Preamble

The article “Assessing the ethics of implementing performance appraisal systems” by

George P. Sillup and Ronald Klimberg is an effort to understand the correlation
between performance appraisal and management. They tied to find out that how per
formance appraisal helps employer or management better manage people and meet em
ployees’ expectations. The author used interview of performance evaluators of five
US based company (namely IBM, Valspar, Aetna Insurance, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals a
nd Johnson and Johnson). He statistically analyzed the data and developed his vi
ew.
Summary
Sillup & Klimberg (2010) starts with the evolution of performance appraisal syst
em. He refers to Newton & Schmidt (2004) and Winstanley (1996) the development o
f performance appraisal was slow but starts with Carl Marx. In the literature re
view Sillup & Klimberg (2010) tries to explore the research questions about how
time and other area with potential ethical implications has affected the perform
ance appraisal system. His first research question is, “Do backgrounds of PEs infl
uence their judgments about employees’ performance (e.g. educational level)?” The se
cond question for research is “Does PA help PEs manage more effectively?” The third
question for research is”Does PA help PEs better meet the expectations of employee
s whose performance is being assessed?” Finally his fourth question for research i
s “What is the relationship between the time dedicated to conducting PA and the ba
ckground of the PE?”
Sillup & Klimberg (2010) refers to Winstanley’s article that if it is possible to
develop an ethical approach to PA. He proposes four ethical principles integral
to the PA process given below:
1. Respect for the individual employee;
2. Mutual respect between the PE and employee whose performance is being evaluat
ed;
3. Fairness in the PA system and its effect on employees whose performance is be
ing evaluated.
4. Transparency of decision making to ensure employees understands this PA crite
rion.
He refers to Thornton & Zorich (1980) and Buchner (2007) about preparation for s
uccessful performance appraisal implementation ways to prevent unethical situati
on that occur during implementation. According to them success begins with train
ing of employee and effort of both top-down and bottom-up support.
The author refers to Cascio (1998) and Nathan & Cascio (1986) about setting fair
performance standards and need for performance evaluations. Further he refers t
o Campbell et al (1970), Juran (2004) and Dorfman et al (1986) for finding the n
ecessary time for implementation of performance appraisal system. Traditionally,
the performance appraisal is done on the basis of employee’s performance on one c
alendar year or less but they have difficulties to rate their performance for th
at period.
The author also stress about the role of performance evaluator for the success o
f performance appraisal system. He separately discusses about different performa
nce evaluators which include managers, peers, customers, direct reports and self
appraisal. Author refers to Becker & Klimoski (1989) and Cyr (1993) to point ou
t that 98 percent of performance appraisals of employees are done by their immed
iate managers and they are person to review employee’s performance. In some cases
when an immediate manager has not opportunity to observe employee; peers do the
performance evaluation. The author supports this by referring to McEvoy & Buller
(1987) and Reilly et al (1996). He also pointed out that in this system friends
hip bias is possible but that can be reduced by training. Sillup and klimberg (2
010) refers to Campbell & Lee (1988) and Berardin et al (1993) for discussing ab
out direct report as a performance appraisal method. In this system employees ra
te their managers because they know how their managers work. This system was fir
st implemented in IBM in 1960.
Sillup and Klimberg (2010) pointed out that self appraisal is widely used perfor
mance evaluation system. He refers to Hartel (1993) to support his argument that
 employees are motivated if they have given chance to evaluate themselves and th
ere is less chance for unethical treatment and that it can be improved with tech
niques like relative versus absolute scale. The author refers to Yammarino & Atw
ater (1997) while discussing about customers as performance evaluator. The input
s from customers are used as means for evaluating performance of employee.
Background and Methodology of Article
Sillup and Klimberg (2010) use threefold approach for the research. He developed
structured interviews which include 54 questions regarding performance evaluato
r and the employees whose performance was being evaluated. The questionnaire was
designed to identify the potential relationship among responses and that it wil
l help him find out the following:
1. Background of the performance evaluator and how they conduct performance
appraisal.
2. View of employees whose performance was being evaluated
3. Outputs of performance evaluation for the performance evaluators and emp
loyees being evaluated.
The questionnaire contains easy to answer questions about performance evaluators
age range, experience and other related information that will help about the ou
tputs of performance evaluation. Author also indicated that (by referring to Mur
phy, 2006) respondents are hesitant to reveal the requested information. The que
stionnaire consisted of 54 questions and three domains which are given below:
1. Question 1 to 21 includes questions about time spent on performance eval
uation. This contains information about performance evaluator and how they condu
ct performance appraisal.
2. Question 22 to 39 includes questions about the time spent in professiona
l employment. This contains information about the employees whose performance wa
s being evaluated.
