Nathan Rosen PLI 1993 performance appraisals and staff evaluations a reemerging management tool or a legal mine field

368 PLI/Pat 265 Page 1
(Cite as: 368 PLI/Pat 265)
Copr. © West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
Practising Law Institute
Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series
PLI Order No. G4-3902
October, 1993
Managing the Private Law Library 1993: Managing in a Changing Economy
*265 PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS AND STAFF EVALUATIONS: A REEMERGING MANAGEMENT
TOOL OR A LEGAL MINE FIELD
Nathan Aaron Rosen
Copyright (c) 1993, Practising Law Institute
The comments expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the
firm.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction to Performance Appraisals
2. Why Companies Use Performance Appraisals
3. Why Managers and Employees Dislike Performance Appraisals
4. What Goes Wrong With Performance Appraisals
a. No Clear Procedures or Instructions
b. Basic Structure of the Performance Appraisal Instrument
c. Improper Factors
d. Psychological and Organizational Factors
5. Legal Problems Concerning Performance Appraisals
6. How to Make Performance Appraisals Work
a. Written Performance Appraisal Procedures
b. Objective Criteria
c. Written Job Description
d. Training
e. Variety of Information Sources
f. Interview Procedures
g. Followup
7. Future of the Performance Appraisal
8. Table on Performance Appraisal

9. Bibliography
a. How to Conduct
b. Library Articles
c. Psychological Studies
d. Legal Articles
e. Problems of Bias & Prejudice
f. Peer to Peer and Supervisor Evaluations
g. Self Appraisal
h. Forms
i. Cases
j. Generally
*269 1. Introduction to Performance Appraisals.
Historically performance appraisals were of limited utility. They were used
primarily to evaluate hourly wage earners, production line workers, junior
management or clerical workers. Today, they have gained widespread use in more
than 3/4 of large businesses and are used for all types of jobs and at all
levels. They can be used to measure many skills and cover a multitude of
purposes. However, generally the further up the organizational hierarchy one
is, the less likely that a formal performance appraisal system will be
utilized.
For evaluating management, performance appraisal systems originally attempted
to rate a manager's performance in comparison to the characteristics of an
"ideal" manager. Often, the traits identified were ambiguous and subjective.
Accordingly, the trend seems to be towards identifying objective measurable job
related factors and behaviors.
While the performance appraisal is often viewed as a powerful management
tool, it is also often perceived with ambivalence. In many companies, it may be
regarded as a nuisance, at best, and as a necessary evil, at worst, due to the
organization's need to pass on accurate information on how employees are
performing. Few employees or managers enjoy the procedure; many find it
distasteful because the performance appraisal process, as practiced in many
companies today, is commonly viewed as leaving many employees bitter, dejected
and depressed.
Especially now, when there is a mandate to maintain quantity and quality of
service in the face of the ever reducing dollar, it is a necessity to have a
more effective and efficient staff. If used correctly, the performance
appraisal process can serve to promote this objective.
*270 Moreover, if utilized not only as a performance report card, but also as
a planning and communication tool, the appraisal process contributes to

improving morale as well as performance, and is well worth the effort.
2. Why Companies Use Performance Appraisals.
There are numerous benefits to utilizing a properly planned and administered
appraisal system. Companies should strive to provide equitable and useful
appraisals of their managers and workers. The proper administration of the
performance appraisal process is essential to achieving specific objectives
through effectively managing human resources by setting objectives, translating
them into goals and appraising subordinates about how they are working towards
those goals. Thus, the performance appraisal can be one of the most effective
tools a company has to ensure that its strategic objectives are being carried
out.
Another benefit to performance appraisal is that it provides feedback, which
is important to motivate people to improve their work. As a rule, people work
harder when they know that their work is noticed and appreciated. If you want
more of something -- reward it; if you want an area improved, focus the
employee's efforts on what needs to be improved. Without feedback, a person may
be unaware of a problem (or a perception of a problem) in their performance.
Yet this problem could have been corrected if the employee is made aware of it
and participates in a constructive discussion of ways to improve that weakness.
Further, performance appraisals can help in personnel planning. They can
provide a basis for employment decisions regarding promotion, transfer,
termination and compensation. They can assist in job development and training
*271 and can provide feedback to, and elicit feedback from, employees. They can
serve to help modify or change an employee's behavior.
All employees need and want to know how they are doing. Ed Koch (former Mayor
of New York City) made the line "How am I doing?" famous. Judgements about
employees' performance will be made whether or not there is a formal
performance appraisal system. Informal judgements are more likely to be based
upon subjective criteria or unexamined preconceptions; a performance appraisal
may provide a greater degree of objectivity. A performance appraisal also can
reduce uncertainty if the employee is familiar beforehand with the established
criteria and performance goals.
Also the benefits of a performance appraisal are both evaluative
(historically or backward looking and enabling companies to make decisions on
individuals) and developmental (intended to produce more productive, efficient,
effective employees and is basically forward looking).
Companies must learn to use performance appraisals as best they can, even
though the performance appraisal process is not a panacea for solving all of a

company's problems and may never be free of problems.
3. Why Managers and Employees Dislike Performance Appraisals.
The performance appraisal process can be one of the most emotionally charged
procedures in management. Thus, while managers often agree in principal that
performance appraisals are necessary and valuable; managers also often agree
that in practice they don't enjoy it; they *272 find it difficult to perform
the process very well, and at times may attempt to avoid the entire process.
For some managers, the performance appraisal process seems like a once-a-year
nuisance which takes time away from more productive activities. Certain
managers do not like to engage in this procedure because they fear the risk of
offending their employees and would prefer to avoid a face-to-face
confrontation.
Some managers also dislike the performance appraisal process because they
mistrust the validity of the form, lack the skill to handle the interviews, and
dislike having to criticize their employees. Some managers also may dislike the
process because they believe it forces them to "play God" and judge the
personal worth of other individuals.
It is not surprising, therefore, that some managers, if given the opportunity
to eliminate one work function, would choose the performance appraisal.
A manager may feel uncomfortable with performance appraisals because of one
or all of the following:
. reluctance to judge another person in writing,
. a desire to avoid conflict,
. a dislike for tedious paperwork,
. the lack of real understanding of the actual performance of the person,
the subjectivity of the performance appraisal process, and
. the feeling that there are more pressing issues for them to deal with.
Moreover, an additional factor may come into play: the manager's own
evaluation might depend on how they evaluate employees. For example, some
managers might fear that they will be viewed as inadequate managers by *273
assigning "too many" high ratings, even though those ratings are accurate.
Managers also may fear that based on written evaluations, they are too hard or
excessively lax in evaluating their workforce.
For many employees, the performance appraisal sessions can be demoralizing
and anxiety producing encounter. This may be because the performance appraisal
is improperly used as the sole method for communicating to employees about
their jobs, is used as an excuse to give people little or no regular feedback

until the annual review, or as a crutch for managers who do not really enjoy
communicating with their subordinates.
Performance appraisals also bring to light the natural dichotomy between
quantity and quality. While it may be easy to objectively quantify some types
of library work, the estimation of quality is much harder.
For some, a written evaluation is antithetical to the supervisor-employee
relationship. Some perceive it to be dehumanizing, much too impersonal, fraught
with peril and guaranteed to bring much trouble to the relationship. Also it
could be construed to freeze performance in time, which could take away from an
evolving, changing relationship.
This may also be because some employees see their job performance more
positively than does their supervisor and resist lowering their favorable self-
perception. Employees may also feel uncomfortable with the performance
appraisal process because they do not know what to expect of the process in
general or their appraisal in particular.
Indeed, in certain situations, performance appraisals are viewed as doing
more harm than good, as they produce cynicism, skepticism and hurt the
supervisor/subordinate relationship.
*274 At times, the performance appraisal may not be effective because it is
being used for too many conflicting purposes. It would be like one of the dime
store hammer/wrench/pliers and screw driver tools which is not very useful for
anything. It calls to mind the old adage that -- when you try to be everything
to everybody you end up being nothing to nobody.
The discrepancy between the stated purpose for the appraisal and its often
different use also causes dissatisfaction. While compensation is often claimed
not to be the main purpose, some companies use it solely for this purpose. The
result is additional defensiveness and hostility.
By joining the performance appraisal and the salary review, the supervisor
has to justify the amount of the raise in terms of performance.
Yet in considering raises, factors other than the employee's performance come
into play, such as:
. the pay comparable to other departmental employees;
. the market value of the employee;
. their education;
. their skills and experience;
. their length of service;
. the company's financial status;
. inflation; and
. the firm's guidelines regarding the amount of the increases.

When an employee hears that "here is your performance appraisal and so here
is your raise," the effect *275 surprisingly and unintentionally may be to
encourage mediocre performance.
Additionally, using performance appraisals as the sole factor for pay
increases may often cause game playing by supervisors to give their employees
the raises that the manager feels the employees deserves, the supervisor may
subvert the performance appraisal process to accommodate that end.
4. What Goes Wrong With Performance Appraisals.
To understand what frequently is missing in the performance appraisal
process, one can look to the frequent key terms, i.e., performance vs. employee
or staff, appraisal vs. evaluation or review, and subjective feelings vs.
objective results. These terms tell us a lot about the process and assumptions.
a. No Clear Procedures or Instructions.
At times, managers are left to fend for themselves in dealing with
performance appraisals.
The manager might feel:
. the lack of sufficient information about the employee's actual
performance,
. uncomfortable about the defensive or bad attitude of the employee,
. pressed because of not having sufficient time to prepare the performance
appraisal,
*276 . dishonest because of not being honest with their employees,
. uncertain because of not having clear standards to judge the employee's
performance,
. inadequate for not having sufficient training on the performance
appraisal process,
. uncomfortable for having insufficient resources available to properly
reward the employee, and
. concerned that the employee has unrealistic expectations.
Similarly, employees also feel the effects of an absence of clear procedures
or instructions. An employee might feel:
. that the manager is not taking the process seriously enough,
. that the standards are subjective and unclear,
. that the manager does not have sufficient knowledge of their performance,
. that they are to be compared to some sort of absolute standard which was
set arbitrarily by the company or compared against each other to establish a
sort of ranking of employees,

. that there has been no ongoing feedback about performance,
. that the manager is not sincere, honest, skilled or prepared,
. that there is not enough discussion of the development of the employee,
and
. that there is too much criticism and negativism.
*277 b. Basic Structure of the Performance Appraisal Instrument.
Generally, the Personnel or Human Resources Department issues the performance
appraisal instrument. Yet, they should not be in sole charge of the performance
appraisal instrument because they maybe removed from the day-to-day operations.
Also without the input of the supervisor and supervisee, the form may
deteriorate into a long, complex, rigid, and irrelevant document which nobody
understands. Further, it may lead to the usage of the same performance
appraisal for everyone, from secretaries to senior management, which, wile
ostensibly promoting uniformity, actually may result in unfairness.
Many performance appraisal forms lack rating descriptions or guidelines. The
better drafted appraisal forms might provide examples of satisfactory or
unsatisfactory performance for each point on the scale. The performance
appraisal should identify the job responsibilities, provide indicators or
guideposts for each element, and then establish performance standards for each
element.
Most performance appraisal systems depend upon subjective ratings. Subjective
ratings are subject to being contaminated by systematic errors, e.g., leniency,
central tendency, halo and contrast errors.
Questions which should be asked about the instrument include:
. Is the information measured by the performance appraisal job relevant? If
so, how accurate is the technique of its measurement?
. Does the technique provide a fair and accurate basis for comparing
different individuals with the same job in different parts of the organization?
*278 . Is the technique reliable, so that two different raters will reach
the same conclusion?
. Is the information gathered useful and for what is it useful?
The appraisal may also be prepared by someone who does not generally have
opportunity to observe all the behaviors which are relevant to the job
performance or who may lack the observation skills necessary to be accurate and
consistent. Because the more complex the task -- the more complex is the
evaluation process, and because most professional jobs in libraries have many
components and many responsibilities, the process to arrive at a valid and
reliable objective evaluation can be very complicated.
At times, appraisals do not account for social and situational factors that
might affect one's performance. Because people partly work in groups, their

work is often unobserved and managers have various motives in evaluation, the
social context of the workplace needs to be taken into consideration.
The structure, as well as the content, will also affect the performance
appraisal. There are different forms; global essay, rank order, forced
distribution, checklists, critical incidents, trait ratings and narrative.
Global essay and rating is the use of free form questions, e.g., what is your
overall evaluation of this person's performance for the last year, and the
rater fills in the blank lines.
Rank Order performance appraisal system is where the supervisor puts in order
each of the employees, either generally or according to specific criteria.
Paired comparison and alternation ranking are similar systems.
*279 Forced Distribution ranking is similar to how schools use the Bell
Shaped Curve to grade students.
Checklist systems list characteristics, and the rater either assigns a
numerical value to its importance or chooses the narrative description which
most clearly describes the employee on that characteristic.
Critical Incidents technique requires the supervisor to formally document all
behaviors which are important. This system gives too much weight to rare
occurrences, but can be useful in conjunction with other systems.
Trait rating lists personality traits or qualities, e.g., cooperation,
innovation, motivation, and the rater assigns a number by each. Better trait
rating forms provide a brief definition of the trait. The problem is that they
are very broad, not clearly defined, often mean different things to different
people, are difficult to prove job relevance and are based upon personality not
job performance.
Narrative systems are often used in companies which have not set up formal
performance appraisal systems and often take the form of a memo about the
employee, e.g., recommendation or promotion.
While the rating form is important, it is not the be-all and end-all of the
performance appraisal process because it is only part of the process. There is
no ideal form and all forms have their various weaknesses and strengths.
c. Improper Factors.
Detractors from the performance appraisal system argue that ratings are
influenced by overt or subtle bias, based on factors such as gender, age, race
or personality. Other bias can exist as well: for example, the rater's
interdependency with a subordinate, or the general supervisor- *280 subordinate

work relationship. If supervisors' compensation is partly dependent upon the
performance of their subordinate, they may bias the rating more positively for
poorly performing employees, or underplay the employee's contribution so as to
claim it for themselves.
A supervisor who views a very competent subordinate with anxiety or jealousy
may unconsciously evaluate their performance as poorer than it is. A supervisor
who is sensitive about the stress of giving negative evaluations and acting as
a judge may unconsciously produce a more lenient evaluation. A supervisor may
allow feelings of friendship or animosity to affect their evaluation. A
supervisor may inflate the ratings to prevent having to fire people or to keep
employees from wanting a transfer. During times of economic downturn, this
factor may become more of an influence. Even the demographic similarity of the
manager and employee can bias the evaluation.
d. Psychological and Organizational Factors.
The performance appraisal process often emphasizes performance of observable
measurable tasks, yet many of the most important tasks, by their very nature,
are hard to pinpoint. Even when the job activities can be observed, close
supervision can be detrimental to performance and the employee's objective when
there is constant surveillance.
There are many different types of identified psychological effects on the
performance appraisal process, e.g., halo, recency, central tendency or
clustered, length of service, tight and competitive.
Halo Effect -- the tendency to remember the worker's best performance and
have that favorable impression affect other job duties. The opposite of this
might be the pitchfork effect, where the rater's dislike of a specific trait
*281 colors other traits. Generally, the rater forms a global impression of the
person's effectiveness which influences the ratings on specific behaviors or
traits. This tendency is natural because of the need to simplify and reduce the
potentially overwhelming information which might be available.
Recency Effect -- the tendency to remember the worker's most recent
performance. Consequently, the employee may receive a great or terrible
appraisal which is not an accurate reflection of their overall work product.
Central Tendency Effect or Clustered Ratings -- the tendency to avoid the
extremes and assign nearly all of the ratings in the middle. Credibility is
lost when too many employees are in the middle of the ratings.
Length of Service Bias -- Because the subordinate has performed well for many
years, the supervisor does not monitor performance closely and assumes that the
employee continues performing the job well.

Tight Rater -- the tendency of a supervisor to have unrealistic and
unachievable standards which nobody can live up to and, therefore, seldom rates
employees as "excellent".
Competitive Rater -- the tendency to not give any higher ratings than the
supervisor receives because of being unable to separate their own ratings from
those assigned to subordinates.
Additional factors include the manager's perception of the employee's self-
rating, which may influence the rating because supervisors naturally wish to
avoid conflict. Many people would find it is easier to say that everything is
fine than to confront a subordinate with specific problems.
*282 Other common problems include: only talking to the good performers about
negative aspects, talking to bad performers about positive aspects and having
inconsistency between documentation, communication and action.
Performance appraisals also may place the employee in the situation of being
evaluated for certain portions of their performance over which they have little
control, as many work activities are interdependent and many people are needed
to achieve common goals. System factors, which are outside the employee's
control, significantly affect the employee's work outcome. Additionally,
because plateauing is now rampant and there are very limited opportunities for
employees to move up, managers may depress their evaluation and give a less
rave review.
5. Legal Problems Concerning Performance Appraisals.
Performance appraisals become relevant in court cases in a number of ways. At
times, they may appear in employment discrimination cases, either used as
evidence supporting or disproving the claim that discrimination occurred. They
also appear in cases involving an employee's suit for defamation, generally
where the contents of the performance appraisal have been distributed to a
third party, such as a prospective employer. The performance appraisal can be a
two-edged sword. It is useful if done right, but damaging if done poorly or not
done at all.
The Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. Part 1607 (1992)
("Guidelines") define tests to include unstandardized, informal and unscored
appraisal procedures. Those Guidelines were issued by the EEOC to enforce Title
VII's prohibition of discrimination in employment.
*283 Some courts have considered performance appraisals as tests and applied
the guidelines to evaluate their validity. A performance appraisal instrument
may be subject to criticism when it is partly based upon personal traits and

can be subject to partiality, personal taste, and whim of the evaluator instead
of a formal job analysis. One way to minimize criticism might be to have
empirical validation of performance evaluation ratings or correlate actual
observations of rated behavior with the performance appraisal ratings.
A well drafted and executed performance appraisal may prove a strong defense
against or in lawsuits. Although there is nothing unlawful or discriminatory
per se about perfectly subjective job appraisals, the less subjective a
performance appraisal is, the more effective it is at creating a defense to a
charge of discriminatory firing or lack of advancement. Therefore, the first
thing every employer should do is to have a formal written performance
appraisal procedure. Subjective evaluation systems may be challenged as part of
a subjective promotion process; objective job-related performance criteria
which are independently and consistently applied fare better. A performance
appraisal system may be questioned if there is no way to know what criteria of
job performance the supervisor was considering, whether all supervisors were
using the same criteria and whether the criteria were sufficiently related to
job-specific abilities.
There are many cases concerning employment terminations, generally those that
feature valid written performance appraisals tend to be decided in favor of
employers. A company may be required to make a reasonable effort to develop an
objective procedure; they are not required to do the impossible. While courts
generally hesitate to accept the performance appraisal without some inquiry
into its validity, they usually refuse *284 to act as if they were super
Personnel Departments, and most often will not second guess the business
judgement of the employer action as long as it is not a pretext for
discrimination. Performance appraisals appear to be viewed more favorably when
they include counseling to improve below average performance or are reviewed by
upper-level management.
The EEOC has not indicated that any specific performance appraisal system or
form is approved is safe from litigation. An company's system might be
scrutinized if it has an adverse or disparate impact for members of a protected
group.
National origin discrimination might be found when a person's manner of
speaking or accent is a factor in their performance appraisal. Racial
discrimination may be found in the differential treatment of employees based on
their color, for example, when the managers overstate the employee's
performance. Had the employee been non-minority, the employee would have been
criticized and counseled. Disparate treatment might be found when the employer
does not criticize the employee when the work was unsatisfactory nor counsel
the employee on how to improve. The fact that the manager's reason is benign or
that the employee ultimately benefited may not be a sufficient defense against
a charge of discrimination. Sexual discrimination may be found when
stereotypical attitudes towards women play a role in the employment decision.

Employees may point to their prior satisfactory appraisal when they are fired
for poor performance. The employee might claim that because they never were
evaluated nor informed of the results, they could assume that their performance
was acceptable. Documentation is important to defend against charges of
discrimination. *285 Falsely favorable performance appraisals may become the
downfall of a company when at trial they attempt to justify the termination of
an employee on the grounds of poor performance.
Performance appraisal systems which do not include identifiable criteria of
quality, quantity of work or specific performance which is supported by a
written record may not withstand attack. Moreover, what appears to be
"objective appraisal of job performance" may in fact turn out to be patently
subjective in reality when the focus is on general characteristics susceptible
to personal taste, whim or fancy of the evaluator.
If, because of the company's subjective appraisal system and a lack of review
by upper management, supervisors are free to act on their discriminatory
attitudes so that what appears to be an objective evaluation of the employee
work performance is in fact a mere pretext, liability might be found. Even
ostensibly objective performance criteria can become subjective. For example,
if a person has to process four cases a month, but is given the most difficult
and complex cases thereby failing to complete four each month, that failure
should be weighted subjectively because each case is not equivalent in terms of
the amount of work required.
If discretion is unevenly exercised when rating the performance of different
employees, even when the employee can be accurately evaluated for inadequate
performance, discrimination might be found.
Statements contained in an evaluation might be the basis of a defamation
suit. Often, defamation appears as one count in a complaint regarding
discrimination or wrongful discharge.
*286 Courts have generally look with disfavor at attempts to assert libel
based upon statements in employment performance reviews because the process
serves important business purposes and many of the statements are protected as
qualified privilege. So far, no reported case (that the author has identified)
has successfully been based upon the claim that the employer's statements about
the employee's efforts, attitude and performance, which are included in the
performance appraisal, are sufficient grounds for a claim of libel. But
statements erroneously accusing the employee of conduct that can be proven not
to have occurred, such as criminal actions, dishonesty, or reprehensible
personal behavior might be sufficient to trigger a successful defamation suit.
The reasonableness of the performance appraisal process and the opportunity for
the employee to respond seem to be important factors in defending the employer.

6. How to Make Performance Appraisals Work.
The performance appraisal system is intended to improve performance,
recognize and motivate high achievers and identify poor performers, and
generally bring most employees up to the company's standard. It should be as
objective as possible so that prejudice can be reduced while communication
improved.
A good performance appraisal system is:
. practical (by not being difficult to administer),
. standardized (in form and administration),
. job related (through job analysis of major critical work behavior),
. reliable (yielding consistent data) and
*287 . valid in appraising current performance.
The performance appraisal process should be a year long process of setting
goals and objectives and providing ongoing coaching and feedback, with the
performance appraisal instrument the annual codification of the process.
To construct a good performance appraisal system requires that:
. employees view it as fair,
. the supervisors clearly understand the process and actively accept it,
. there is consistency across raters and
. the ratings must be meaningful, relevant and accurate measurements of
significant work performance.
Ideally, the performance appraisal system combines information from many of
sources to form an integrated assessment that maximizes the strengths and
minimizes the weaknesses of individual information sources. Developing a
performance appraisal process requires a high level of subordinate
participation in the appraisal and development process which will provide more
satisfaction for the employee in the appraisal interview and increase the
chances that the performance improvement goals will be accepted and met. It
must secure early support and involvement from top management and must make
supervisors feel comfortable using the performance appraisal system by training
them on how it is used. Supervisors must spend the time to prepare the
appraisals and the time to complete the appraisals.
Models, such as Borman or Morgan, abound in attempting to set up the
structure for performance appraisals. The model by Borman of the cognitive
processes *288 involved in performance ratings states that if the rater follows
these steps, the performance appraisal will be reliable and accurate, but
recognizes that it is not typically done.
1 -- Rater observes behaviors that are job relevant;
2 -- Rater makes evaluation of each behavior; and

3 -- Each evaluation is weighted to arrive at single rating.
Therefore, the rater must be given the time and opportunity to watch a
representative sample of the person's relevant work behavior. The rater must be
careful not to allow his or her global impression to influence the evaluation
of each behavior.
The Morgan method discusses:
. what skills are most important to the job,
. the job skills of the employee,
. the mutual goals, and
. having the employee and supervisor identify three things to make the job
more productive.
a. Written Performance Appraisal Procedures.
Carefully thought out and written performance appraisal procedures are
critical to the success of the process. Because performance is based upon
skill, effort and external conditions -- failure to meet reasonable
expectations usually means that something is lacking in one of these areas. The
evaluation should determine which element is causing the problem and then the
evaluator should decide what to do about it.
*289 The performance appraisal uses job analysis and specifically spells out
the critical elements as defined by the job description and annual performance
goals by describing the tasks, duties and responsibilities of the job. The
employees are involved in setting up the criteria of performance standards for
each job element.
A popular form is the Behavioral Observation (anchored) Rating Scale (also
sometimes known as a dimensionalized rating scale), which is made up of a
number of behavioral statements in which the subordinate is observed and rated
on a five-point scale describing how well they demonstrate those behaviors. The
supervisor identifies a list of critical job related behaviors. Often all the
employees are surveyed to assist in identifying the important behaviors. When
this works it produces highly objective job related ratings which are behavior
specific and assist in improving behavior. But the process is expensive, time
consuming and requires extensive work to produce.
Managers at the head of the company must conduct high quality performance
appraisals with their subordinate managers, thereby leading by example about
the importance of performance appraisals and being a model for the lower level
managers on how to give well-conducted performance appraisals.
b. Objective Criteria.
It is very important to have clearly defined objectives and measurable

criteria in the performance appraisals. Common elements in current performance
appraisals include: quality of work, quantity of work, job knowledge,
dependability, attendance, punctuality, problem solving and the ability to get
along with co-workers. Rating scales may *290 range from four to as many as 15.
Some performance appraisals give each factor equal value, while others have
weighted values.
One option is for the employees to set specific plans to accomplish certain
target goals after defining the areas of major features of the job and making a
careful assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. The manager would help by
bringing those targets and plans in to line with the realities of the company.
The manager also makes his or her own appraisal of how the employee is doing
relative to the targets and substantiates this observation with factual data.
c. Written Job Description.
A good performance appraisal is based upon the job description and the
performance required as stated by thejob description goals and objectives in
clear terms of behaviors and results. The manager and employee are involved in
the preparation and setting of the job description.
Standards should be:
. mutually agreed upon,
. brief,
. realistic with precise goals which are designed to meet the business
objective,
. in writing, and
. regularly reviewed.
The written job description should match the employee's real
responsibilities. Problems occur if the job does not adequately deal with a
variety of issues, such as *291 overtime and tasks temporarily assigned when
other staff members leave. If the manager will potentially evaluate an employee
on work which is not in the job description, that evaluation may be attacked.
Therefore, amend each employee's job description when their duties change.
Include the employee in identifying all the tasks that the employee performs. A
too general a job description is not useful in encouraging performance. The job
description must be translated into observable objective work behaviors which
are oriented towards specific results. Standards should have both a quality
(e.g., number of mistakes per page) and a productivity (e.g., number of pages
per minute) component.
Usually by involving employees directly in defining the job and performance
criteria, the company's overall efficiency increases and the employees'
commitment to teamwork will improve, because the employees now know what is
expected of them and will perceive the performance appraisals as more "fair"
and "relevant".

d. Training.
Instruction and training of supervisors is integral to the performance
appraisal process and will improve the accuracy and reliability of the ratings.
Without training, the best set up performance appraisal form could be misused
and inconsistently administrated. More training is one of the most common
identified item when companies want to improve the performance appraisal's
effectiveness. Rater training can improve the effectiveness of performance
appraisals and encourage standardization.
Training can be by:
. lecture (traditional classroom style monologue),
*292 . group discussion (presentation and discussion concerning solutions
or definition parts of the process),
. practice and feedback (person completes performance appraisals, compares
ratings given by experts and then trainer points out errors & improvements),
and
. other techniques, such as role playing, behavior modeling, video tape
screening.
Training can reduce rating errors by presenting examples of common rating
errors in order to show how to avoid them. Performance dimension training
familiarizes raters with the dimensions by which the performance is rated by
providing descriptions of job qualifications, reviewing the rating scale and
being involved with the actual development of the scale. performance standards
training assists the rater in establishing common perceptions of performance
standards by presenting samples of performance with expert ratings.
Both the content and the method of presentation affect how well errors are
reduced. The leniency error, halo error and rating accuracy error are best
reduced as the rater becomes more actively involved in the training process.
Group discussion with practice and feedback exercises produce the best results.
Training may be easier said than done, given the time and effort required to
get all the company's managers together to learn and discuss the performance
appraisal process. There is no guarantee that training will solve all of the
problems because of strong feeling which the manager might have, as well as the
pressures which are built into the process.
*293 Training should remind supervisors not to allow their judgement to be
affected by legally impermissible factors and to be aware of subtle influences.
Manuals are a common form of training. They can set out:
. detailed instructions on how to complete the performance appraisal form,
. how to document activity during the year,
. the purpose and goals of performance appraisals,

. common errors to watch out for,
. techniques for conducting the interview and
. how to respond to different types of employee reaction.
e. Variety of Information Sources.
To get the most accurate picture of an employee's performance, one needs
information from all sources; supervisors, subordinates, co-workers, customers
and clients. By reducing the dependency on a single rater and adding additional
people who are not personally involved in the work situation, the accuracy of
the evaluation willincrease.
The ability to point to specific situations as back-up for general comments
is important. Documentation helps the supervisor explain precisely what the
problem is. Keeping contemporaneous records assists the manager in formulating
a fair and objective performance appraisal. It is not possible to remember
every aspect of a subordinate's performance, especially under time pressure
covering a whole year. Therefore, it is important to keep notes.
*294 (1) Peer to Peer.
The trend towards empowering workers to take more responsibility for managing
their work may naturally result in having them manage the human element. Work
teams which are self-directed may be an ideal forum to evaluate and change
individual's performance. Peers generally hold more complete and correct
information about each other than does the supervisor. Employees might perceive
peer reviews as being more fair. The peer performance appraisal process might
produce more openness, honesty, morale, reinforce group cohesiveness, improve
awareness of objectives and priorities and provide a better understanding of
one's fellow workers.
Peer review is most useful when rating professional employees (doctors,
professors and reference librarians) or when the consensus of group decision
making is necessary. The peer review process is often used in universities and
schools.
(2) Review of superiors.
Some firms have turned the entire performance appraisal process on its head
and have the employees evaluate their managers. Managers may need this process
more than employees because often as a person gets higher up they receive less
information and there is more divergence between how they rate themselves and
how others rate them.
Managers need to hear from their employees the employee's perception of the

manager's problems. The employees spend more time observing the manager than
the supervisor's boss, therefore, employees might be the most qualified to
comment on the effect of their manager's style. While some employees might take
unfair pot shots at their supervisor, the rating should be based upon the
cluster of *295 ratings. The employee's perception is important, because it is
the truth, at least from the employee's point of view. Upward appraisals may
assist managers in becoming more aware of behaviors which might hinder employee
effectiveness.
Subordinate appraisal of managers is useful because the subordinates are in a
great observational position to evaluate various managerial dimensions and are
a rich source of all types of information about their manager. Multiple
assessments of individual managers is possible only where there are several
subordinates. Worker satisfaction and morale are improved as the employees feel
more committed and involved in the process.
To make this work, the subordinate appraisal should not be linked to
managerial raises and complete anonymity and confidentially has to be
guaranteed so that the employee will feel secure.
Subordinate appraisal is not intended to replace the more traditional
performance appraisal process nor should inordinate weight be placed upon the
evaluations, but employee evaluations add valuable and unique information about
a supervisor's effectiveness.
(3) Self Appraisal.
Self appraisals complement the traditional supervisory ratings and help
employees improve their job performance. Self appraisals increase
communications between raters and ratees regarding job content, performance
criteria and mutual expectations, through reducing ambiguity in the appraisal
process and resolving rater-ratee disagreement. Self appraisals give the
employee a greater sense of control over the evaluation process which might
increase the acceptance of the appraisal result.
*296 Self appraisals are particularly valuable when the person has a unique
skill or works by themselves because the person will most likely have more
information about their performance.
The best use of self appraisals would be to reduce the past-oriented focus
and to concentrate on future-oriented use. Self appraisals may reduce the
employee's defensiveness and passivity and give the employer a better
understanding of the employee's expectations.
Historically, the main problem with using self appraisals is that they tend

