Performance Appraisal

After employee selection, performance appraisal is arguably the most important management tool a farm employer has at her disposal. The performance appraisal, when properly carried out, can help to fine tune and reward the performance of present employees. In this chapter we (1) discuss the purpose for the performance appraisal, (2) introduce the negotiated performance appraisal approach, and (3) talk about the steps to achieving a worthwhile traditional performance appraisal.

Strengths of the negotiated performance appraisal are its ability to promote candid two-way communication between the supervisor and the person being appraised and to help the latter take more responsibility for improving performance. In contrast, in the traditional performance appraisal, the supervisor acts more as a judge of employee performance than as a coach. By so doing, unfortunately, the focus is on blame rather than on helping the employee assume responsibility for improvement.

Does that mean that the traditional performance appraisal approach should be discarded? Not at all. Experts in the field have often suggested that the performance appraisal should not be tied to decisions about pay raises. When appraisals are tied to pay raises, they argue, employees are more defensive and less open to change. So how should pay raise decisions be made, then, if not through the performance appraisal? I would suggest that the traditional performance appraisal can still play a critical role in management and is ideal for making pay raise decisions. But it is in the negotiated approach where employees can truly come to grips with what it is that they need to do to maximize performance, potential career advancement and earnings.

For the employee to have enough time to respond and improve, the negotiated performance appraisal should take place at least 9 to 12 months before the traditional one. There are no such strict time requirements when the traditional approach (used to make decisions about pay) precedes the negotiated one (used as a coaching tool).

Why Performance Appraisal?

Performance appraisal is a vehicle to (1) validate and refine organizational actions (e.g. selection, training); and (2) provide feedback to employees with an eye on improving future performance.

Validating and refining organizational action

Employee selection, training and just about any cultural or management practice--such as the introduction of a new pruning method or an incentive pay program--may be evaluated in part by obtaining worker performance data.

The evaluation may provide ideas for refining established practices or instituting new ones. For instance, appraisal data may show that a farm supervisor has had a number of interpersonal conflicts with other managers and employees. Some options include (1) paying more attention to interpersonal skills when selecting new supervisors, (2) encouraging present supervisors to attend communication or conflict management classes at the local community college, or (3) providing the supervisor one-on-one counseling.

Data from performance appraisals can also help farmers (1) plan for long-term staffing and worker development, (2) give pay raises or other rewards, (3) set up an employee counseling session, or (4) institute discipline or discharge procedures.

For validation purposes (Chapter 3), it is easier to evaluate performance data when large numbers of workers are involved. Useful performance data may still be collected when workers are evaluated singly, but it may take years to obtain significant data trends.

Employee need for feedback

Although employees vary in their desire for improvement, generally workers want to know how well they are performing. A successful farmer recalled with sadness how as a youth he had worked very hard, along with his immigrant family, for a farmer who never seemed to notice the effort. Years later he met the former employer and asked why he had never made any positive comments about their work. The response from the former boss was, "I feared you would stop working as hard."1

People need positive feedback and validation on a regular basis. Once an employee has been selected, few management actions can have as positive an effect on worker performance as encouraging affirmation. These are, in effect, good-will deposits, without which withdrawals cannot be made. This does not mean you should gloss over areas needing improvement. When presented in a constructive fashion, workers will often be grateful for information on how to improve shortcomings. Such constructive feedback, however, "can happen only within the context of listening to and caring about the person."2 In general, supervisors who tend to look for worker's positive behaviors--and do so in a sincere, non-manipulative way--will have less difficulty giving constructive feedback or suggestions. Furthermore, in the negotiated approach, the burden for performance analysis does not fall on the supervisor alone, but requires introspection on the part of the individual being evaluated.

Feedback may be qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative comments are descriptive, such as telling the shop mechanic you appreciate the timeliness and quality of her repairs. In contrast, quantitative feedback is based on numerical figures, such as the percentage of plant grafts that have taken. Some researchers feel feedback is particularly useful when workers have an achievement objective (see Sidebar 6-1).

Sidebar 6-1

Performance improved substantially (11 to 27 percent) in a number of settings when workers were given specific goals to achieve and received performance feedback. Two examples from the logging industry show how goal setting can work, one with the harvesting of timber and the other with truck drivers. In one study logger productivity increased 18 percent and absenteeism decreased with the setting of specific goals. Logger crews who had set their own goals tended to meet them more often than when goals were set by supervisors.

In a second study, management felt truck drivers were not loading their vehicles to capacity. Drivers--fearing a fine from the Highway Department, or even losing their jobs--seldom loaded their trucks more than 58 to 63 percent of capacity. After goals were set to load trucks to 94 percent of capacity, there were some striking changes. Within the first month, truckers were on the average achieving 80 percent capacity. Within three months, they were frequently surpassing 90 percent. The company saved an excess of $250,000 in a nine-month period.

In