators of productivity that have been developed through the collective experience of several

organizations or published by interested groups such as associations of healthcare organizations or technical and

professional societies. Benchmarks are inexpensive. They are often free to members of an association or available via a

purchased subscription to a statistical reporting service. Benchmarks are readily applicable but usually not as accurate as

the other three sources described. Benchmarks can be misleading because users often have no clear idea about the

method on which a benchmark is based. Exhibit 9-3 provides examples of indicators for which standards may be

established or benchmarks acquired. These relate to productivity or quantity, quality, time, and cost.

Ranges

Benchmarks or other data provide the basis for assessing individuals or teams of employees. Ranges are preferable to

absolute standards. Attendance provides a simple example. Rather than setting a rigid standard of three absences in a

12-month period, an organization may establish an acceptable range of three to five absences in a 12-month period. This

allows supervisors to warn employees about problems before they become serious. It provides a simple system for

appraising behavior. Having three to five absences in a 12-month period constitutes meeting the standard. Employees

with six or more absences fail to meet the standard. Those with two or fewer absences exceed the standard.

Exhibit 9-3 Examples of Objective or Quantifiable Indicators

For Productivity (Quantity)

• Number of patients served per unit of time

• Number of items processed or produced per unit of time

• Number of cases handled per unit of time

• Percentage of employees participating

• Percentage of employees absent or tardy

For Quality

• Percentage of retakes (radiology) or test repeats (laboratory)

• Error rate

• Percentage of down time (equipment out of service)

• Number of citations upon inspection or survey

• Percentage of work rejected

• Percentage of orders, bills, or other documents without error

For Time

• Number or percentage of bills out within a specified number of days

• Number or percentage of deadlines missed

• Number of days to complete task or project

• Time elapsed, or turnaround time

• Number or percentage of requests answered within a specified number of days

For Cost

• Expense compared with previous period

• Percentage of variance from budget

• Cost per item, per order received, per bill processed, per patient contact

• Overtime cost compared with target

• Contract help cost compared with target

Using Objectives

Some employees may be evaluated on how well they meet objectives that were based on previous evaluations.

Objectives are best established jointly by individual employees and their managers. A manager ensures that each

objective is pertinent, while an employee agrees that each objective is fair and reasonable. Some appraisal processes,

especially those involving technical, professional, or managerial employees, rely heavily on such objectives. Some

objectives arise from weaknesses revealed during an evaluation. Some objectives relate to personal development.

The appraisal approach based on management by objectives, which is largely applicable to managers and professionals,

consists mainly of objectives negotiated between employees and their immediate superiors. An appropriate objective

always includes a description or definition of what is to be achieved, how much will be accomplished, and a date for

completion. Without all three components, an objective is incomplete and lacks legitimacy.

Scale Points

A number of older appraisal systems require an evaluator to measure or judge each evaluation criterion using a scale

composed of gradations and check-off boxes or blanks. Exhibit 9-4 contains actual examples of scales used for appraisal.

Many different evaluation scales have been employed. Most of them have similar weaknesses in that they require an

evaluator to render a subjective judgment using an arbitrary scale that lacks definition.

Exhibit 9-4 Examples of Poor Appraisal Scales

Experience with more modern appraisal systems has shown that a small number of gradations are most desirable.

Having an odd number of gradations places “average” in the middle position. Some systems use five points. Many highly

effective job description–based systems use only three points. These are more than sufficient to assess performance.

Each task on a job description should have a corresponding scale to rate the standard or expectation of behavior. An

employee can then fall into only one of three positions relative to the standard or expectation: failed to meet the

standard, met the standard, or exceeded the standard. Such a three-point scale is especially appropriate when standards

use ranges rather than absolute numbers.

Average vs. Standard

In many appraisal systems, average is used to describe a desired level of performance. For example, a scale may have

doing an average job in the center position. However, organizations often use standards or standard performance to

indicate a minimally acceptable output. All too often, these terms are incorrectly and inappropriately interchanged.

Average and standard are not the same.

Equating average with standard suggests that half of all employees are below the minimum acceptable level of

performance and should probably not be employed. A goal of every reasonable appraisal system should be bringing all

employees to a minimum or higher level of performance or rating. Standard becomes the floor beneath which

performance will not be tolerated.

Thus, standard is conventionally used as the minimum acceptable level of performance. If that is the minimum and all

other levels of output are above it, then the true average or mean of a group is also above standard. Average may be a

convenient way to compare or group scores once evaluations have been quantified. Mean is a more precise term. In any

event, average should not be used to describe the expectations of a performance appraisal process.

Appraisal Timing

An employee’s initial performance appraisal is typically done at the end of the probationary employment period. This

typically occurs at three or six months of service. The probationary evaluation is completed to determine whether the

employee has learned the job adequately, after which the individual enters the regular evaluation cycle. In most

organizations, employees are evaluated annually, although in some organizations the time interval is six months.

There are two common approaches to an annual appraisal. All employees may be evaluated at the same time once each

year, or employees may be evaluated on or near their employment anniversary dates. Each approach has advantages

and disadvantages.

For some supervisors, completing all evaluations during one brief period improves the consistency in applying evaluation

criteria. Completing all appraisals at the same time can support a pay-for-performance compensation system by allowing

the accurate distribution of a predetermined amount of money because all appraisal scores are known at the same time.

For some, it simply gets them finished.

Critics of simultaneous appraisals note that the task usually consumes a major amount of a manager’s time and forces

other important matters to be temporarily ignored. The quality of appraisals can diminish as the evaluator works

through the group. This risk rises as the number of employees increases.

Proponents of anniversary date appraisal ordinarily contend that the appraisal workload is distributed more or less

evenly throughout the year, thereby avoiding a rush within a brief period. These persons believe that appraisals become

fairer because they are not rushed.

Opponents of anniversary date appraisal often contend that the process requires constant monitoring by higher

management and HR rather than oversight for only a few weeks. They note that psychologically, the appraisal task is

never completed. An evaluator’s interpretation and application of appraisal criteria may be subject to change over time.

If the appraisal process feeds a pay-for-performance system, then it is extremely difficult to distribute a budgeted

amount for increases because not all scores are known at the same time.

Performance appraisal should be completed faithfully for every employee at the appointed time. Managers and their

employees should have established relationships. Simply meeting once each year for an appraisal interview is not

sufficient. A manager must maintain an ongoing relationship with each employee and be available to discuss work

performance whenever circumstances warrant. Supervisors make a serious error when they accumulate issues

specifically for performance appraisal.

DESCRIBING THE APPRAISAL PROCEDURE

An organization’s performance appraisal process will ordinarily be described in a personnel policy and procedure

manual. This document will explain the features of the process and delineate responsibilities for different stages. This

description should be available for reference by employees at any time. Exhibit 9-5 presents a model policy and

procedure for an appraisal process based on anniversary date approach.

Exhibit 9-5 Model Policy and Procedure: Performance Appraisal

It is the policy of the Hospital to provide a formal performance appraisal for each employee at least once each year. The

purposes of the appraisal program are to:

• Maintain or improve performance in the job an employee currently holds

• Assist in employee development by providing learning and growth opportunities for those wishing to advance

• Assist the Hospital in identifying individuals with advancement potential

Performance appraisal applies to designated employees as follows:

1. Newly hired employees:

• The first appraisal will occur at the end of the initial three (3) month probationary period.

• The second appraisal will occur three (3) months following the probationary appraisal.

• The following appraisal will occur six (6) months later, or on approximately the employee’s first anniversary of

employment.

2. Employees promoted or transferred:

• The initial appraisal conducted in an employee’s new position will occur at either three (3) months or six (6) months,

depending on the learning period established for the particular position.

• Following successful completion of the learning period, the employee will revert to the normal appraisal scheduled

per 3, below.

3. All employees:

• Once having successfully completed the first year of employment or the learning period following promotion or

transfer, all employees will be subject to appraisal on approximately the anniversary of their employment.

General Provisions of the Performance Appraisal Program:

• Appraisals in addition to those indicated in the foregoing may be instituted by the department manager when either a

significant deterioration or a marked improvement in performance is evident.

• Regular communication with employees concerning performance is essential. Continuing positive communication can

assist in motivating and reinforcing outstanding performance, which is the objective of the appraisal process. Regular

communication may also call attention to specific needs for improvement in performance, and immediately addressing

areas of need will help prevent them from emerging as major problems at formal appraisal time.

• An appropriate performance appraisal should:

1. Provide an employee with guidance in growing and developing as a performer.

2. Provide a manager with a means for personalizing management guidance to individual employees.

3. Provide an employee with direction consistent with that appropriate for pursuing the objectives of the department

and organization.

4. Provide a manager with a means to assess an employee’s performance and place a value on the effectiveness of this

performance.

5. Result in a more effective workforce, as individuals tend to perform more appropriately when they know what is

expected of them and they are able to gauge their performance against periodic measurement.

The following procedure applies to the performance appraisal process:

1. Approximately 30 days in advance of an employee’s scheduled appraisal date, human resources will send the

department manager an appraisal form for the employee with the heading information completed.

2. The employee’s job description provides the basis for the appraisal. Before attempting the appraisal, a manager

should ascertain that the job description is complete and accurate. If necessary, the job description should be updated

at this time, before the appraisal is begun.

3. In addressing the appraisal, for exempt (salaried) professional, technical, and supervisory employees the manager

should assess performance primarily against the actual accomplishment of duties and responsibilities as delineated in

the job description. Nonexempt (hourly) employees should be assessed primarily on the timely and accurate completion

of assigned duties.

4. As appropriate, and provided that plans and objectives were delineated when the previous appraisal was discussed,

consideration should also be given to employee growth and development and improvements in performance that might

have occurred since the previous appraisal.

5. Objective, quantifiable measures of performance should be applied wherever possible. For example, the Hospital’s

standards for attendance and punctuality may be applied, as may the output standards available in some departments.

For duties for which no objective measure of performance is available, managers should be able to reasonably describe

a normal expectation and indicate why, in their judgment, the employee did or did not meet or exceed the expectation.

6. Once completed, each appraisal must be submitted for review and approval by the next highest level of

management.

7. When higher management approval of an appraisal has been secured, the manager may schedule the employee for

an appraisal conference. Every effort should be made to accomplish this conference no more than five (5) working days

before or after the employee’s anniversary date.

8. The manager is urged to follow good interviewing practices in conducting the appraisal conference by providing

adequate time, privacy, reasonable comfort, and freedom from interruptions.

9. As appropriate (primarily for technical, professional, and supervisory employees), the manager and employee will

jointly determine goals, objectives, and development plans to be pursued during the period preceding the next

appraisal. As necessary, they should achieve agreement on interim dates on which to examine progress between

appraisals.

10. At the completion of the appraisal conference, the employee should be asked to sign the appraisal document to

acknowledge having discussed it and received a copy. If necessary, the employee may be reminded that signing the

appraisal is simply acknowledgment and does not necessarily mean agreement with all that it says. The employee may

add comments of disagreement or agreement in the appropriate space on the appraisal form.

11. Should employees refuse to sign their appraisal, a manager should so note the fact on the form. If, in the manager’s

judgment, the employee is in strong disagreement with the appraisal and may appeal or take other action, the manager

should have another party witness the refusal to sign and so indicate on the form.

12. Following the conference, the completed appraisal is distributed as follows:

• Original to Human Resources

• Copy to employee

• Copy retained by manager

THE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW

Most performance appraisal systems stipulate that each employee receive a personal interview. An appraisal interview

is a requirement; a manager’s appraisals are not considered complete until all employees have had an opportunity to

discuss their appraisals in detail. Managers should be certain that each appraisal interview occurs on time. Few events of

a workplace can raise apprehensions and uncertainties faster than appraisal interviews that are late.

Managers should schedule sufficient time for the meeting. Although an appraisal interview may seem routine to a

manager, it is one of the most important annual events for many employees, so it should never seem rushed. Privacy

and freedom from interruptions are important considerations. Employees should have several days of advance notice so

that they can be prepared.

If the review involves objectives as well as ratings, then supervisors should review the objectives before the interview

and be prepared to discuss them. Managers should come to the interview with ideas or suggestions concerning

objectives for the next cycle. If improvement or correction is needed, managers and employees should agree on

appropriate steps to achieve both.

As with any other kind of interview, from a manager’s perspective, the most important parts of an appraisal interview

occur while the evaluator is listening, not speaking. Whenever delivering praise or criticism, managers should be certain

to address specifics. Generalizations are not useful and should be avoided in any element of an appraisal. Before

concluding an interview, supervisors should ask their employees to sign the appraisal form to acknowledge receipt. This

does not indicate agreement with the findings or conclusions. If an employee declines to sign the form, this should be

noted before the form is filed. Be sure to supply signed copies of all evaluation documents to employees.

Employees occasionally report to more than one supervisor. This occurs with overlapping shift assignments or split-shift

responsibilities of managers. When this occurs, the primary input must come from the manager who provides the most

direct supervision. This is supplemented with input from other involved supervisors. The manager who provides the

majority of direct supervision should be the one who conducts the appraisal interview.

Neither the written performance appraisal nor the appraisal interview should contain surprises for an employee.

Employees should have a good idea of their standing with their manager at all times. It is a manager’s responsibility to

ensure that this is the case.

