Anda di halaman 1dari 12

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON THE PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN THE GOVERNMENT

Organization is a social system and the worker is indeed its


most vital element.

Most of social scientists believe that the failure or success of


an organization hinges on the kind of workers involved in that
organization. Thus, they uphold the idea that human
problems when they stand in the way of every organization’s
objectives must be controlled or minimized, if not possibly
eradicated. And one way of controlling, minimizing, or
eradicating these problems is through the adoption of
performance appraisal.

Performance appraisal as a process of evaluating task results


is both essential for the development of both management and
employee. For management, the results of appraisal are used
in making decisions on such matters like compensation
upgrading, promotion, transfer, and other employee fringe
benefits. These evaluation results are also useful in
determining employee’s work improvement or progress, and in
making an employee activity plan during the period of
employment.
For employees, the results of appraisal provide feedback about
their work, and promote fair relationships within groups.
Assuming that performance is satisfactory, the appraisal
enhances an employee’s self-image and feeling of competence,
thus improving his performance and attitudes.

In most Philippine government agencies, the performance


appraisal process starts with a supervisor consolidating the
task inputs of his subordinates which include productivity
numbers, attendance and tardiness reports, and project
reports. The supervisor proceeds by assessing the employee’s
personal attributes using the 1-2-3-4-5 system of the Trait
Rating Scale (TRS) method, and by providing descriptions
regarding the strong and weak aspects of the employees’
behavior, and recommending employees’ future trainings and
assignments.

The data are then transferred to a performance rating form,


and subsequently communicated to the employees through an
interview in which the supervisor provides feedback to the
employee on past performance, discusses with him problems
that have arisen, and elicits from him answers and reactions.
Then the two parties both affix their signatures on the said
rating form. The employee however has the option to “agree”
or “disagree” the ratings made.
Either the employee agrees or disagrees, the performance
rating form is transmitted to the personnel department of the
agency for preparation of over-all human resource evaluation
and findings to be submitted to the Civil Service Commission
(CSC) and to the top management for inclusion in the
corporate planning.

Before another year commences, top-level executives of


government, as part of their management functions, then meet
for corporate planning to discuss and set goals and specific
objectives of the organization for the incoming year. The
results of the planning are then transmitted to the managers
and supervisors at the lower echelons who, in turn,
communicate them to the people at the lowest level of the
organization.

However, this process of cascading the goals and objectives of


the organization, a “from-top-to-bottom” approach, has
created complex problems affecting the effective
implementation of a particular agency's performance appraisal
system for it tends to be confronted with criticisms and
dissatisfaction among the employees from the rank-and-file
level. The goals and objectives formulated by the top
management which also involve performance targets are so
general as they are focused on the total workforce of the
agency that they lack consideration to constraints and barriers
peculiar to every division or branch of the whole
organizational. Thus, there are employees of some divisions or
field offices who feel they are more burdened with targets than
the others.

The appraisal interview process in which the rater and the


ratee talk face-to-face has also been always stressful for both
parties as it sometimes emerges to be confrontational,
emotional, and judgmental. It is confrontational because each
party tries to convince that one view is more accurate than the
other; emotional, because the supervisor’s role calls for a
critical perspective, and the employee’s desire to “save face”
oftentimes leads to defensiveness; and judgmental, because
the supervisor must evaluate the employee’s behavior, putting
the employee clearly in a subordinate spot.

The first recorded appraisal system in industry was Robert


Owen’s use of character books and blocks in his New Lanark
cotton mills in Scotland around 1800. Today, however, there
are already numerous methods and techniques created for
performance evaluation. Yet, most organizations in the world
use only the three methods stated below in their employee
evaluations. These are also the same methods adopted, or at
least, endeavored to be adopted by the Philippine government
agencies, namely:
1. The Trait Rating Scale (TRS) or Graphic Rating
Scale. It uses a chart or graph containing a set of traits to be
considered;
2. The Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS).
Developed by Smith and Kendall, it is an improvement over
the TRS because the important dimensions of a job are
listed; and
3. The Management by Objectives (MBO). This method
is the process in which the supervisor and worker of an
organization together identify their common goals, define each
individual’s major area of responsibility in terms of the results
expected, and draw up specific measures to serve as guides in
effectively and efficiently operating the unit and in assessing
the contribution of every member. MBO was first introduced
by Douglas McGregor and Peter Drucker, and was further
improved by George S. Odiorne, John Humble, and others.

John M. Ivancevich considers MBO more than just an


evaluation program process. He views it as a philosophy of
managerial practice, a method by which managers and
subordinates plan, organize, control, communicate, and
debate. Ivancevich quoted McGregor as saying that the
superior in every organization should work with subordinates
to set goals. This would enable subordinates to exercise self-
control and manage their job performance.
The implementation of internal appraisal system for every
government agency in the Philippines took effect on March 25,
1989 under the administration of the Civil Service
Commission. It is pursuant to the provisions of Section 5 (b)
and 6 of Republic Act 6713, otherwise known as “Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees”.

Under Sections 5 (b) and 6, all public officials and employees


are obliged to submit annual performance reports within forty-
five (45) working days from the end of every year. In line of
this is the granting of incentives and rewards to public officials
and employees who demonstrate exemplary service and
conduct to Filipinos in general on the basis of their observance
of the norms of conduct laid down in Section 4 of the same
Code, namely: commitment to public interest, professionalism,
justness and sincerity, political neutrality, responsiveness to
the public, nationalism and patriotism, commitment to
democracy, and simple living.

The incentives and rewards may take on any form of the


following: bonuses, or citations, or directorships in
government-owned or controlled corporations, or paid
vacations; and automatic promotion to the next higher
position suitable to the employee’s qualifications.
The performance evaluation process is administered by the
Committee on Awards for Outstanding Public Officials and
Employees, composed of representatives from the CSC, Office
of the Ombudsman, and Commission on Audit (COA) as
assisted by technical experts from the government and the
private sectors.

Performance appraisal systems are supposedly, among other


things, a program created by government to align corporate
and individual performance with goals, standards, and
expectations, and to develop a more objective and constructive
performance review that encourages self-development. Sadly,
these objectives melodic they may sound to every government
employees ear, remain unachieved. The appraisal systems of
the government are still remote from being reflective to the
actual performance of every employee for it lacks consultative
venue between the management and workers as evident of its “
from top-to-bottom” approach in target setting.

It has also bestowed immense authority to the supervisors in


the semestral evaluation of employee performance that it
constantly produces rater-ratee conflicts.

In the sphere of public service, performance appraisal systems


of the government have not been able to provide CSC with the
accurate profile of the total government workforce for it lacks
the dimensions focusing on the norms of conduct clearly laid
down in Section 4 of RA 6713, thus depriving the government
employees of the recognition and possible awards and
incentives they deserve.

The problems faced by the performance appraisal systems


could be resolved effectively and fairly if the course followed in
the target setting is the “from-bottom-to-top” approach, rather
than the other way around.

In the “ from-bottom-to-top” approach, the branches are given


the venue to come up with their own targets taking into point
the outcome of their own environmental and corporate
appraisals. This is, however, a no-picnic process for they are
going to submit the result of the target setting to top
management and defend it with macro and microeconomic
indicators. But, despite of all these complexities, it is
important to note that it is the employees who formulate the
targets, thus the commitment and dedications to meeting
these targets are more honest and firm. This same concept is
strongly stressed by modern appraisal philosophy that
embodies Drucker and McGregor’s MBO, and which should
have been conscientiously adhered by government agencies.
As the saying goes, “ if you know where you want to go, you
are more likely to get there”.
While the immediate supervisor is in the best position to
evaluate and rate employee performance since he is in direct
touch with and is in the work place, it must also be reckoned
that he also has his biases and favors which may affect the
objectivity of the appraisal process.

Hence, for the purpose of objectivity, the agency must also


include in the appraisal system the ratings given not just by
the supervisor, but also by peers, by a committee or board,
and by the ratee himself.

The peer evaluation is desirable to help determine potential


supervisors because it indicates the degree of esteem a
colleague has for his co-workers.

The use of committee or board on the other hand could make


a more reliable appraisal provided that the immediate
supervisor is included in the committee since it can offset
biases and favors.

Problems can arise however in self-appraisal for there are


some poor performers who tend to rate themselves too mildly.
Nevertheless, these limitations can be overshadowed by the
fact that most government employees are frank and sincere
enough in identifying their strengths and weaknesses, and are
able to lay with impartiality their performance against
previous expectations. Besides, self-evaluations are much less
threatening to one’s self-esteem than those received from
others. As Newstrom and Davis put it, “self-appraisals provide
a more fertile soil for growth and change.”

For government performance appraisal systems to be potent


they involve formulate performance evaluation procedures and
standards that are congruent with the objectives of the
organization.

Procedures and standards of work performance must not be


set up arbitrarily. Instead, they must be analyzed from the
point of tasks they contain and just what the workers are
doing or supposed to be doing. They must encourage workers
to give their best efforts to the organization, rather than bring
disappointment, and worst, demoralization.

The organizational objectives, on the other hand, must be


clear and specific enough that can be understood and
identified with even by the lowest ranking worker of the
organization. They must also be measurable, time-bound, and
most of all, realistic and attainable.
References

Candy, Robert L. and Gregory H. Dobbins, Performance


Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives (Cincinnati: South-
Western, 1994), pp. 25-61.

Flippo, Edwin B., Personnel Management (New York:


McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984), pp. 224-245.

Ivancevich, John M., Human Resource Management


(Chicago: Irwin, 1995), pp. 256-291.

Miranda, Gregorio S., Supervisory Management: The


Management of Effective Supervision ( Mandaluyong:
National Book Store, 2004), pp. 173-195.

Newstrom, John W. and Keith Davis, Organizational


Behavior: Human Behavior at Work (New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993), pp. 172-175.

Republic Act No. 6713: Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards


for Public Officials and Employees (Quezon City: CSC,
1989), pp. 02-04.

Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards


for Public Officials and Employees (Quezon City: CSC,
1989), pp. 05-11.

Sison, Perfecto S., Personnel Management in the 21st


Century as revised by Ranulfo P. Payos and Orlando
S. Zorilla ( Manila: Rex Book Store, 2003), pp. 58-
66.

Tendero, Avelino P., Theory and Practice of Public


Administration in the Philippines (Manila: Fiscal
Administration Foundation, Inc., 2000), pp. 129-
134.

Trice, Harrison M. and Janice M. Beyer, The Cultures of


Work Organizations (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,
1993), pp. 130-132.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai