Talk:Performance appraisal

message: Performance appraisal
The most popularly listed methods of Performance Appraisal are defined as MBO(Manangement By Objectives), 360, BOS and BARS.  But these are all premised on one key assumption: Appraisal occurs ONCE per year (or twice in some companies).  What if the assumption is wrong?  I believe the assumption is wrong.  My view is appraisal of staff occurs EVERY DAY. So what occurs once (or twice) per year?  I consider it is a summary of the past and an opportunity to plan for the next review period.
Therefore I have shown many people that ther is a NEW approach to 'performance appraisal' - a Dual Approach based on RISK and KISS.  I.e. if there is no risk of a down side, 'keep it simple simon (KISS)' and based on communications. BUT if the employee situation is considered high RISK, then apply a different approach based on complicance.
My practical application identifies that if approached correctly, feedback to staff can be positive without becoming bureaucratic.  But it takes a willingness to think differently; based on RISK and KISS rather than following a one-shoe-fits-all philosophy.
Mark Shaw
60.241.34.189 (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

message: I removed the "critical" section again as a copyvio from the given source, which itself is a referenced quote from Peter Block's "Stewardshp".  I don't doubt that a notable section highlighting the disadvantages of the topic can be crafted, but it will need to be originally written text supported by a smaller quote.  I'll look at this when I get a chance, or if someone else wants to take a stab at it. Kuru (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: *Really nice work. A wide range of sources have been used to build some comprehensive, neutral, readable content.
*The text itself is clear and unproblematic - don't have to worry about typos &c. Layout is OK but you have a lot of paragraphs starting with a hyphen - perhaps some could be turned into bullet points (with an asterisk * ) and others could get little subheadings?
*There does seem to be a lot of emphasis on Muchinsky. Unfortunately I don't have a copy and I'm not really an SME - if Muchinsky is one of the standard texts for your course, I'm sure it's fine. (There can be problems if too much emphasis is placed on non-mainstream sources, ie. an anthropology article which mostly cited Erich von Däniken).
*If any of these sources are available online, it might be a good idea to add a URL into the citation so that people reading the References list can just click on a blue link. Even if some readers just get to an abstract peeking out from behind a paywall, that's better than nothing. 
*How do performance appraisals compare against other performance-management tools? Are different tools used in different situations? 
*There are no obvious gaps in the coverage. Good attention to detail.
*Go on, use your imagination and find one or two interesting examples/case studies. :-)
bobrayner (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review etc. 

message: I have finished my article project, and I thank you, Bobrayner, for all of your help and support. Thank you Dr. Michael Tagler (Mjtagler) for your guidance and inspiration. Thank you James (jastha08) for being my Wiki coding "yoda". And finally, thank you Nathan2055 for your original barnstar post on my talkpage and encouraging words :-)  Jlael303 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Performance Appraisal Article Project Finished!!!

message: I would like to include under your Appraisal and Legal Implications heading, the following paragraph:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines apply to any selection procedure that is used for making employment decisions, not only for hiring, but also for promotion, demotion, transfer, layoff, discharge, or early retirement. Therefore, employment appraisal procedures must be validated like tests or any other selection device. Employers who base their personnel decisions on the results of a well-designed performance review program that includes formal appraisal interviews are much more likely to be successful in defending themselves against claims of discrimination.
^ Schultz & Schultz, Duane (2010). Psychology and work today. New York: Prentice Hall. p. 129. .Nikicia (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  REQUEST TO ADD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

message: I would like to add the following to your article:
Computers have been playing an increasing role in PA for some time (Sulsky & Keown, 1998). There are two main aspects to this. The first is in relation to the electronic monitoring of performance, which affords the ability to record a huge amount of data on multiple dimensions of work performance (Stanton, 2000). Not only does it facilitate a more continuous and detailed collection of performance data in some jobs, e.g. call centres, but it has the capacity to do so in a non-obvious, covert manner. The second aspect is in mediating the feedback process, by recording and aggregating performance ratings and written observations and making the information available on-line; many software packages are available for this. The use of IT in these ways undoubtedly helps in making the appraisal process more manageable, especially where multiple rating sources are involved, but it also raises many questions about appraisees' reactions and possible effects on PA outcomes. Mostly, the evidence so far is positive.
^ Fletcher, Clive. Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology74 (Nov 2001):p.482
http://search.proquest.com.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu:2048/psychology/docview/199343619/13DE818160D274F042C/2?accountid=15180Nikicia (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  request to add additional information 

message: I would like to make an informative addition to this page on improving Performance Appraisals. The addition i would like to make is in my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joselv83/sandbox Thank you Joselv83 (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Request

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Performance appraisal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VbAsplhrfTQJ:hrweb.mit.edu/system/files/Conducting%2Bthe%2BDevelopment%2BDiscussion%2B-%2BManager%2BTips_0.pdf+%22human+resources%E2%80%9D+%22development+discussion%22+site:edu&hl=en with https://web.archive.org/web/20120617092356/http://hrweb.mit.edu/system/files/Conducting%20the%20Development%20Discussion%20-%20Manager%20Tips_0.pdf on http://hrweb.mit.edu/system/files/Conducting%2Bthe%2BDevelopment%2BDiscussion%2B-%2BManager%2BTips_0.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think it would be good for the article to touch on the widespread negative image of performance reviews. Many employees dread going to their performance reviews, because no one likes to have their faults discussed. It can be quite depressing. I think a major challenge of performance reviews is to overcome this negative image. In fact, in many smaller companies, or smaller offices of large companies, performance reviews are simply never done because of this negative image. Everyday feedback is all the employee gets. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative Image 

message: Not clear in the article what the difference is between these two concepts. ... discospinster talk 17:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Evaluation (workplace)]] into [[Performance appraisal]]