3. Question 40 to 54 includes questions about how performance appraisal sys
tem helps performance evaluators manage more efficiently. The basic purpose is t
o find out the outputs for the performance evaluators and employees being evalua
ted and how the performance appraisal system help meet employees’ expectations.
The interviews were conducted in 2008 which include 54 managers who does perform
ance appraisal. The managers were taken from five Fortune 500 companies as discu
ssed earlier. The responses are collected and then done statistical analysis. Th
e statistical analyses were completed using descriptive statistics and decision-
tree analyses. The methodology applied here can be said partially corrected as t
he data collected from only managers. The other performance evaluators like cust
omers, peers, etc are ignored completely.
Article in Academic Context
This article cannot be said to be much valuable in context of academic purpose.
The author has not used any standard rule to prove by his research. The author s
imply used interview method and the analyzed the information statistically to co
me to a conclusion. There is no effort to prove or decline any standard theories
on performance appraisal or analysis. According to Hopkins (2009), for analyzin
g performance there are standard models like Vroom’s expectancy theory, Herzberg’s t
wo factor theory of motivation etc has not been analyzed. In my view and also ac
ademically, if we come with some new thing with some research then we do analyze
them on standard theory or model. This will give a general idea that whether th
e research support the theory or opposes.
The most important thing which needs to be mentioned here is the topic chosen by
the author is not purely justified. The author did not seem to be interested in
the ethics part of performance appraisal but the corporate performance part. Th
ere is also need to be a short discussion on article about why performance appra
isal is needed and what are the consequences of ignoring performance appraisal s
ystem (King, 1984)?
When it comes to planning performance appraisal, the author shows very little or
no relevance with academic theory for implementing performance appraisals. Acco
rding to King (1984), a good plan (performance plan) must have following merits:
1. Specific: this means that the performance plan must have a goal to reach
which should be accepted by both boss and subordinates.
2. Measureable: this means that the goal must be measurable in terms of som
e standard (for example doubling the profit or increasing the market share by 50
% etc).
3. Time Limited: the plan should be given a time limit else it won’t work.
4. Realistic: the goal should be high but should not be beyond reach. If go
al is unrealistic that it’s difficult to achieve and ultimately employee get de-mo
tivated.
5. Challenging: setting realistic goal doesn’t mean setting easily achievabl
e god but to set challenging goal. Once a challenging goal achieved, the employe
e get confidence and performance lever automatically goes high.
According to Swan (1991), while making a performance appraisal we need to follow
three steps given below:
1. Gather and analyze data throughout appraisal period
2. Rate the performance
3. Write the appraisals.
These basic things are ignored by author and his most of the attention remain li
mited to performance evaluator’s interview. The author also failed to discuss the
least touched area of performance appraisal which can create conflict and misund
erstanding. According to Swan (1991), this phase is called performance appraisal
discussion phase. He suggested more efficient and effective way to performance
appraisal discussion; which is given below:
1. Employees self evaluation: to make the performance appraisal efficient a
nd effective employees input should be included. Swan (1991) strongly recommend
the schedule of employees and manager (performance evaluator) prior to performan
ce appraisal discussion to understand the employees perspective.
2. Scheduling the meeting: the schedule of meeting time should be left on e
mployee as this will give them opportunity to select time which is appropriate f
or him.
3. No hints: the managers must bear in mind that employees should not be in
formed that the meeting is about their appraisal or rating.
4. Assembling data: the performance evaluator must be ready before the perf
ormance appraisal. The manager must collect all the necessary information and if
it is going to be employees self appraisal the he must consider the area of dis
agreement with employees.
5. Securing a meeting room: the meeting place for performance appraisal sho
uld be private and free of any kind of interruptions.
Part from this the author also didn’t focus on the structure of performance apprai
sal discussion. When I say about discussion it mean discussion with anyone who c
an be helpful in determining the rating or performance appraisal.
Critique of Article
Although author conducted research on 5 Fortune 500 companies but that didn’t help
much because he got almost same data for almost all performance evaluators. The
variety in companies might have caused a difference and we could have got broad
er view on performance appraisal system. The companies were also all from USA an
d are MNC. It would give more realistic view if the companies selected are from
all over the globe and the ranges are from SME to MNC. The results can also be s
aid one sided as all 5 companies adopted 360 degree feedback performance apprais
al system and was implemented on annual basis. As per the data collected, 87% (p
erformance evaluator and employees) received training about their performance ap
praisal system. Over 94 percent of performance evaluators required their employe
es to conduct a self-appraisal.
The results shown by the author here are seemed to be obvious and there is nothi
ng new in it. Its just a verification of previous established factors. For examp
le the authors come to a conclusion that most of the performance evaluator’s educa
tion lever is high with their age range from 50 to 65. It is well known fact tha
t the managers (who do performance appraisal) are of that age range (mature pers
on) and will have a higher education qualification.
The author comes to the conclusion that the marketing and sales departments are
benefited most. Author found out that the employees of marketing and sales are m
ore guarded with their responses compared to other performance evaluators during
 interview. The reason author gives for this finding is that because cutbacks ar
e generally happen to sales force. This finding is also not new as sales force n
eeds more motivation and experienced employee of sales and marketing department
are much more valuable than that of any other department (king, 1984).
When it comes to organizations, performance evaluator recognized favorable perfo
rmance appraisal comparably. Author sought examples of merit and salary increase
(performance appraisal rating increased to 50 %) for greater responsibility whi
le its only 40 % in case without salary increase. Here authors shows data but th
ere are instances when performance evaluator created career development plan for
their employee but only half of 68.5 percent (personal development percentage)
showed any interest on them.
Another possibility is the time taken to implement performance appraisal. With t
ime as a proxy for successful performance appraisal implementation, the results
are quite interesting. Younger employees spent considerable time, almost five ho
urs compared to an overall average of just over three hours, were less confident
and exhibited more concern about maintaining employment. Older performance eval
uators with lower educational levels who solicited feedback from employees’ peers,
took just over three hours. Older employees with lower educational levels, who
did not solicit feedback, only took about two hours to conduct performance appra
isal and were impatient during interviews. Finally, older performance evaluators
with higher education took less than two hours. The author comes to a conclusio
n that older managers (performance evaluator) with higher qualification take per
formance appraisal as less significant works and hence they spend less time whil
e doing a performance appraisal.
Performance evaluators with more education and maturity believed performance app
raisal helped them manage more effectively. However looking at the time they spe
nt to conduct performance appraisal, it raises some ethical concerns, particular
ly for those managers who are older with higher education levels. They are usual
ly in positions of greater responsibility within the corporation and have greate
r influence on employees’ careers. It’s very concerning when 20 percent of this perf
ormance evaluator are not soliciting feedback about an employee’s performance from
their peers. This is not only inconsistent with parameters of 360-degree perfor
mance appraisal, but also suggests a lack of concern about employees’ development.
Furthermore, the results suggest that it is important to understand the implicat
ions of race on performance appraisal, principally those races with a lower repr
esentation within corporations. It would be interesting to compare performance a
ppraisal systems cross-culturally consistent with research that emphasizes the c
ultural differences between the US and non-western cultures like the Pacific Rim
countries where there is more focus on group performance rather than individual
performance (Hofstede, 1993). Understanding this from the perspective managers
could suggest how to modify the performance appraisal process to be consistent w
ith the values of those cultures.
However the author also discussed about the need for future research on the impl
ementation of performance appraisal. They forget to discuss the previously estab
lished ways of implementing the performance appraisal which is developed by Hofs
tede and other contemporary authors/ scholars who has performed research in this
area. To learn more about how performance evaluators are being trained to deal
with employees working remotely, discussions with training mangers and performan
ce evaluators from marketing and sales in industries currently facing this situa
tion would provide valuable information. To determine how senior management endo
rses performance appraisal, learning their expectations for performance appraisa
l could provide insights about their support for performance appraisal and go a
long way toward avoiding ethical concerns about a performance appraisal system d
uring its implementation. This study’s findings recommend the practical applicatio
n of requiring assessment of performance appraisal as a specific annual objectiv
e instead of a job-description task, especially for performance evaluators, to e
nsure it gets the time needed to implement it. The findings also infer that, whi
le a consistently implemented performance appraisal system helps to avoid unequa
l treatment and/or unfair discrimination among diverse employees, there is room
to improve the way the diverse employees within a corporation experience perform
ance appraisal.
The most important fact related to performance appraisal is to evaluate employee’s
performance with personal goals and goals of organization (Swan, 1991). The que
stionnaire prepared by author lacks this issue. One more thing which I think is
essential is to get response from organizations from all over the globe and the
size of organization must also be varied.
Finally I can say that this is a satisfactory research with only certain focused
thing related to performance appraisal and not including every other factor whi
ch might lengthen the research.
References
• Fletcher, Clive, 1993, “Appraisal routes to improved performance”, Short Run Press
td, Exeter
• Hopkins, Bryan, 2009, “Cultural differences and improving performance: how values
and beliefs influence organizational performance”, Gower Publishing Ltd., England
• King, Patricia, 1989, “performance planning and appraisal: A how to book for manag
ers”, McGraw-Hill Book Company, London
• Sillup, George P., Klimberg, Ronald, 2010, “Assessing the ethics of implementing p
erformance appraisal systems”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 29, No. 1
• Swan, William S., Margulies, Phillip, 1991, “How to do a superior performance appr
aisal”, John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York