(a) Criticism has a negative effect on target achievement. (b) Praise had no effect.
(c) Performance improved as targets became clearer,
more specific, and realistic.
(d) Performance iIpproved with more frequent feedback.
(e) Mutual target setting improved performance.
(t) Performance interviews should be separate from salary
and promotion decisions.
Morale and acceptance of pelformance appraisals also improved in the same manner. In general these authors suggest that the interview should at~empt to decrease the sense of threat to the subordinate's self-esteem and so reduce his defensive behviour.
It is perhaps the unce11ainty about the way in which performance is assessed which caus~s most problems in appraisal interviews. Goal-oriented assessments, produce more agreement, satisfaction, feelings of adequacy, less hostility, and more feelings of responsibility than traitoriented assessments for both subordinate and superior personnel. Perhaps the greatest reward from establishing objective as opposed to subjective appraisals is that interpersonal relations can be improved and greater commitment of the subordinate to his section's objectives is possible.
A study of 567 American companies found a growth in the practice of performance appraisal. Fifty per cent of the firms had, however, eventually dropped the system at executive level because they felt it was too time consuming. Furthermore, it is interesting to note in the light of the foregoing research on participation that over
No comments:
Post a Comment