The employees’ role is within the organisation

Planning efforts must be built around objectives in all three areas, resulting in three separate levels of planning, developmental, maintenance, and remedial (Richards, 1986:30). Deciding on how many of each type of objective to address depends on factors unique to each job. This method is the most valid due to the purpose of this appraisal, which is achievement, training and development orientated (Daft, 2000:35). The first step in analysing objectives is to describe what the employees’ role is within the organisation.

A job analysis which was conducted in Part A lead to the design of a job description for the focal position (Rudman, 1995:88). A job description sets out the principal accountabilities or key results areas of the job; this means the desired outcomes (Haynes, 1990:50). As a result the traditional lists of tasks and duties or inputs give way to brief statements of the results that are to be achieved Rudman, 1995:89). These results are than translated into specific goals for the incumbent to achieve over a particular time frame.

By understanding this process and identifying the main areas of accountability for the position, this can than result in the success of the MBO (Richards, 1986:30). However in order for this method to be truly beneficial for the organisations the goals that are set need to be smart, this means it is essential that the goals are specific, measurable, agreed, realistic and consist within the time frame (Mondy, 1994:145). Further more as time progresses it is important to decide how the goals are to be achieved for the incumbent.

Therefore there are certain steps that become useful for clarifying job requirements and sharing the mutual expectation of managers and their employees (Rudman, 1995:89-90). This is then followed by an agreement of specific work objectives or performance standards, which are seen as a logical starting point for the subsequent performance review (Mondy, 1994:145-146). Designing forms for performance planning and review under MBO can be startlingly straightforward.

At their most simple, the forms need only provide space for the managers and the employee to agree on the key areas of the job, the goals or targets they set for each of these areas and, for later use, to note how well the goals or targets were met (Rudman, 1999:90). There are many other methods that can be used for conducting performance appraisals; however they have been rejected due to their purpose, insufficiency and irrelevancy to the aim of performance appraisal for ANZ.

The Graphic Rating Scale assesses employee performance using specific employee behaviour of characteristics (Stone, 2002:28). A set of performance factors are listed, then the assessor subjectively scores each factor on a continuum (Eichel and Bender, 1984:42). The scales which are used have five points ranging from 1 (poor) through to 5 representing (advanced competency) (Eichel ad Bender, 1984:42). This technique has the advantage of being easy and uncomplicated to use but is very susceptible to rating errors, such as leniency, central tendency and halo affect (Fisher et al, 2003: 511).

Other problems with graphic rating scales are ill-defined performance dimensions and vague scale anchors which may not apply to varying positions within the organisation (Dessler, 2000:341). As ANZ wants its employees to set goals to work towards achieving that their performance will be based on those goals this appraisal method is too broad and vague for the organization. Forced distribution and other ranking methods involve the evaluator placing a certain percentage of employees into each of several performance categories (Fisher et al, 2003: 509).

Organisations that use such a method have groups of employees performing similar or the same tasks wishing to assess their overall performance. This method is often used to determine work-force reduction needs by monitoring efficiency and productivity (Rudman, 1995:68). As the focal position consists of one staff member performing a specific task and working towards achieving goals, this method is not valid and would not be beneficial. Further more this method informs employers of who performed best and worst but does not distinguish whether any of the employees achieved the desired performance standards or targets (Rudman, 1995:68).

Comparative methods involve the evaluation and comparison of employees against one another (Latham and Wexley, 1994:74). This method is not conducive with employee development as an employee learns how he or she compared with other employees, but this feedback does not indicate how to improve performance and could be detrimental to their confidence and motivation (Fisher et al, 2003:520). Comparative methods are good for making layoff, promotion and merit raise decisions but are generally not consistent with team orientated work places (Latham ; Wexley, 1994: 79).

In actual fact they have limited usefulness in performance planning and review (Rudman, 1995:72). As ANZ encourages team work and has a developmental, learning focus, therefore a comparative method would be detrimental for the organisation. The critical incident technique requires the evaluator to constantly monitor and record the employee’s behaviours and performance incidents over a certain period (Rudman, 1995:75-76). This technique end up being very time consuming for the evaluator and has a strong behavioural focus.

As ANZ is focused on achievements and results gained from employee goals and initiative rather than employee behaviour this method is not relevant (Fisher et al, 2003:515). Behaviourally anchored rating scales (BARS) are a performance appraisal method that combines elements of the traditional rating scale and critical incidents method (Stone, 2002:287). This method require each job category to have its own BARS, thus being very time consuming, difficult and costly. It requires the efforts of many people to complete and be successful within any organisation (Fisher et al, 2003:527).

Additionally the performance dimensions are all related to different kinds of behaviour but can only be indicative of likely types of behaviour (www. hrtoolkit. gov. bc. ca/staffing/staffing_steps/assess_methods/oral_interviews). This makes it impossible to give comprehensive descriptions of all aspects of performance. Meaning that managers are left to make their own judgements about what other types of behaviours should fit into the scale (Fisher et al, 2003:527).

This contradicts the results orientated focus of the organization and its lack of concern for the behaviour that leads employees to achieve results. Additionally this method would not be feasible for the focal position as there are relatively few employees performing this specific job and training its employees or hiring an expert to conduct the performance review would be unlikely due to the time needed and cost incurred with this method. (Fisher et al, 2003: 516)