Performance appraisal: an obstacle to training and development?

John P. Wilson University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK Steven Western Training Manager, Independent Hospital, South Yorkshire, UK

Keywords

Training, Development, Performance appraisal, Hospitals

Introduction
We all constantly appraise, consciously or unconsciously, objectively or subjectively. When we appraise something we rate its worth, usefulness and the degree to which it displays various qualities. We appraise ourselves and other people, we appraise behaviour, personality and systems. Organisational appraisal systems are an attempt to formalise these activities for the benefit of both the individual and the organisation (Torrington and Hall, 1991, p. 480).

Abstract

Describes research conducted into some of the potential inhibitors which can reduce the effectiveness of a hospital performance appraisal system in relation to training and development plans. Takes as its perspective the views of the appraisees which counter the more usual overview provided by managers and other commentators. Relates these findings to literature on the subject and concludes that in spite of its limitations the performance appraisal process is likely to remain. Finally, makes a number of recommendations to improve the process and make it more supportive of training and development interventions.

Career Development International 6/2 [2000] 9399 # MCB University Press [ISSN 1362-0436]

To appraise is part of the human condition and was formally applied in the sphere of work activity ``. . . as early as the Third Century AD [when] SinYu, an early Chinese philosopher, criticised a biased rater employed by the Wei Dynasty'' (Murphy and Cleveland, 1995, p. 3). Appraisal was also used by Robert Owen in his New Lanark textile mills during the 1800s; and during the First World War to assess the performance of officers. Over the past 30 years, performance appraisal has achieved a higher profile in the human resource function of most organisations. The term ``performance appraisal'' has generally meant the annual interview that takes place between the manager and the employee to discuss the individual's job performance during the previous 12 months and the compilation of action plans to encourage improved performance. Moon (1993, p. 8) succinctly defined appraisal ``. . . as a formal documented system for the periodic review of an individual's performance''. Performance appraisal is part of the larger process of performance management. Marchington and Wilkinson (1996) describe it as a cyclical process: determining performance expectations; supporting performance; reviewing and appraising
The research register for this journal is available at http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers

performance; and, finally, managing performance standards. In the health sector, performance management may have the following stages (Weightman, 1996): 1 Job descriptions are written, agreed and reviewed regularly. 2 Objectives for the work group are taken from the organisation's strategic objectives. 3 Individual objectives are derived in turn from the work group objectives, and jointly formulated between the appraiser and appraisee. 4 A development plan devised by the manager and the individual to meet personal objectives. The emphasis is on management support and coaching. 5 An assessment of objectives with ongoing formal reviews on a regular basis. 6 An annual assessment that affects reward. Performance appraisal can be used for numerous purposes including: reward; discipline; coaching; counselling; negotiating improvements in performance; improving the work environment; raising morale; clarifying expectations and duties; improving upward and downward communications; reinforcing management control; helping validate selection decisions; providing information to support HR activities; identifying development opportunities; improving perceptions of organisational goals; and selecting people for promotion and redundancy. In short, it would appear to be a ``panacea'' (Taylor, 1998, p. 185). For those involved with human resource development, the performance appraisal interview is widely regarded as one of the main instruments for identifying training and development needs at the individual level. Indeed, Armstrong and Baron (1998, p. 8) maintain that, ```Performance
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

[ 93 ]

John P. Wilson and Steven Western Performance appraisal: an obstacle to training and development? Career Development International 6/2 [2000] 9399

management' should really be called `performance and development management'''. Unfortunately, this ``panacea'' is not reflected in the research findings described below which suggest that it may not always contribute to the development of the individual in support of organisational objectives. Moreover, Taylor (1998, p. 185) concluded from an investigation of a number of research studies, ``. . . that performance appraisal is, in practice, more of an organisational curse than a panacea''. It would appear that this ``curse/panacea'' requires further investigation into the extent to which it supports training and development. Thus, this case study describes research conducted into some of the potential inhibitors which can reduce the effectiveness of the performance appraisal system in relation to training and development. It takes as its perspective the views of the appraisees, which provide considerable insights and counter the more usual overview provided by managers and other commentators. It then considers some of the literature on the subject and relates this to the empirical research conducted with the appraisees. Finally, it makes a number of recommendations for the improvement of the process.

Background
The research was conducted in a mediumsized independent hospital which is part of a large health care company that has 26 acute hospitals and a number of psychiatric units throughout the UK. The hospital has 60 beds and there are 153 full-time equivalent medical and support staff. It has achieved the Investors in People Award and has also been accredited by the Kings Fund, an independent health care charity and think tank. The hospital performance appraisal system, which consists of an annual appraisal for all staff, had been in place for six years and was thought to be functioning well by the management team. It looked back at the previous year, identified training and development needs, produced action plans where necessary, and identified areas for improvement. The training and development plans were sent to the training manager, who organised the training required, following discussions with the line manager and the individual. The subject of the execution of training and development plans became an issue in the hospital because of some noticeable problems first identified by the training manager and latterly by some of the managers who had

been auditing their personnel function. The main aspects of the identified training and development plans that were giving cause for concern were: . Individual training and development plans were sometimes the same year after year. This possibly meant that the identified needs were never addressed by either the manager or the employee. . The training courses and strategies or action plans were perhaps unreliable or unachievable. It was felt that the yearly appraisal might be seen to be an unnecessary once-a-year meeting in which managers and employees gave the impression that they were following company procedure but in fact had no commitment to a realistic performance review. . In some cases the initial enthusiasm for training and development action soon waned after the appraisal. Some employees said that it appeared attractive at the time but after thinking about it the plan was not feasible to implement. . Training and development plans were frequently left unreviewed after being written. A year can be a long time for both the individual and organisation and numerous changes can occur which might influence the direction and performance of the individual. . Training and development needs on occasion bore no relation to the business plan of the department concerned and often did not relate to personal development. The manager and/or employee might feel that it was expected of them to identify some needs and, therefore, write a plan that complied with the system but without reference to the business plan. It was quite acceptable for an individual not to have any plans for a given year for numerous reasons, but often the manager especially felt that something, however unconnected to the business, must be written down

The research
Arising from the initial observations it was decided to investigate the apparent limitations of the performance appraisal system more systematically. This research was conducted by the hospital's training manager for his dissertation as part of the MEd in Training and Development at the University of Sheffield. The research used an ethnographic methodology with participant observation (Gill and Johnson, 1991). A variety of research methods were used, including a questionnaire, semi-structured

[ 94 ]

John P. Wilson and Steven Western Performance appraisal: an obstacle to training and development? Career Development International 6/2 [2000] 9399

interviews and a review of training records. A questionnaire was sent to 110 members of staff and 74 were returned. From these a pilot study was then conducted with ten members of staff who were not to be interviewed in the main survey. Following this, 39 people representative of the total workforce in terms of status, roles, jobs, sex and age were interviewed. These included: managers (11), supervisors (15), colleagues (two), ward sisters (seven), head receptionist (one), senior operating department assistants (two), and other departmental manager (one). In essence there were five elements of the research: 1 Initial observation of the limitations of the performance appraisal system. 2 Questionnaire initially piloted and then circulated to 110 members of staff (74 returned). 3 Pilot interviews with ten members of staff. 4 Semi-structured interviews with 39 representative employees. 5 A survey of training records. In combination, the information obtained from the questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and the training records provided an informative picture of the performance appraisal system. Quotes from the interviews and questionnaires are incorporated in the findings because of the insights offered into the way appraisees perceive the process. Immediately below we will consider these findings and then use the same structure to evaluate the various elements of the performance appraisal process by relating it to the literature. This will ultimately lead to a series of recommendations.

On the other hand, the degree of notice for some individuals can be irrelevant. Some thought it unnecessary to prepare, although they were aware that preparation was recommended in the company policy and in the attendance letter they received beforehand. Comments included:

I didn't prepare anything. I didn't know I was supposed to do. I didn't prepare, it's a waste of time. Come on, you must agree. I didn't need to prepare, it's all in my head. I did not prepare as it takes time and that is something I don't have enough of.

Others did prepare and the comments indicate a more positive and constructive perspective:

I read my first appraisal and made notes in my portfolio on what I had or had not achieved. I also asked the manager what was planned for next year. I made sure that my portfolio was up to date and that the training from last year had been completed.

The formulation of training and development plans

Responses to the question: ``How were your training and development plans formulated?'' tended to indicate that appraisers took a leading role in determining the training and development to be undertaken; however, this was not always a smooth process, as the following comments indicate:
They want me to be a supervisor, but I don't want the responsibility and I will never take the job. That is why I have never taken the course before, because if I do, they will make me take the job. I don't want to take the supervisors' course. I was told I would benefit from the management training, but really, as I had stepped down from the supervisor position, the need for leadership skills was not a priority for me. My manager thought I needed interpersonal skills and suggested that I get some.

Length of notice and degree of preparation for appraisal

It can be seen in Table I that the notice of interview ranges from more than two months to less than one hour. Two months would in most cases be more than adequate; however, less than one hour is clearly inappropriate.

Table I Notice of performance appraisal interview Length of notice of appraisal date Less than one hour's notice Four days' notice One week's notice Two weeks' notice Three weeks' notice Four weeks' notice Ten weeks' notice Note: (n = 39) People 2 2 7 16 6 5 1

Some interviewees presented an alternative point of view about their needs:

I wanted to do the Level 2 NVQ in Direct Care because it will help me to do my job better. I suggested it and I will start in April.

Other respondents illustrated a collaborative approach:

We looked at my weaknesses and decided from there. I had a problem with confidence in the high dependency areas and we both thought that rotating into intensive care was a good idea. I would be supernumerary and

[ 95 ]

John P. Wilson and Steven Western Performance appraisal: an obstacle to training and development? Career Development International 6/2 [2000] 9399

observe, which will build up my confidence with patients and the doctors.

The research participants were asked, ``Were your training and development plans personal, job related, or a mixture of both?''. It was found that almost all training and development plans were job related to immediate or short-term job needs rather than specifically being concerned with personal development. The question, ``What impact does the department business plan have on the formulation of your training and development plans?'' gave rise to a range of responses which suggested both positive and negative feelings towards business plans:
The business plan had a large bearing on the training I received last year. For instance, I attended a customer care course because of the need to improve on external customer care which was identified in our business plan.

No, I didn't complete them, there was never any time. I have to be in charge of the floor when on duty and cannot be spared. Staffing has been bad since we changed shifts and lost the other supervisor. There just isn't the time to spare.

Financial reasons also featured in the responses:

There wasn't the money in the budget, it should have been put in last year. It was found to be too expensive when the time came to do the course. I would have had to pay for the course myself and I couldn't afford it.

Other categories of answer included: unwillingness to complete the plan; plans which were forgotten; and the emergence of other priorities which negated the plans. Appraisees commented:

I didn't complete the plans because I did not want to be bothered. No-one was interested so I gave up. I didn't look at the plans after the appraisal, they were not on my list of things to do. I am not really interested. I come to work, do what I have to, and then go home. I didn't complete the plans as I had to go on that financial course which was really needed under the circumstances. I'll do what I missed next year. Other problems came up and I needed training in anaesthetics. If you remember, the recovery areas are short of staff.

If you can prepare to meet the business goals by developing yourself then the business grows. This is a new thing from Investors in People, isn't it? I suppose we should be trained to help the business, it makes sense. The manager should have the business plan in mind when discussing my development. I know what is in our business plan and am aware of its implications. The department plans are so remote from our little unit. We know what we want to achieve and that is not the same as the objectives in the business plan.

