A Critical Comparison of Performance Appraisal Research Papers in HRM

This report critically analyzes two research papers on performance appraisal (Prowse & Prowse, 2009; Prasad, 2015), examining their key themes, issues addressed, and legitimacy through comparison with other research. The report highlights the widespread use of performance appraisal systems, the positive correlation between motivation, job satisfaction, and PA, and the importance of transparent and feedback-driven appraisal processes. It discusses issues such as appraisal biases, conflicts, and the need for employee counseling. The author's personal view favors Prasad's quantitative approach, emphasizing its relevance to the contemporary business environment. The report concludes that while both papers identify critical issues, further research is needed to create a composite performance appraisal model that minimizes conflicts and maximizes positive outcomes. It underscores the significant role of PA in driving motivation, job satisfaction, and employee productivity.

HRM
Advanced Critical Writing
Institutional Affiliation(S)
Student name
[Date]

P a g e | 1
Introduction
Several techniques of performance appraisals are been extensively used in
organizations to analyze and evaluate employee's performance throughout each
organizational level. Recently, many public and private limited companies have employed
formal performance appraisals frameworks to evaluate individual effort based on opinions
and judgments made by peers, managers, subordinates, and supervisors including employees
themselves. Thereby, this paper proposes to examine and evaluate two critical research
papers on performance appraisal, Prowse & Prowse (2009) and Prasad (2015). This paper
will discuss key themes of both the papers and the issues addressed in them. Besides, this
paper will analyse the legitimacy in both the articles by making a critical comparison of the
articles from other research papers comprising similar topics. Despite all the comparison
made and issues identified, the critics suggest a comprehensive performance appraisal
process that can enable organizations with developed motivation, feedback, identification of
training and development that can potentially develop employee's satisfaction and wellbeing
besides justifying rewards.
Critical comparison
Performance appraisal systems (PA) is considered as one of the key tools in
organizations that have made use of appraisals very common in the human resources
management field. With regards to it, Prowse & Prowse (2009) estimated the use of formal
performance appraisal systems in the article “The dilemma of performance appraisal” and
finds that about 80-90% of organizations in the UK and USA use appraisals which is
gradually increasing each year. The authors perform a literature review on performance
appraisal and evaluates its historical development from management perspectives to link it
with current appraisals and performance management systems. The techniques used in the

P a g e | 2
article critically analyze the increase seen in employees' job satisfaction and organizational
commitment, focussing majorly on UK and USA literature contribution on performance
appraisals and organizational performance. Prasad (2015), on the other hand, draws upon
current literature by making a comprehensive examination of the relationship between
motivation and job satisfaction gained through performance appraisal systems in his article “
Performance Appraisal: An Empirical Study to understand Job Satisfaction and Motivation
of personnel through the system”. To do the same, the author made a study of 115 individuals
belonging to diversified industries and finds a positive correlation between motivation and
job satisfaction through PA system in them.
In literature, various theories have been introduced that can help in comprehending
the relationship between PA and job satisfaction. Cognitive psychology research reveals that
challenging and measurable goals help in creating alignment between individuals' and
organizations' objectives which leads to higher motivational levels thereby impacting
employee work effort also. Moreover, Locke's Goal setting theory implies that very goal
accomplishment can be closely related to satisfaction within employees. Therefore,
Kampkötter (2014) claims that “Frequently, organizations link goal achievement to
remuneration systems such as performance-related pay" (p. 3). The evidenced-based claim by
the author can be compared to research made by (Prasad, 2015) where the author finds that if
employees want to improve their job performance, their PA system must hold a positive
objective and deliverable techniques. Accordingly, job satisfaction is believed to have
emerged from diversified factors such as PA, organizational characteristics, job features,
human resource processes and personal characteristics of employees. The research made
further suggests that employees' job satisfaction level is highly dependent on their goal
determinations. Remarkably, performance-oriented employees believe that working hard may
not always lead to enhanced performance rather working hard can lead to low competencies

P a g e | 3
level whereas those who perform poorly, may lose the necessary attributes required to
perform well.
Among various PA systems, performance-related pay, also known as PRP systems are
most commonly used in organizations that help managers to link the performance
assessments with individual, firm-specific, divisional and fiscal goals according to the
primary objective of the organization. Such goals give individuals with a solid ground of
what is expected and how to perform so that directed work is accomplished (Prowse &
Prowse, 2009). A similar view has been presented by Boachie-Mensah & Dogbe (2011)
where the authors state that PRP or performance-based pay is considered as a compensation
formula that links individual performance with their pay scale. It can be said that PRP
provides financial rewards to the employees based on performance made while performing
individually, in groups or for the organization. However, the authors underpin few issues with
such systems such as employee-manager conflicts that cannot be eliminated due to issues
related to individual attribution. The more the subject is involved in the performance
valuation process, the attribution conflicts tend to increase. Consequently, this impacts
productivity and morale negatively.
A similar kind of issue can be seen in Prasad (2015) paper about PA systems which
reveals trust-related issue between the individual and the accessor. The author claims that the
PA process involves various steps during which accessor observes individual behavior, stores
and uses whenever necessary and integrates and recalls during making judgements of the
appraise behaviour during PA. Issues such as under-placement of employees, transfers, and
demotions further confirm major administrative biases and weaknesses in appraisals due to
shortcomings of an employee's rating system. Consequently, it serves as a feedback for the
individuals followed by internal discussions between accessors and the appraisees, impacting
the relationship and a spirit of mutual understanding. Therefore, Singh & Gupta (2013)

P a g e | 4
suggest that counselling of individuals must be made each time before performance appraisal
related interviews are conducted. This will provide employees with opportunities that can
overcome their weaknesses as well as develop personal abilities, skills, behavior,
performance, etc. Guidance can also be offered to the employees for enabling self-
development so that overall performance is developed to accomplish the assigned job.
Another significant issue has been identified by Prowse & Prowse (2009) concerning
relationship differences made in a merit-related pay system in PA. The research made by the
authors finds that the medium through which rewards are merited is been often linked to
performance metrics and targets set by the organizations. This issue further reflects
inconsistency within organizations and creators of problems especially in a less skilled
occupation where objectives and targets cannot be formulated easily. Although many authors
and business practitioners have made several improvements in the formulation and
implementation of PA models to address issues in traditional models, the revised formats, and
techniques still fail to adhere to the basic purpose behind making appraisals (Akhtar &
Khattak, 2013). Perpetual errors like rating errors and perceived meaning including the well-
known issue of discrimination make the human tendency to create highly private and
subjective assessments treat like ignorance or downplaying and make it look contradicting.
This result in the emergence of psychological phenomenon where individuals are affected
emotionally as well as morally. In other words, people see others what they want to see.
Rating errors can further arise problematic situation in merit-based pay systems that impacts
appraiser's motive and judgment effectually. Unlike perpetual errors, such errors tend to
double issues as they may result in negative repercussions and confrontations due to PA
(Khan, 2013).

P a g e | 5
Personal view
From my perspective, the claims made, and the issue identified by Prasad (2015)
seem more applicable and reasonable since the authors made quantitative research on PA
followed by contemporary business environment. The research conducted and analysis made
of literature by the author further implies future managers to enhance motivation and job
satisfaction levels in employees. The author claims that PA must be used as an instrument
designed and administered by managers however, the object behind it must be transparent
and based on feedback so that positive constructs are created in the workplace. Even, Daoanis
(2012) cites that PA assessment tools should evaluate diversity functions within employees
along with having a clear and transparent sense of direction. The fair evaluation made
attentively further enhances vital and corrective measurements.
Comparatively, quantitative research conducted by Prowse & Prowse (2009) reveals
future possibilities based on the errors made in the past PA systems. Accordingly, the author
identified major issues in PA that requires prompt resolutions and argues that even if one gets
off badly with their managers, he or she can forget it very well. This evidences how PA
practices continues to be institutionalized within elaborated systems and their development
has become rhetoric within bureaucratic control held by managers. Despite analysis made of
the history and present PA culture, this article fails to suggest a suitable alternative that can
provide developed motivation and feedback in contemporary organizations. Moreover, the
research made in the article is limited to surveys made in two nations only, making the entire
study made from a limited community viewpoint.
Conclusion
The quantitative research made on both the articles holds a very significant position in
PA journals as they put in front major issues related to the traditional and current PA systems

P a g e | 6
along with prescribing alternatives that can eliminate issues identified. After reading,
evaluating and comparing both the research papers and analyzing the addressed issues from
other articles' research, this paper concludes on the note that the PA system is one basis that
drives motivation, job satisfaction and productivity in employees. Since both the papers have
identified few issues related to PA system, this paper proposes to make a further research on
traditional as well as current PA systems to find a composite PA model that comprises
positive correlation between employees performance and appraisals made so that conflicts
and prejudice is minimized and PA model reflects action with positive objectivity.

P a g e | 7
References
Akhtar, T. & Khattak, S., 2013. Employee Acceptability of Performance Appraisals: Issues of
Fairness and Justice. World Applied Sciences Journal, 24(4), pp. 507-518.
Boachie-Mensah, F. & Dogbe, O. D., 2011. Performance-Based Pay as a Motivational Tool
for Achieving Organisational Performance: An Exploratory Case Study. International
Journal of Business and Management, 6(12), pp. 270-285.
Daoanis, L. E., 2012. Performance appraisal Systems: It’s Implication To Employee
Performance. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences , 2(3), pp. 55-
62.
Kampkötter, P., 2014. Performance appraisals and job satisfaction. Multidisciplinary Panel
Data Research, Volume 672, pp. 1-31.
Khan, M. F. U., 2013. Role of Performance Appraisal System on Employees Motivation.
Journal of Business and Management, 8(4), pp. 66-83.
Prasad, P., 2015. Performance Appraisal: An Empirical Study to understand Job Satisfaction
and Motivation of personnel through the system. International Journal of Engineering and
Applied Sciences, 2(4), pp. 118-125.
Prowse, P. & Prowse, J., 2009. The dilemma of performance appraisal. Measuring Business
Excellence, 13(4), pp. 69-77.
Singh, P. & Gupta, S., 2013. Performance Appraisal: Building Trust among Employees or
not-the Dilemma Continues. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications,
3(8), pp. 1-6.