Appraisals and performance reviews

Having an appraisal or performance review should be an interesting and motivating experience; all too often it's either mechanical or poorly managed. There's often an overlap or even conflict too between the two purposes - the purpose of realistically and honestly looking at how a person is doing and what development would be useful for them, and the purpose of deciding whether the staff member is due for or entitled to a bonus or a raise.

If you're new to appraising your staff, keep in mind the five points you need to be clear about:
* do they know exactly what their job is, including the boundaries?
* do they know what doing it well looks like?
* do they get regular feedback on how they're doing (so the annual meeting holds no surprises)
* what in particular motivates them to do the job?
* are there enough time and resources to do the job effectively?

performance and appraisal

In many organizations, this is the time of year for appraisals and/or performance reviews.
Which is the prime function of these : is it to appraise and assess realistically how a person is doing, give them feedback on their performance over the year, and plan for their future development - or is it to decide on their bonus or possible promotion?

The two strands are in come cases incompatible, because of the climate each one engenders. In the first case, it's essential that both parties are honest and sincere, looking for ways for the staff member to develop given their potential strengths and weaknesses. In the second, the staff member is surely going to present the best possible case they can, especially of a bonus or a raise is in the wind. Because of this, in some organizations there are two separate meetings, one to consider development and one to consider rewards. In my experience of helping with the process and running workshops form appraisers and appraisees, it's often a complicated process however well it's planned and organised