One interviewee who answered, ``I've not really thought about it'' was asked if he knew what was contained in his department business plan. The answer was, ``Yes, but I don't see the point of having business plans, no-one ever looks at them''. Another said, ``I do not see the significance of business plans to the work I do, it's all a paper exercise really''.

Employees were asked, ``Have you reviewed your training and development plans at any time since your last appraisal?''. The findings to this question suggested that few were reviewed and more negative comments included:
The plans were not mentioned again until the next appraisal.

It is hard enough to get the time for an appraisal, there is no chance of meeting up in between. My manager is always too busy to discuss training, meetings that are planned just never take place on the day. I do not see the need to discuss the plans after the appraisal. It is a good idea to talk about your plans throughout the year; I've tried on a few occasions to do this with no result.

Implementation and review of training and development plans

Among the initial observations which caused concern about the performance appraisal process was the fact that training and development plans were not implemented. To identify some of the reasons for this, employees were asked, ``If your training and development plans were not completed in the year following your appraisal, what were the reasons for this?''. Responses included the following:

More positively:

Dates are set throughout the year and the meeting usually takes place. We have about four sessions during the year in which I can discuss my progress towards achievement. It's really helpful.

[ 96 ]

John P. Wilson and Steven Western Performance appraisal: an obstacle to training and development? Career Development International 6/2 [2000] 9399

The dates for review are posted on the notice board and I get a copy for my training file. It is easy to chart your progress this way.

Conclusions
Weightman's (1996) stages of performance appraisal in the health service include both a development plan and an annual assessment which influences reward, job grade and promotional prospects for the individual. However, these two elements need to be separated in order to assist the development of the individual. Torrington and Hall (1991, p. 481) maintained that:

If a single appraisal system was intended both to improve current performance and to act as a basis for salary awards, the appraiser would be called upon to be both judge and helper at the same time. This makes it difficult for the appraiser to be impartial. It is also difficult for the appraisee, who may wish to discuss job-related problems, but is very cautious about what they say because of not wanting to jeopardise a possible pay rise.

In a similar vein, Barge (1989, p. 359) argued that the atmosphere of appraisal is not conducive to their personal needs and stated, ``Who can talk openly and constructively about their personal development and growth in a meeting where subjective opinions about performance are being expressed''. Although it is generally agreed that there should be a separation of purpose, Carlton and Sloman (1992) suggest that this is often difficult to achieve in practice. However, some organisations have certain restrictions on what subjects can be discussed at the appraisal. In the hospital the subjects of pay and remuneration, contract details, holiday entitlement and the performance of other staff were not allowed to be discussed. A separate meeting has to be organised to discuss these issues. The responses made by the appraisees provide an eclectic mix of their perceptions of the hospital's performance appraisal system. These responses have been supplemented with views from the literature, where appropriate, to arrive at a number of conclusions.

sufficient. This time-scale should be adhered to in order to communicate a serious intent about the process by the manager. With regard to preparation, there was clear evidence that some appraisees took the process seriously. Others indicated that appraisal lacked credibility or did not feature highly enough in their priorities for them to allocate sufficient time. The appraisee is the most knowledgeable person about the work performance and should be the most important source of information about their achievements and areas for development (Murphy and Cleveland, 1995). By giving them more responsibility for appraisal there is a stronger possibility of commitment and ``. . . a much higher level of appraisee motivation is engendered'' (Fletcher, 1986, p. 120). The responsibility for the success of the appraisal also lies with the organisation and the appraiser. George (1986, p. 32) suggests that the degree of openness that is required in the appraisal process is, ``. . . unlikely to materialise without an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect something that is conspicuously lacking in many employing organisations''. Moreover, the ``wayward and frankly inconsiderate interpersonal skills on the part of the manager'' (Barge, 1989, p. 359) may be ameliorated through appropriate training.

The formulation of training and development plans

Once again it is clear from the findings that appraisees need to be closely involved and positively constructive in the formulation of training and development recommendations. Training imposed by the manager may result in a lack of motivation on the part of the appraisee. The findings indicated that the majority of training and development plans were directly related to the requirements of the job and only a small proportion were involved with general personal development. Most plans were related to short-term job requirements and few were concerned with long-term development and advancement. The process of performance appraisal is a necessary part in ensuring that the development of staff is related to clear organisational objectives. O'Connor and Semour (1994, p. 240) state that:
The very act of looking (by appraising staff) starts to make everyone aware of the systematic alignment in the organisation (or lack of it). Without alignment, everyone will be working very hard yet pulling in different directions, so the harder they work (because

Length of notice and degree of preparation for appraisal

Although instructions about a minimum period of notice are issued to all hospital managers, the wide range of notice indicates varying degrees of involvement and commitment to the process. Two weeks' notice in most circumstances would appear

[ 97 ]

John P. Wilson and Steven Western Performance appraisal: an obstacle to training and development? Career Development International 6/2 [2000] 9399

business is not going well), the more it pulls apart and the worse the business gets.

Through a clear sense of direction, individual training and development plans can support organisational objectives. Organisations working towards the Investors in People Award (UK) or Excellence through People (Eire) must have some form of appraisal system which will identify training and development needs. The companies need an appraisal system, preferably a system of regular review, in order to meet the standard indicators. Indicator 2.2 states that: ``Training and development needs are regularly reviewed against business objectives'' (Investors in People, 1991, p. 21). Furthermore, Indicator 4.3 states that: ``The outcomes of training and development are evaluated at individual, team and organisational level'' (Investors in People, 1991, p. 35).

that, ``Effective staff appraisal isn't simply a matter of `going though the motions', holding ritualistic interviews and mechanically completing forms, before returning to the `more important' task of getting on with the day-to-day management of the team. On the contrary, appraisal is a tool for managers to use to help them manage effectively''. Appraisal is sometimes regarded as achieving relatively little because of the infrequency of the interviews. It is now widely accepted that a once a year interview is neither sufficient to monitor and evaluate performance, nor to follow through training and development action plans. Sahl (1990, p. 54) asserts that, ``No matter how clearly goals are presented and administered, if the review is an annual event that employees and managers don't think about until a week or two before evaluation time, the process isn't achieving its purpose''.

Implementation and review of training and development plans

Training and development plans were sometimes unachievable because they were inappropriate, too expensive, or there was a lack of time. Another of the major obstacles to performance appraisal was indifference and apathy. Furthermore, it can be viewed as a task to be completed and then forgotten about until the next one. Barge (1989, p. 359) sums up the feelings of many employees by stating:
Whilst performance appraisal is being undertaken by many organisations with a fresh urgency and focus, feedback from managers and employees suggest that very little is being achieved. In fact, current performance appraisal procedures seem to excite most staff to a level comparable to a visit to the dentist.

Recommendations
The appraisees' comments above represent a wide spectrum of motivation, involvement and commitment with the performance appraisal process and subsequent action. These comments were then interpreted in light of the literature on the subject and it can be concluded that there is a relatively strong argument to suggest that performance appraisal is not always the right mechanism to identify development needs, especially personal development needs. However, Fletcher (1993, pp. 1-2) believes that no matter how difficult it might be to design and implement a satisfactory system, ``. . .there is no real alternative to turn to. . . appraisal is here to stay''. Thus, it would appear that the ``curse/ panacea'' of performance appraisal is likely to remain for the foreseeable future. For this reason, and drawing from the findings, the following steps may be applied to support training and development activities associated with performance appraisal: 1 Discussion of training and development issues should be entirely separate from assessment, promotion and remuneration discussions. 2 Advance warning should be given; the length and time being variable, but most agree that two weeks is adequate. 3 Choose an appropriate time for the organisation and the individual. It should not be after sick leave or at the busiest time of the year. Similarly, the right time of day should be chosen to fit in with shift work and other work patterns.

It is clear that energy is essential in order to prevent inertia and dissatisfaction with the appraisal process. ``Certainly, if they are not followed up by action from both appraiser and appraisee they can soon degenerate into empty rituals'' (Adair, 1983, p. 122). Furthermore, if this lack of interest by the appraisee is reinforced by managers who ``. . . regard appraisals as a bureaucratic and irksome exercise which is done solely to satisfy the personnel and development function'' (Marchington and Wilkinson, 1996, p. 143) then little may be achieved by the process. Appraisal should be perceived as an important tool for the development of the individual to achieve organisational objectives. Thus, Moon (1993, p. 7) argues

[ 98 ]

John P. Wilson and Steven Western Performance appraisal: an obstacle to training and development? Career Development International 6/2 [2000] 9399

4 Allow adequate time for preparation by both the appraisee and appraiser. Written preparation is advisable to encourage the appraisee to plan and review in advance for the interview. 5 The place of interview should be private and the plans confidential. 6 Both parties should have prepared notes and copies of the previous appraisal along with the job description and any other paperwork relating to training and development. 7 The interview should be conducted in a manner which is positive and supportive of the appraisee. 8 A performance appraisal report should be filled in as soon as possible following the event. 9 The training and development plans should be flexible in order to accommodate changes in work role and new development requirements. 10 The organisation and department business plans should be taken into account when training and development plans are being identified. 11 Agreement on the training and development plan formulated between the appraiser and the appraisee is of paramount importance if the appraisee is to be committed and motivated to achieving the objectives. 12 Personal training and development plans should be included as well as job-related ones. Personal development is important in a learning environment and often leads to greater willingness to undertake further development. 13 Recommendations for training and development should take into account the availability of resources to avoid raising expectations and then demoralising the appraisee. 14 Training and development plans should be regularly reviewed and certainly more than once per year. 15 Appraisal checklists for the appraiser and appraisee should be drawn up to ensure procedures are followed and areas not overlooked. 16 Train appraisers and appraisees in the purpose and process of performance appraisal. 17 A paper or electronic system should be instituted to provide information on the extent to which training and development plans are implemented. 18 Reinvigorate the system periodically to discourage indifference and apathy.

19 Ensure that the organisation collectively communicates the value of performance appraisal and development. 20 Organisations need to regularly and systematically audit, evaluate and continually improve their performance appraisal systems.

Adair, J. (1983), Effective Leadership, Chaucer Press, London. Armstrong, M. and Baron, A. (1998), Performance Management: The New Realities, Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Barge, T. (1989), ``Performance appraisal and personal development . . . the unholy alliance'', Training Officer, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 359-60. Carlton, I. and Sloman, M. (1992), ``Performance appraisal in practice'', Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 80-94. Fletcher, C. (1986), ``The effects of performance review in appraisal: evidence and implication'', in Mabey, C. and Isles, P. (Eds), Managing Learning, Routledge, London, pp. 115-32. Fletcher, C. (1993), Appraisal: Routes to Improved Performance, Institute of Personnel and Development, London. George, J. (1986), ``Appraisal in the public sector: dispensing with a big stick'', Personnel Management, May, pp. 32-5. Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (1991), Research Methods for Managers, Paul Chapman, London. Investors in People (1991), The National Standard Links to the Assessment Indicators, Sheffield, Employment Department. Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (1996), Core Personnel and Development, Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Moon, P. (1993), Appraising Your Staff, Kogan Page, London. Murphy, R.M. and Cleveland, J.N. (1995), Understanding Performance Appraisals, Sage Publications, London. O'Connor, J. and Semour, J. (1994), Training with NLP Skills for Managers, Trainers and Communicators, The Aquarian Press, CA. Sahl, R.J. (1990), ``Design effective performance appraisals'', Personnel Journal, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 53-60. Taylor, S. (1998), Employee Resourcing, Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Torrington, D. and Hall, L. (1991), Personnel Management A New Approach, Prentice-Hall International (UK), Hertfordshire. Weightman, J. (1996), Managing People in the Health Service, Institute of Personnel and Development, London.

References

[ 99 ]