The appraisal should measure performance in accomplishing goals and plans as well as performance as a manager. No one wants a person in a managerial role appears to do everything right as a manager but who cannot turn in a good record of profit making, marketing, controllership, or whatever the area of responsibility may be. A â€œperformerâ€ in a managerial position who cannot operate effectively as a manager will not be able to satisfy the management of an organization. Some star performers may have succeeded through no fault of their own.
Performance in accomplishing goals:
In assessing performance, systems of appraising against verifiable pre-selected goals have extraordinary value. Given consistent, integrated, and understood planning designed to reach specific objectives, probably the best criteria of managerial performance relate to the ability to set goals intelligently, to plan programs that will accomplish those goals, and to succeed in achieving them. Those who have operated under some variation of this system often claim that these criteria are inadequate and that elements of luck or other factors beyond the managerâ€™s control are taken into account when arriving at any appraisal. But, in too many cases, managers who achieve results owning to sheer luck are promoted, and others, who do not achieve expected results because of factors beyond their control, are blamed for failures. Thus, appraisal against verifiable objectives is, by itself, insufficient.
Performance as managers:
The system of measuring performance against pre-established objectives should be supplemented by an appraisal of a manager as a manager. Managers at any level also undertake non-managerial duties, and these cannot be overlooked. The primary purpose for which managers is hired and against which they should be measured. However, in their performances as mangers they should be appraised on the basis of how well they understand and undertake the managerial functions of planning, organizing, staffing, leading, and controlling. The standards to use in this area are the fundamentals of management, but first some traditional appraisal programs should be examined.
The problem of Management appraisal:
Managers have long been reluctant to appraise subordinates. However, in an activity as important as managing, there should be no reluctance to measure performance as accurately as possible. In almost all kinds of group enterprises whether in work or in play performance, is usually been rated in some way. Moreover, most people, and particularly people of ability, want to know how well they are doing.
It is difficult to believe that the controversy, the misgivings, and even the disillusionment that are still so widespread with respect to managerial performance appraisal have come from the practices of measuring and evaluating . Rather, it appears that they have arisen from the things measured, the standards used, and the way measurement is done.
Managers can understandably take exception, feel unhappy, or resist when they believe that they are evaluating, or being evaluated, inaccurately or against standards that are inapplicable, inadequate, or subjective. However, some light and hope have emerged in the past 30 years and offer promise of making evaluation effective. The interest in evaluating managers by comparing actual performance against present verifiable objectives or goals is a development of considerable potential.