SELF-APPRAISAL

Self-appraisal can be a productive component of a performance appraisal system. However, self-appraisal is not

appropriate for everyone. Some employees are intimidated by it. Others are apprehensive, fearing the possible

consequences of rating themselves too high or too low. Self-appraisal is most appropriate for higher-level technical

employees, professionals, supervisors, and managers. While self-appraisal has the potential for success, many hourly

employees are suspicious of the process and management’s intent when using it.

While some people rate themselves higher or lower than may be appropriate, research has repeatedly shown that the

majority of employees rate themselves no higher, and frequently lower, than their supervisors rate them. When it is

used, an employee should complete a self-appraisal while a manager completes an evaluation. These tasks should be

completed separately. Neither appraisal should bias the other.

The forms should be similar and should address the same major job description criteria. The forms should be exchanged

for the first time during an appraisal interview. The items on both appraisals should be compared one at a time. Both

participants should note items on which they differ appreciably. Areas of divergence highlight an important aspect of

self-appraisal and focus discussion where it is most likely to be needed.

Self-appraisal is not appropriate for every situation. However, when appraising employees who are required to exercise

some degree of independent discretion and judgment, self-appraisal can be a constructive adjunct to a performance

appraisal system. Self-appraisal draws employees more deeply into the appraisal process and transforms it into more of

a participative activity.

TEAM APPRAISALS

Organizations have been assembling and using teams during recent decades. While team building is useful for

organizations, it must be evaluated periodically. Teams present evaluation challenges to managers. Individual

evaluations rendered in a team environment can be troublesome because they tend to undermine teamwork and

cooperation by stressing individual competitiveness. They can encourage competitive individuals to circumvent team

requirements for individual gain and to fail to nurture an open, problem-solving environment. Individual performance

appraisals do not support team building because they lack a means of identifying the effects of individuals on the group

or the group on individuals. Individual appraisals can impede effective team building.

Teams can be appraised as groups. However, a glaring weakness is the inevitable differences that exist among

individuals. People always perform in different ways. A properly managed team should be able to use the different

strengths of all its members. Likewise, it should be clear to groups that function well that a team is no place for either

single stars or individual slackers.

As with individual performance appraisals, team evaluations require criteria and standards. These must be constructed

specifically in terms of team performance. In many organizations, group or team appraisals supplement rather than

replace individual performance appraisals. Thus, although the emphasis on groups and team performance continues to

increase, most reward and recognition systems are focused on individuals. This reinforces the need to appraise both

team and individual performances.

THE APPRAISAL FORM

The major shortcoming of many performance appraisal systems is that they attempt to capture far too much detail. A

lengthy, detailed appraisal form creates extraneous work for appraisers and rapidly fills personnel files with paper. Some

organizations have tried to compensate for this by filing only a summary document. All too often, such an approach also

requires a key for interpretation. Once filed, an appraisal should be a self-contained record that can be understood on

its own if it is referenced in the future.

No appraisal form is right for all situations. The most useful forms are those that have a minimum of fill-in spaces and a

maximum of open writing space. Two or three pages should be sufficient for most performance appraisal forms.

Following an appraisal interview and obtaining signatures from both supervisor and employee, three copies should be

made of each performance appraisal. The original should be sent to HR and added to an employee’s personnel file. A

copy is given to the employee, and a copy is retained by the evaluator.

Exhibits 9-6 and 9-7 provide examples of actual performance appraisal forms. Exhibit 9-6 is generic, an open format that

can conceivably be used along with many different job descriptions. The rating scale is simple and has three options. The

numbers attached to these three levels of performance are simply a convenience for converting the appraisal results

into an overall score for organizational use. Exhibit 9-7 contains an outline that is completed by adding specific

information from a position description. It uses a three-point scale with the standard or expected level of performance

in the middle. This exhibit allows individual components to be weighted. Exhibit 9-7 demonstrates how position

descriptions and appraisal forms can be combined into a single document.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Performance appraisal has become a regulatory necessity in health care. The Joint Commission (TJC) (formerly the Joint

Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations [JCAHO]) looks for appraisals in the personnel files during its

periodic surveys, as do many state health departments. Performance appraisals should be completed as a means of

employee development, but they must be done to avoid being cited for deficiencies.

Although there are legal risks associated with completing and retaining performance appraisals, on balance the legal

risks of not doing so are greater. When an employee is terminated for reasons related to job performance or is

preferentially chosen for layoff and the action is contested, performance appraisal documents in the personnel file

become a central concern. Appraisals should support management’s decisions. Decisions that cannot be substantiated

by documentation are usually assumed to be the result of discrimination or other personal bias.

Performance appraisals frequently figure prominently in wrongful discharge litigation. When there is a chance that a

discharge was based wholly or in part on substandard performance, a wrongful discharge claim may be filed and

information will be sought in the appraisal records in personnel files. Thus, many wrongful discharge lawsuits are an

outgrowth of inadequate performance appraisal procedures.

The largest number of legal complaints centered on performance appraisal issues involve alleged violations of individual

rights as specified under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The second largest number of such complaints reflects

alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Performance appraisal records may be examined closely

if performance is used as a criterion in determining who will be included in a large layoff or planned reduction in force.

This is emphasized if there appears to be a disparate impact on any group or class of employees, a common complaint

from the layoff of older workers.

Although there is no way to avoid some subjective assessments in performance appraisals, these are best kept to a

minimum. Always avoid potentially defamatory comments as well as insults, name-calling, and unsupported negative

commentary. Whenever entering negative assessments, cite specifics that can be supported by data or otherwise

proven.

An organization is not legally obligated to have a performance appraisal system. Once a system is put in place, however,

an employer may be seen as having created an implied contract with employees to use the system as established and

described. A performance appraisal system should be sufficiently formal to have published instructions for completing

appraisals. These instructions, as well as any evidence that can be presented concerning the training of appraisers in the

system’s use, can be helpful in defending the appraisal system against charges of discrimination.

THE ROLE OF HUMAN RESOURCES

The HR department is usually the custodian of an organization’s performance appraisal system. Human resources’ role in

performance appraisal includes monitoring job descriptions and evaluation criteria to ensure that these are always up to

date and currently applicable. Human resources typically designs an appraisal system. Ideally, design and modification

should be a joint effort involving HR and managers of both line and support activities. Human resources should schedule

the steps in the process, including establishing dates for forms to be sent out, appraisals to be written and discussed

with employees, and completed documents sent back.

Human resources should provide forms, lists, and time schedules to department managers as needed. In a system under

which employees are evaluated on anniversary dates, someone in HR should constantly monitor the system and send

out forms and reminders as employees’ anniversary dates occur. Human resources should monitor the incoming

appraisals for completeness and consistency. Under some appraisal systems, appraisers are required to have their

evaluations reviewed by the next level of management before they are discussed and submitted.

Human resources has a responsibility to hold classes for evaluators, providing both original and refresher appraisal

training every year. Human resources usually responds to evaluators’ questions about appraisal. It follows up to ensure

that evaluations are completed within the proper time period. The HR department usually files completed evaluations in

individual personnel files, and addresses employee questions and grievances about the appraisal process.

Following up on appraisal completion is often stressful for line managers and HR staff. Managers may place a low

priority on completing appraisals if they view the process as less than essential. They may complain about pressure and

insufficient time to complete evaluations. In contrast, HR must follow higher management’s mandate to keep the

system moving. Timely appraisals are always important. Because they provide the reminders, many managers view

appraisals as being an HR system at best and HR paperwork at worst.

AN ESSENTIAL PROCESS

Most employees perform at a satisfactory or better level. Individual results are seldom unacceptable. Despite this, many

managers neglect to express appreciation of employee successes and instead focus on failures and weaknesses.

Unfortunately, they take the good for granted. This tendency to focus on the unsatisfactory simply reinforces the

reputation of performance appraisal as a negative process.

Human resources alone cannot guarantee a successful appraisal process. Nor can a few conscientious department

managers working together do so. A critical element in the success of performance appraisal is the extent to which top

management supports the process. Far too often top management simply assigns supervisors to complete the process

while failing to participate in any substantive manner. Lack of visible executive support increases the risk of appraisal

becoming a meaningless routine. Many organizations, including those in health care, have performance appraisal

systems. However, the existence of a system does not guarantee that performance appraisal is carried out in an

effective manner.

CONCLUSION

The importance of regular, structured employee appraisals cannot be overstated. Supervisors must be well trained and

diligent about completing employee evaluations on time. Forms and procedures must be current. The personal

interview that follows a written appraisal is often dreaded by employees. Successful managers use the interview as a

positive experience to review and motivate their employees. Human resources supervises the appraisal process and

collects and files completed appraisal forms.

Case Study Resolution

Returning to the conversation that Stu and Maria were having, Stu said, “I wonder what basis the court used for its

decision?”

Marcia smiled. “The two latest annual appraisals that you completed.”

“No.”

“Yes,” she said, heading out the door of Stu’s office.

………………………