Performance appraisal is a regular practice in big companies that allow supervisors to assess the productivity of their workers over a specific period. Even though it can be a challenging task for a manager, it is a part of their job, and they make many mistakes while appraising the staff. For example, the supervisors sometimes have either a positive or negative attitude toward a particular employee, which does not allow for efficient performance evaluation (Mathis et al., 2020).
In addition, the proximity error occurs when facets that are close to each other in the performance score table receive the same rating, regardless of the actual one. It means that the manager attempts to either increase or lower the scale of a worker. The other most common fallacy in performance appraisal refers to recency (Mathis et al., 2020). It presumes that the appraiser considers only the last several weeks of work, which contradicts the appraising process. Finally, many supervisors tend to hold stereotypes against the personnel, which impedes accurate evaluation.
Nevertheless, a manager can avoid these mistakes and have a better understanding of the performance understanding process. Primarily, succession development matters more than succession planning because it provides workers with experience, unlike planning which deals with paperwork mainly (Mathis et al., 2020). Moreover, it is better to assess employees’ outcomes and not the process because it will better comprehend what is being measured. Additionally, the manager must remain realistic and maintain a neutral relationship with his employees not express any subjective attitude (Mathis et al., 2020). There should be no biases affecting the appraisal process because stigmatization leads to wrong decisions. Ultimately, a manager needs to establish effective communication with people to know the company’s goals.
Reference
Mathis, R. L., Jackson, J. H., & Valentine, S. R. (2020). Human resource management (15th Ed.). Cengage Limited.