to be more lenient than either supervisory or peer appraisals. But this problem
can be reduced if the self appraisal is validated against objective records and
the self appraisal cannot lead to some personal gain. Other problems include
that there is not close agreement about what tasks must be done, how those
tasks are performed and what standard to use to judge the outcome. Employees
may not have a clear idea of what their supervisor expects and the typical
performance appraisal often does not reduce this ambiguity. Often any feedback
received only deals with outcome and not the behaviors required for successful
performance. An individual may unconsciously use various psychological defense
mechanisms, such as selective memory, denial, projection to protect their self-
concept and reduce the threatening performance appraisal experience.
The more employees are involved in the performance appraisal process, the
greater the chance of improving performance. Self appraisal can be used either
as an integral component of the performance appraisal system or as additional
data points. If there is not extreme disagreement between the self appraisal
and other sources, the self appraisal can be combined thereby increasing the
overall reliability of the evaluation process.
*297 f. Interview Procedures.
The performance appraisal interview is especially important for effective
administration of a performance appraisal system. Optimally, there should be
three phases to the interview: preview, interview and review. The preview
session consists of the training of the employer and preparation time spent by
the manager. It allows the manager the opportunity to explain to the employee
the company's philosophy behind the performance appraisal and the general
guidelines. The employee gets the chance to perform a self-assessment and the
time for the interview is set. A manager should allocate on an annual basis,
approximately five to seven hours in preparing for the face-to-face interview.
This time is devoted to collecting comments, monitoring performance, and
reviewing what occurred. The manager should write goals in specific measurable
and achievable terms. It is a good idea for the supervisor to prepare the oral
comments and to prepare for probable employee reactions. The interview could
have sample scripts and work sheets to help guide the managers to present the
facts.
The interview itself has many levels operating. There is a verbal level, such
as choice of language; a nonverbal level, such as body language and spacial
relations, and a feedback or listening level, such as effective questioning and
paraphrasing.
It is recommended that:
. the interview take place in a neutral place (such as a pleasant
conference room),
. care should be taken to avoid telephone interruptions,
. enough time is allotted between the interviews,

*298 . sufficient time is set aside for the interview,
. the interview should not be at the beginning or end of the day, and
. the manager should start by helping the employee become relaxed.
Problems should be approached positively, without lecturing, and solutions
should be sought while building employee motivation. The manager should:
. prioritize and limit the number of issues discussed,
. attempt to minimize confrontation and maximize feedback,
. articulate the employee's strengths and achievements,
. be empathic,
. pay attention to nonverbal communication, and
. restate employee remarks prior to responding to them.
Any problems which the manager observes that hamper performance should be
discussed. The interview could end with encouragement to send the employee back
to work motivated.
The manager and employee should reflect on what occurred during the interview
by setting new goals or changing the activities which are necessary to effect a
different result. The employee should sign the performance appraisal form to
prove that they received it. The manager should confirm agreements reached
during the interview in writing, which is subject to revision if there are
mistakes. The employee should be given an opportunity to state his or her
opinions and there should be a *299 procedure to appeal the supervisor's
evaluation. If the evaluation is negative, more than one level of supervisor
should be involved. The company might want to consider conducting regular mini-
appraisals, which would force the supervisor to regularly monitor the
employee's performance and to provide continuous feedback.
g. Followup.
The supervisor must help implement the improvement suggestions decided upon
during the performance appraisal. The performance appraisal is not complete
when the employee leaves the performance appraisal interview. Frequent
monitoring of progress should occur, as well as counseling or coaching.
7. Future of the Performance Appraisal.
The cost of improved performance appraisals is time. The managers and
employee will have to spend considerably more time to implement a program of
future directed analysis of performance, than a past directed appraisal of
personality.
The increased attention to performance appraisals is partly due to the
increasing popularity of Management by Objectives (MBO) and Total Quality

Management (TQM). Correctly thought out, drafted and executed performance
appraisals are very important to successful use of Management by Objectives or
Total Quality Management.
Management by Objective establishes goals for the entire organization and
then the managers and employee jointly decide the employee's goals for a
specific time and sets out the methods to be used. After a period of time, *300
they review the actual accomplishments, examine problems and plan for the next
period. This forced goal setting requires a lot of time spent talking and
thinking and may not work out as planned because of outside influences and
events which arise during the year.
MBO can increase employee motivation, partly because the employee
participates in developing the performance standards. MBO is especially suited
for sophisticated managerial or supervisory tasks.
Many TQM proponents agree that performance appraisals are actually harmful
because they misdirect managerial attention from system factors to personal
factors and may allow management to pin the blame of poor performance on low
level employees, rather than upon the system, which is a management issue.
The shift should be from appraisal to analysis. This change places the entire
process in a more positive light and requires the employee to be an active
agent for change. Ultimately, the employee knows (or can learn) more than
anyone else about their own capabilities, needs, strengths and weaknesses.
The shift should be from the past to the future. By establishing realistic
targets and seeking the most effective way to reach an employee, the personal
worth of the employee is no longer under attack.
The shift should be from personality to performance. By reducing the emphasis
on the personality of the subordinate, the parties can work together to
identify the goals and decide upon the specific steps needed to reach those
targets.
*301 Figure from Performance Analysis and Appraisal: A How-To-Do-It Manual
for Librarians, by Robert D. Stueart and Maureen Sullivan, was reprinted with
permission of Neal-Schuman Publishers. Copyright 1991.
FIGURE 18 Guide to Employee Performance Appraisal
*302 9. Bibliography.
a. How to Conduct.

Alan D. Biller, First Principles of Performance Evaluation, Employee Benefits
Journal, Vol. 17, December 1992, pages 13-14.
R.D. Bretz, Jr., G.T. Milkovich and W. Read, The Current State of Performance
Appraisal Research and Practice: Concerns, Directions and Implications, Journal
of Management, Vol.18, 1992, pages 321-352.
Kenneth P. Carson, Robert L. Cardy and Gregory H. Dobbins, Upgrade the
Employee Evaluation Process, HR Magazine, November 1992, pages 88-92.
T.O.P.E.S.: Developing a Task Oriented Performance Evaluation system, SAM
Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 51, No. 4, Autumn 1986, pages 4-9.
Philip C. Grant, A Better Approach to Performance Reviews, Management
Solutions, March 1987, pages 11-16.
Allan Halcrow, Hidden Traps in Job Descriptions, Folio, Vol. 21, No. 13, Dec.
1, 1992, page 69.
P.J. Hewitt, Performance Evaluation: How to Make it Easier on You and Your
Employee, Supervision, Vol. 45, No. 6, June 1983, pages 14, 15 & 20.
William J. Kearney, Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales -- MBO's Missing
Ingredient, Personnel Journal, January 1975, pages 20-25.
Patricia King, Performance Planning & Appraisal: A How-To Book for Manager.
New York McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1989.
*303 Jill Kanin-Lovers, Making Performance Evaluation Work, Journal of
Compensation and Benefits, Vol. 5, No. 6, May/June 1990, pages 360-362.
Barbara K. Malinauskas and Ronald W. Clement, Performance Appraisal
Interviewing for Tangible Results, Training and Development Journal, Vol. 41,
February 1987, pages 74-79.
Karen Soehnlen McQueen, The Six Rules that Lead to Better Performance
Evaluations, Legal Management, Vol. 9, No. 4, July/Aug. 1990, page 12.
Sandra O'Neal and Madonna Palladino, Revamp Ineffective Performance
Management, Personnel Journal, February 1992, pages 93-102.
Richard F. Olson, Performance Appraisal: A Guide to Greater Productivity. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981.
Bob R.C. Richards, How to Design an Objective Performance Evaluation System,
Training, Vol. 21, No. 3, March 1984, pages 38-43.

Mary Riley & Richard Noland, Beyond Performance Reviews, Management
Solutions, October 1987, pages 5-15.
George Rosinger, Development of a Behaviorally Based Performance Appraisal
System, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 35, Spring 1982, pages 75-88.
Len Sandler, Two-Sided Performance Reviews, Personnel Journal, Vol. 69, No.
1, January 1990, pages 75-77.
Craig Eric Schneier, Richard W. Beatty and Lloyd S. Baird, How to Construct a
Successful Performance Appraisal System, Training and Development Journal,
April 1986, pages 38-42.
*304 Craig Eric Schneier, Richard W. Beatty and Lloyd S. Baird, Creating a
Performance Management System, Training and Development Journal, May 1986,
pages 74-79.
David E. Smith, Training Programs for Performance Appraisal: A Review,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1986, pages 22-40.
Michael Smith, Putting Their Performance in Writing, Management Solutions,
Vol. 32, March 1987, pages 5-10.
Scott A. Snell and Kenneth N. Wexley, How to Make Your Performance Appraisals
More Effective, Working Woman, Vol. 11, April 1986, page 45.
Neil A. Stroul, Whither Performance Appraisal?, Training and Development
Journal, November 1987, pages 70-74.
William S. Swan and Phillip Margulies, How to Do a Superior Performance
Appraisal. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1991.
b. Library Articles.
Susan J. Beck, Information Specialists'Use of Machine-Assisted Reference
Tools: Evaluation Criteria, RQ, Fall 1991, pages 35-38.
Dimitry S. Berkner, Library Staff Development Through Performance Appraisal,
College and Research Libraries, Vol. 40, No. 4, July 1979, pages 335-344.
Rhoda L. Berkowitz, Personnel Evaluation, Law Library Journal, Vol. 65, May
1972, pages 154-157.
Nancy M. Bolt, Evaluating the Library Director. Chicago: American Trustee

Association and American Library Association, 1983.
*305 L.R. Cohen, Conducting Performance Evaluation, Library Trends, Vol. 38,
No. 1, Summer 1989, pages 40-52.
Sheila D. Creth and Frederick Duda, Personnel Administration in Libraries,
2nd Ed. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 1989.
Ernest R. DeProspo, Personnel Evaluation as an Impetus to Growth, Library
Trends, Vol. 20, July 1971, page 60-69.
E.A. Edwards, Performance Evaluation of Collection Development and
Acquisitions Librarians, Acquisitions Librarian, Issue No. 6, 1991, pages 115-
122.
G. Edward Evans and Bendict Rugaas, Another Look at Performance Appraisal in
Libraries, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 3, No. 2, Summer 1982, pages
61-69.
Kathleen Gorman, Performance Evaluation in Reference Services in ARL
Libraries, SPEC Kit No. 139. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries,
1987.
R. Hemmings, Performance Appraisal: An Evaluation of Cambridgeshire
Libraries' System, Information and Library Manager, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1989, pages
3-48.
Robert C. Hilton, Performance Evaluation of Library Personnel, Special
Libraries, Vol. 69, No. 11, November 1978, page 431-434.
Stanley P. Hodge, Performance Appraisals: Developing a Sound Legal and
Managerial System, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 44, No. 4, July 1983,
pages 235-244.
Marjorie Johnson, Performance Appraisal of Librarians -- A Survey, College
and Research Libraries, Vol. 33, September 1972, pages 359-367.
H. Rebecca Kroll, Beyond Evaluation: Performance Appraisal as a Planning and
Motivational Tool in Libraries, *306 Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 9,
No. 1, March 1983, pages 27-32.
Jonathan A. Lindsey, Performance Evaluation: A Management Basic for
Librarians. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx, 1986.
Jess A. Martin, Staff Evaluation of Supervisors, Special Libraries, Vol. 70,
No. 1, January 1979, pages 26-29.

David A. Peele, Evaluating Library Employees, Library Journal, Vol. 97,
September 15, 1972, pages 2803-2807.
Roland Person, Library Faculty Evaluation: An Idea Whose Time Continues to
Come, Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 5, July 1979, pages 142-147.
Fred C. Pfister and Nelson Towle, A Practical Model for a Developmental
Appraisal Program for School Library Media Specialists, School Library Media
Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 2, Winter 1983, pages 111-121.
Maxine Reneker, Performance Appraisal in Libraries: Purpose and Techniques in
Creth, Personnel Administration in Library. New York: Neal-Schuman, 1981, pages
227-289.
John R. Rizzo, Employee Appraisal for Performance and Development in
Management for Libraries: Fundamentals and Issues. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press, 1980, pages 226-257.
Charles A. Schwartz, Performance Appraisal: Behavioralism and Its
Discontents, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 47, No. 5, September 1986,
pages 438-451.
Diane G. Schwartz and Dottie Easkin, Reference Service Standards, Performance
Criteria and Evaluation, Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 12, No. 1,
March 1986, pages 4-8.
*307 Robert D. Stueart, Performance Evaluation in Library Management, 2nd Ed.
Littleton, CO: Library Unlimited, 1981, pages 97-106 and 213-232.
Thomas J. Waldhart, Performance Evaluation of Interlibrary Loan in the United
States: A Review of Research, Library and Information Science Research, Vol. 7,
No. 4, Oct./Dec. 1985, pages 313-331.
Terry L. Weech, Who's Giving All Those Wrong Answers? Direct Service and
Reference Personnel Evaluation, Reference Librarian, Vol. 11, Fall/Winter 1984,
pages 109-122.
Larry N. Yarbrough, Performance Appraisal in Academic and Research Libraries,
ARL Management Supplement, Vol. 3, May 1975, pages 1-6.
William F. Young, Methods for Evaluating Reference Desk Performance, RQ, Vol.
25, Fall 1985, pages 69-75.
Herbert S. White, Performance Evaluation in Library Personnel Management.
White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications, 1985, pages 130-132.
Robert V. Williams, Productivity Measures in Special Libraries: Prospects and

Problems for Use in Performance Evaluation, Special Libraries, Vol. 79, No. 2,
Spring 1988, pages 101-114.
Association of Research Libraries and McGill University Libraries, Staff
Performance Evaluation at the McGill University Libraries. Washington, DC:
Association of Research Libraries, 1976.
American Library Association, Personnel and Employment: Performance
Appraisal, in ALA Yearbook, 1976-1980.
American Library Association, Performance Appraisal: A Guide for Libraries.
Chicago; ALA, 1979.
*308 c. Psychological Studies.
M.H. Bazerman, R.I. Beekun and F.D. Schoorman, Performance Evaluation in a
Dynamic Context: A Laboratory Study of the Impact of a Prior Commitment to the
Ratee, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, No. 6, December 1982, pages 873-
876.
H. Bernardin and C.S. Walter, Effects of Rater Training and Diary Keeping of
Psychometric Error Ratings, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, Feb. 1977,
pages 64-69.
Ronald J. Burke, William Weitzel and Tamara Weir, Characteristics of
Effective Employee Performance Review and Development Interviews: Replication
and Extension, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 4, Winter 1978, pages 903-
919.
J.P. Campbell, M.D. Dunnette, R.D. Arvey and L.V. Hellervik, The Development
and Evaluation of Behaviorally Based Rating Scales, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1973, pages 15-22.
J. Greenberg, Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluations,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, 1986, pages 340-342.
Kenneth E. Hultman, The Psychology of Performance Management, Training and
Development Journal, July 1988, pages 34-39.
Scott H. Oppler, John P. Campbell, Elaine D. Pulakos and Walter C. Borman,
Three Approaches to the Investigation of Subgroup Bias in Performance
Measurement, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, April 1992, pages 873-878.
Charles D. Pringle and Melvin Blumberg, What Really Determines Job
Performance, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Autumn 1986, pages 9-13.

*309 W.W. Ronan and A.P. Schwartz, International Review of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1974, pages 71-81.
David E. Smith, Training Programs for Performance Appraisal: A Review,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1986, pages 22-40.
d. Legal Articles.
Gerald V. Barrett and Mary C. Kernan, Performance Appraisal and Terminations:
A Review of Court Decisions Since Brito vs. Zia With Implications for Personnel
Practices, Personal Psychology, Vol. 40, 1987, pages 489-503.
Cynthia L. Acree, The Performance Appraisal, Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 20, No.
10, October 1991, pages 2075-2077.
R. Lawrence Ashe, Jr. and Ginger S. McRae, Performance Evaluations Go to
Court in the 1980's, Mercer Law Review, Vol. 36, 1985, pages 887-905.
Thomas A. Basnight and Benjamin W. Wolkinson, Evaluating Managerial
Performance: Is Your Appraisal System Legal, Employee Relations Law Journal,
Vol. 3, No. 2, Sept. 1977, pages 240-254.
Marsh W. Bates and Richard G. Vail, Job Evaluation and Equal Employment
Opportunity: A Tool for Compliance -- A Weapon for Defense, Employee Relations
Law Journal, Vol. 1, No. 4, pages 535-546.
Patricia A. Cercone, Effective Performance Appraisals Can Motivate Legal
Employees, Illinois Legal Times, November 1990, page 30.
Martha M. Cleary, Sufficiency of Defendant's Nondiscriminatory Reason to
Rebut Inference of Sex Discrimination in Promotion or Demotion of Employee as
*310 Violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, American Law Reports,
Federal, Vol. 111, 1993, pages 1-81.
Nestor Cruz, EEO Implications of Professional/Managerial Performance
Evaluations: A Rational Approach, Labor Law Journal, Vol. 38, No. 11, November
1987, pages 720-722.
Jerald J. Director, Racial Discrimination in Labor and Employment -- Supreme
Court Cases, Lawyers Edition, 2nd, Vol. 28, pages 928-950.
Russell G. Donaldson, Consideration of Work Performance or Production Records
as pretext for Unlawful Employment Practice Violative of Title VII of Civil
Rights Act of 1964, American Law Reports, Federal, Vol. 32, pages 7-82.

Hubert S. Field and William H. Holley, Relationship of Performance Appraisal
System Characteristics to Verdicts in Selected Employment Discrimination Cases,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 25, June 1982, pages 392-406.
James J. Gonzales, How to Develop, Use and Defend Employee Performance
Appraisals, The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 16, No. 4, April 1987, pages 637-639.
Timothy M. Hall, When Does Adverse Employment Decision Based On Person's
Foreign Accent Constitute National Origin Discrimination in Violation of Title
VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, American Law Reports, Federal, Vol. 104, pages
816-856.
Dana Hirsch, Negative Performance Reviews Will Not Support a Libel Claim,
Personnel Law Update, Vol. 8, No. 6, June 1993, page 1.
Stanley P. Hodge, Performance Appraisals: Developing A Sound Legal and
pages 235-44.
*311 William H. Holley and Hubert S. Field, Performance Appraisal and the
Law, Labor Law Journal, Vol. 26, No. 7, July 1975, pages 423-430.
William H. Holley and Hubert S. Field, Will Your Performance Appraisal System
Hold Up in Court, Personnel, Vol. 59, Jan./Feb. 1982, pages 59-64.
Sara L. Johnson, Liability of Employer, Supervisor, or Manager for
Intentionally or Recklessly Causing Employee Emotional Distress, American Law
Reports, 4th series, Vol. 52, pages 853-942.
William L. Kandel, Performance Evaluation and EEO, Employee Relations Law
Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, Winter 1980/81, pages 476-483.
Lawrence D. Kleinman and Richard L. Durham, Performance Appraisal, Promotion
and the Courts: A Critical Review, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 34, Spring 1981,
pages 103-121.
Robert Lazer, The Discrimination Danger in Performance Appraisal, Conference
Board Record, March 1976, pages 60-64.
Patricia Linenburger and Timothy J. Keareny, Performance Appraisal Standards
used by the Courts, Personnel Administrator, Vol. 26, May 1981, pages 89-94.
Gary L. Lubben, Performance Appraisal: The Legal Implications of Title VII,
Personnel, Vol. 57, May/June 1980, pages 11-21.
David C. Martin, Kathryn M. Bartol and Marvin J. Levine, The Legal

Ramifications of Performance Appraisals, Employee Relations Law Journal, Vol.
12, No. 2, pages 370-396
*312 Robert J. Nobile, Guide to Employee Handbooks: A Model for Management
With Commentary. Boston; Warren Gorham Lamont, 1993. Section 6.08, pages 6-49
to 6-59.
Stephen P. Pepe and Scott H. Dunham, Avoiding and Defending Wrongful
Discharge Claims. Deerfield, IL; Clark Boardman Callaghan, 1987. Chapter 3,
pages 1-10.
Henry H. Perritt, Jr., Employee Dismissal Law and Practice, 3rd Ed., Vol. 2,
section 8.15 on Employee Appraisal Programs. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1992
James L. Rigelhaupt, Jr., Racial Discrimination in Employment -- Post-Hiring
Practices, American Jurisprudence Proof of Facts, 2nd, Vol. 4, pages 477- 566.
David I. Rosen, Appraisals Can Make -- or Break -- Your Court Case, Personnel
Journal, November 1992, pages 113-118.
D. B. Schneier, The Impact of EEO Legislation on Performance Appraisals,
Personnel, July/Aug. 1978, pages 24-35.
David P. Van Knapp, Educational Requirement as Unlawful Employment Practice
Violative of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, American Law Reports,
Federal, Vol. 30, pages 258-309.
N.B. Winstanley, Legal and Ethical Issues in Performance Appraisals, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 58, No. 6, Nov./Dec. 1980, page 186.
Job Evaluations Can Trigger Defamation Suits, BNA Bulletin to Management,
Vol. 43, No. 46, November 19, 1992, pages 361-362.
Performance Reviews Revisited, BNA Bulletin to Management, Vol. 43, January
30, 1992, page 32.
*313 e. Problems of Bias & Prejudice.
Walter Borman, Effects of Instructions to Avoid Halo Error on Reliability and
Validity of Performance Evaluation Ratings, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
60, May 1975, pages 556-60.
R.L. Dipboye, Some Neglected Variables in Research on Discrimination in
Appraisals, Academy of Management Review, vol. 10, 1985, pages 116-127.

M.C. Gallagher, More Bias in Performance Evaluation, Personnel, July/Aug.
1978, pages 35-48.
R.L. Holzbach, Rater Bias in Performance Ratings, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 63, 1978, pages 579-588.
Sue Huffer, Not Letting Personality Interfere, Supervisory Management, Vol.
34, November 1989, pages 28-31.
Timothy A. Judge and Gerald R. Ferris, Social Context of Performance
Evaluation Decisions, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 1, February
1993, pages 80-105.
P.O. Kingstrom and L.E. Mainstone, An Investigation of the Rater-Ratee
Acquaintance and Rater Bias, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, 1985,
pages 641-653.
Terry R. Lowe, Eight Ways to Ruin a Performance Review, Personnel Journal,
Vol. 65, No. 1, January 1986, pages 60-62.
Betty Southard Murphy, Wayne E. Barlow and Diane Hatch, Performance
Evaluation System: Adverse Age Impact, Personnel Journal, Vol. 72, No. 2,
February 1993, pages 20-23.
Gerald L. Rose, Sex Effects on Effort Attributions in Managerial Performance
Evaluation, Organizational *314 Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 21, No.3,
June 1987, pages 367-378.
B. Rosen and J. Jerdee, The Influence of Sex Role Stereotypes on Evaluations
of Male and Female Supervisory Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
57, 1973, pages 44-48.
Paul R. Sackett and Cathy L.Z. DuBois, Rater-Ratee Race Effects on
Performance Evaluation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, No. 6, December
1991, pages 873-877.
Paul R. Sackett, Cathy L.Z. DuBois and Ann Wiggins Noe, Tokenism in
Performance Evaluation: The Effects of Work Group Representation on Male-
Female and White-Black Differences in Performance Ratings, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 76, No. 2, April 1991, pages 263-268.
J. Senger, Managers' Perceptions of Subordinates' Competency as a Function of
Personal Value Orientation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 14, 1971, pages
415-423.
Dirk D. Steiner and Jeffrey S. Rain, Immediate and Delayed Primacy and
Recency Effects in Performance Evaluation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.

74, No. 1, February 1989, pages 136-143.
f. Peer to Peer and Supervisor Evaluations.
H. John Bernardin, Subordinate Appraisal: A Valuable Source of Information
About Managers, Human Resource Management, Vol. 25, No. 3, Fall 1986, pages
421-439.
*315 D. Cederblom and J.W. Lounsbury, An Investigation of User Acceptance of
Peer Evaluations, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 33, 1980, pages 567-579.
Mark R. Edwards and J. Ruth Sproull, Making Performance Appraisals Perform:
The Use of Team Evaluation, Personnel, March 1985, pages 28-32.
Diane Glunz and Eileen Wakijji, Maximizing Search Quality Through a Program
of Peer Review, Online, Vol. 7, September 1983, pages 100-110.
Patsy J. Hansel, Appraisal of Supervisory Performance by Supervisee, Public
Library Quarterly, Vol. 7, Spring/Summer 1986, pages 11-21.
Judy Horn, Peer Review for Librarians and its Application in ARL Libraries,
in Academic Libraries: Myths and Realities. Chicago; ACRL, 1984, pages 135-140.
Martin Elliot Jaffe and Sheila Ives, They Shoot Supervisors, Don't They?,
Library Journal, Vol. 112, February 15, 1987, pages 116-118.
Steven Johnson, The Mythology of Peer Evaluation. Chicago: American Library
Association, 1978.
Jeffrey S. Kane and Edward E. Lawler, III, Methods of Peer Assessment,
Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 85, May 1978, page 555.
Jane P. Kleiner, Ensuring Quality Reference Desk Service: The Introduction of
a Peer Process, RQ, Vol. 30, No. 3, page 349.
K.G. Love, Comparison of Peer Assessment Methods: Reliability, Validity,
Friendship, Bias and User Reaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69,
1982, pages 280-296.
*316 Gleen M. McEvoy, Paul F. Buller and Steven R. Roghoor, A Jury of One's
Peers, Personnel Administrator, Vol. 33, May 1988, pages 94-101.
Suzanne H. Mahmooki and Geraldine B. King, Peer Evaluation of Reference
Librarians in a Public Library, Library Personnel News, Vol. 1, No. 4, Fall
1987, page 32.

Meyer, Self Appraisal of Job Performance, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 33,
Summer 1980, page 293.
Catherine M. Petrini, Upside-Down Performance Appraisals: Employee Evaluation
of Supervisors, Training and Development, Vol. 45, July 1991, pages 15-22.
Karen F. Smith and Gemma DeVinney, Peer Review for Academic Librarians,
Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 10, May 1984, pages 87-91.
Joseph A. Starratt and Thomas A. Tollman, Upward Evaluation of Library Middle
Managers, RSR Reference Services Review, Vol. 14, Spring 1986, pages 87-90.
Lynn Summers, Upside-Down Performance Appraisals: What Happens When Employees
Evaluate Their Supervisors?, Training & Development, July 1991, pages 15-22.
Brad Lee Thompson, An Early Review of Peer Review, Training, July 1991, pages
42-46.
Steve Ventura and Eric Harvey, Peer Review: Trusting Employees to Solve
Problems, Management Review, Vol. 77, January 1988, pages 48-51.
Scott Warrick, Supervisor Review Sheds Light on Blind Spots, HR Magazine,
June 1992, pages 111-120.
*317 Thomas Yen-Ran Yeh, Library Peer Evaluation for Promotion and Merit
Increase, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 34, July 1973, pages 270-274.
g. Self Appraisal.
C.D. Anderson, J.L. Warner and C.C. Spencer, Inflation Bias in Self-
Assessment Examinations: Implications for Valid Employee Selection, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, 1984, pages 574-580.
L. Baird, Self and Superior Ratings of Performance, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 20, 1977, pages 291-300.
G.A. Bassett and H.H. Meyer, Performance Appraisal Based On Self-Review,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 21, 1968, pages 421-430.
Donald J. Campbell and Cynthia Lee, Self-Appraisal in Performance Evaluation:
Development Versus Evaluation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, No. 2,
April 1988, pages 302-314.
A. S. DeNisi and J.B. Shaw, Investigation of the Uses of Self-Reports of

Abilities, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, 1977, pages 641-644.
S. Downs, R.M. Farr and L. Colbeck, Self-Appraisal: A Convergence of
Selection and Guidance, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 51, 1978,
pages 271-278.
Jiing-Lih Farh, James D. Werbel & Arthur G. Bedeian, An Empirical
Investigation of Self-Appraisal Based Performance Evaluation, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 41, No. 1, Spring 1988, pages 141-156.
*318 H.G. Heneman, Comparisons of Self and Superior Ratings of Managerial
Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, 1974, pages 638-642.
H.G. Herneman, Self-Assessment: A Critical Analysis, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 33, 1980, pages 297-300.
E.L. Levine, A. Flory and R.A. Ash, Self-Assessment in Personnel Selection,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, 1977, 428-435.
P.A. Mabe and S.G. West, Validity of Self-Evaluation of Ability: A Review and
Meta-Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, 1982, pages 280-296.
H.J. Meyer, Self-Appraisal of Job Performance, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 33,
1980, pages 291-295.
Mark John Somers and Dee Birnbaum, Assessing Self-Appraisal of Job
Performance as an Evaluation Device: Are the Poor Results a Function of Method
or Methodology?, HumanRelations, Vol. 44, No. 10, October 1991, pages 1081-
1092.
R. Steel and N. Ovalle, Self-Appraisal Based Upon Supervisory Feedback,
Kenneth S. Teel, Self-Appraisal Revisited, Personnel Journal, Vol. 57, July
1978, pages 364-367.
G.C. Thornton, Psychometric Properties of Self-Appraisals of Job Performance,
*319 h. Forms.
Barry A. Hartstein, Employer's Guide to Auditing Personnel and Employment
Practices. Chicago; Business Laws, 1992. Volume 1, Forms 8 & 9, pages 5.29 to
5.34.

Stanley P. Hodge, Performance Appraisals: Developing a Sound Legal and
pages 235-244. Appendix A: Behavioral Observation Rating Scale Developed for
Library Technical Services Staff.
Robert I. Lazer and Walter S. Wikstrom, Appraising Managerial Performance:
Current Practices and Future Directions. Report No. 723. New York: Conference
Board, 1977. Exhibits 1-32.
Laura M. Strain, Training and Developing Staff, in Private Law Librarians --
1986. New York; Practising Law Institute, 1986. Commercial Law & Practice
Handbook No. 396, pages 559-606. Exhibit D -- Performance Standards for the
Head of a Business Library and Exhibit E -- Staff Performance Evaluation.
Robert D. Stueart and Maureen Sullivan, Performance Analysis and Appraisal: A
How-To-Do-It Manual for Librarians. How-To-Do-It Manual for Libraries No. 14.
New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 1991. Appendix I -- Job Descriptions and
Appendix III -- Performance Evaluation Forms.
Scott Warrick, Supervisor Review Sheds Light on Blind Spots, HR Magazine,
June 1992, pages 111-120. Exhibit: Supervisor Review Cover Letter and Form.
Job Descriptions and Performance Appraisal Forms, Corporate Counsel's
Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 1, January 1991, pages 76-92.
*320 Bureau of National Affairs, Performance Appraisal Programs. Personnel
Policies Forum, No. 135. Rockville, MD; BNA, February 1983. Exhibits 1 to 9.
Bureau of National Affairs, BNA Policy and Practice Series, Personnel
Management. Washington DC; BNA, 1993. Forms 9 to 20, Section 207, pages 943-
962.
Bureau of National Affairs, BNA Policy and Practice Series, Sample Policies
and Forms. Washington DC; BNA, 1993. Volume 2, section 37, pages 1-168.
Office for Library Personnel Resources, American Library Association,
Managing Employee Performance, Topics in Personnel No. 11. Chicago; ALA, 1988.
Research Institute of America, Employment Coordinator. Boston; RIA, 1990.
Paragraph 14,201 at page 144,201.
Systems and Procedures Exchange Center, Office of Management Studies,
Association of Research Libraries, SPEC Kit on Performance Appraisal, No. 140.
Washington, DC: ARL, January 1988.
i. Cases.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Guidelines on Employee
Selection Procedures, Federal Register, Aug. 1, 1970, pages 12333-12336
(superseded).
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Uniform Guidelines on Employee
Selection Procedures, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Part 1607 (1992),
Federal Register, Aug. 25, 1978, pages 38290-38315.
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S. Ct. 2362, 45 L. Ed. 2d 280
(1975).
*321 Baxter v. Savannah Sugar Refining Corp., 495 F.2d 437 (5th Cir. 1974)
and 350 F. