UPI Study › Courses › Human Resources Management › Free lessons › Lesson 6.1 Free with a free account
Performance Reviews: Purpose, Benefits, and Limitations
Human Resources Management · Chapter 6: Reviewing Employee Performance: Methods, Tools, and FeedbackSection 6.1 · lesson 36 of 9116 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Human Resources Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Human Resources Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Criteria and Approaches: Traits, Behaviors, and Results →← Human Resource Management: Employee Discipline, Hot-Stove Rule and Progressive DisciplineNext lesson: Criteria and Approaches: Traits, Behaviors, and Results →
In this lesson
Design the purposes, standards, and record before choosing a form.
- Distinguish the 4 purposes of appraisal
- Explain the conflict between pay decisions and development
- Evaluate relevance, reliability, acceptability, practicality, and sensitivity
- Assess annual reviews, alternatives, and the limits of appraisal
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (2,002 words). Read along, or search it.
Chapter 6
Performance Reviews
Performance appraisal formally evaluates work against defined expectations. It records the judgment and communicates it to the employee. Managers already judge employees when allocating assignments, recommending promotions, or deciding who needs attention. Formal appraisal brings those judgments into a common process, where evidence and standards can be reviewed. Without that process, judgments continue; their basis may become less visible and harder to question. Job analysis supplies the foundation, identifying what acceptable performance in the particular role actually requires. The system has four purposes: administration, development, documentation, and communication about expectations and current standing. They can conflict, especially when one conversation determines pay and asks for candor about difficulties. Five requirements evaluate the design: relevance, reliability, acceptability, practicality, and sensitivity to actual performance differences. Annual reviews face serious criticisms, but removing a rating does not remove consequential judgments about employees. Frequent feedback can support improvement, provided it addresses the work and barriers to change. Dana's fictional review illustrates system design, alongside the skill of the manager conducting it.
4 Purposes
What the System Actually Does Determines Its Design
Administration uses an evaluation for decisions about pay, promotion, assignment, and continued employment within the organization. It requires an appropriate basis, with relevant evidence and comparisons where they matter. Development identifies what is not working, and what capability or support would improve the work. It benefits from candor, which becomes harder when admitting difficulty might affect a financial decision. Documentation creates a contemporaneous record: specific, dated facts tied to expectations, rather than a later reconstructed explanation. Communication explains good performance and current standing, providing a clear account of expectations. Inspect the actual process, instead of relying only on its stated promise to support development. A five-point rating feeding a merit matrix primarily supports administration. Adding a development box does not alter that mechanism. An unrated conversation can emphasize learning, but other decisions still require an appropriate documented basis. That basis need not always rank everyone; role, market, or other legitimate pay criteria may matter. Ask how each purpose receives a credible mechanism, and which tensions must be managed.
Central Design Conflict
Negotiating Pay Can Crowd Out Asking for Help
The central conflict asks the employee to defend a consequential rating and disclose a weakness simultaneously. If admitting difficulty reduces pay or promotion prospects, contesting the score can feel rational. The manager faces a related problem. A development suggestion sounds like another defense of the rating. Coaching may sound like evidence against the claim that performance deserves a higher score. The meeting contests examples, while a development plan becomes a document written after the argument. That pattern warns about the design, rather than proving either participant has no interest in improvement. Skilled facilitation can improve the exchange, but it does not remove the consequences attached to information. Instructing employees to be open will not necessarily make these competing pressures disappear. Ask which purpose dominates, and what the employee expects will happen to an admitted difficulty. Clarify timing, participants, instruments, and actual use of information from each conversation. Aim for credible decisions and development, rather than promise that every tension can somehow vanish.
3 Responses
Separate the Purposes, or State the Trade-Off Honestly
Temporal separation schedules development at a different point, often months after rating and pay decisions. The gap helps only if employees believe it, based on how information is actually used. If promised development-only disclosures return as rating evidence, the calendar alone cannot restore that credibility. Process separation uses different instruments, inputs, or participants, giving each purpose a more bounded mechanism. For example, development feedback materials can stay outside the rating, when that is the stated design. Explain actual boundaries of use and access, including applicable limits on any promise of confidentiality. Separation does not erase subsequent work evidence, nor override legal obligations applying to the information. The third response accepts the trade-off, openly using appraisal for administrative decisions. Development moves into separate coaching. That can be more credible than calling a pay instrument purely developmental, despite its actual consequences. No response is best everywhere; the explanation must match the process actually run. Employees can assess whether purposes and information boundaries remain consistent across conversations and decisions.
5 Requirements
A Defensible System Must Pass More Than a Completion Check
Relevance asks whether criteria derive from the actual job, rather than unrelated preferences about the employee. Reliability asks whether trained raters agree, given the same performance evidence and the same standards. Acceptability asks whether managers and employees regard the process as legitimate, and participate meaningfully and honestly. An arbitrary system may receive minimal responses, guarded conversations, or late forms completed for administration. Practicality asks whether managers can operate it properly, with available time and resources. An elaborate form requiring unavailable hours may encourage memory-based completion, reproducing errors it claims to prevent. Sensitivity asks whether the instrument distinguishes genuine performance differences, where those differences matter for its purpose. The requirements interact. Unrealistic workload can weaken evidence quality, then damage reliability and perceived legitimacy. Look beyond completed fields, because a polished form can conceal a weak process behind the document. Ask where observations originated, how standards were applied, and how participants used the result. A defensible design supports evaluation's substance, rather than treating form completion itself as evidence of accuracy.
Reliability and Sensitivity
Test Agreement and Distinction Without Forcing a Curve
Inter-rater reliability concerns agreement between different raters, assessing the same evidence against the same expectations. If managers rate identical evidence differently, the instrument may measure their preferences instead of performance. Training, clearer standards, and calibration can examine differences, without substituting simple agreement pressure for evidence. Stability over time means the same evidence receives a consistent interpretation when assessed at different dates. It does not require identical ratings after an employee's performance has changed. Sensitivity detects real differences, rather than manufacturing a score distribution merely because a spread looks convenient. If ninety percent receive the top two ratings, investigate standards and possible reluctance to criticize. A genuinely strong workforce can also receive high ratings. The distribution alone does not prove meaninglessness. Review whether materially different contributions are distinguished, wherever the actual decision requires it. Do not impose a forced curve merely to make the pattern look persuasive. Seek consistency about the same performance, together with a justified response to performance that actually differs.
Records and Coverage
An Inflated Record Can Undermine a Later Explanation
Appraisal records can become evidence when employees challenge decisions, including allegations of discrimination in employment. Satisfactory ratings can conflict with a later assertion, claiming performance had been consistently poor for years. That can undermine the explanation, without alone determining the dispute's legal outcome. Dates, observations, and job standards support scrutiny better than judgments reconstructed after a decision. For covered private employers, Title Seven and the Americans with Disabilities Act generally use a fifteen-employee threshold. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act generally uses twenty employees, protecting people aged forty or older. Full coverage rules matter, including employee counting; employer type and the particular claim also affect analysis. State and local laws can cover smaller employers, so federal thresholds do not describe every applicable obligation. Accommodation, protected complaints, statutory leave, and exit selection can introduce issues beyond routine performance management. Involve counsel before decisions requiring legal analysis, rather than rely on the form alone. Accurate documentation supports scrutiny. It does not guarantee that a decision is substantively or procedurally lawful.
Annual Review Criticisms
Evaluate the Meeting, the Evidence, and the Claimed Effect
Recency concerns a twelve-month rating mainly reflecting recent weeks, because those events are easier to recall. Record observations across the period; requesting a full-year judgment does not alone solve the memory problem. Ceremony concerns time spent producing documents whose main function is demonstrating that the process happened. Ask who uses the output, and whether the development plan receives attention afterward. The motivational criticism is more complicated than claiming that feedback is always beneficial, or always harmful. Kluger and DeNisi's nineteen ninety-six meta-analysis found average improvement, alongside many interventions that reduced performance. Their account linked weaker effects to attention toward the self, away from the task, with contextual variation. It does not prove every rating harmful, or every frequent conversation helpful. The improvement criticism questions the rating cycle itself, separately from goals, coaching, and feedback accompanying it. Examine distinct interventions, rather than attribute every improvement to the annual form's existence. Evaluation continues when forms disappear; assess whether the replacement makes consequential judgments clearer and more accountable.
Reform and Proportion
Frequent Conversations Still Need Clear Standards and Records
Continuous feedback uses short conversations, preferably close enough to the work for observations to remain specific. Scheduled check-ins add a lighter structure, every few weeks. They address progress, barriers, and achievable next actions. Rating-free systems remove scores while keeping conversations, but pay and promotion decisions still need an appropriate basis. Different pay does not always require ranking everyone; relevant criteria depend on the actual decision being made. Explain and document those criteria, rather than silently replace a visible rating with an invisible comparison process. Useful feedback addresses the task, what happened, and an achievable action, rather than a global character judgment. Frequency supports follow-through, but quality, context, and ability to act still matter. Small employers can use written standards, brief scheduled conversations, and a few specific sentences recording the outcome. A proportionate process supports honest communication and consistent treatment, using standards for comparable work. A five-person employer may face state or local obligations; small size does not completely answer legal coverage. Choose a light system used properly, with clear expectations and follow-through, rather than impractical administrative complexity.
Limits
Diagnose What Prevents Performance Before Blaming the Person
Appraisal can identify an unclear role, but a form alone cannot resolve job-analysis and design problems. Determine the role's requirements, including whether responsibilities or expectations need to change. A system cannot substitute for a manager unwilling to hold the necessary conversation about the work. It supports that conversation, without supplying the honesty or judgment the manager avoids. A favorable rating cannot replace uncompetitive pay, because recognition and actual compensation provide different resources. Insufficient training may require instruction and practice, rather than warnings about a task not yet mastered. Unworkable processes or inadequate equipment can prevent capable employees meeting the standard, despite their genuine effort. Ask what prevents performance, before concluding that motivation or character explains everything. The discussion can reveal a barrier, but improvement requires action to correct it. Separate behavior from capability, information, process, and resources, while examining their interaction. This makes appraisal a useful diagnostic conversation, without claiming it solves every problem merely by naming it.
Composite Case
Dana Could Contest the Rating or Admit the Difficulty
In the composite case, Marcus manages at fictional Northgate Logistics, and Dana works as a planner. One annual hour covers her rating, merit increase, team-leader application, and development for the next year. She receives meets expectations, reducing her increase and weakening her prospects compared with the higher rating. Most of the hour contests two examples, rather than exploring how to improve. Dana denies difficulty, despite struggling with the scheduling system for four months and compensating by working late. Admitting difficulty now feels like supplying evidence against her pay and promotion argument. Marcus needs a defensible decision, while Dana needs help; the design creates direct tension. The accepted response separates ratings and pay in January from an unrated development conversation in April. It establishes credible limits on development-material use, rather than promising to ignore all future work evidence. The trade-off adds manager time; employees may need repeated experience before trusting that separation is real. HR can improve design and delivery, recognizing that conversation skills alone do not remove conflicting incentives.
Reverse Problem
Accurate Feedback Must Precede a Consequential Decision
The reverse problem has four annual appraisals: three meets expectations, one exceeds expectations, then a performance dismissal. The first warning arrives five weeks beforehand, while the manager claims performance had privately been poor for years. Question sensitivity, honest communication, and whether the record accurately represented standards and evidence at the time. Inflating ratings to preserve morale or pay prevented a clear account of the employee's actual standing. A brief final warning does not automatically repair years of contradictory feedback; the documents require scrutiny. Do not rewrite earlier records to make the later explanation appear consistent. Better practice states the job standard, records observed facts, and communicates concerns while they can be addressed. Provide appropriate support and meaningful improvement opportunities, with follow-through matching actual policy and applicable obligations. Distinguish behavior, capability, expectations, and system barriers, rather than prematurely concluding that the person caused everything. Design appraisal around purposes, standards, evidence, and consequences, rather than a preferred form. The next section examines traits, behaviors, and outcomes, asking what each criterion measures and leaves out.
About Human Resources Management at UPI Study
Human Resources Management (Business 306) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 12 chapters, from what HR does and how jobs are designed to hiring, training, performance reviews, pay and benefits, safety, employment law, unions, global staffing and remote work. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses
Why take it here
Why students take Human Resources Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Human Resources Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Performance Reviews: Purpose, Benefits, and Limitations
What are the purposes of performance appraisal?
Why should development conversations be separated from pay reviews?
What makes a performance appraisal system effective?
Does performance feedback always improve performance?
About the Human Resources Management course
How many college credits is Human Resources Management?
How much does Human Resources Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Human Resources Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Human Resources Management.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →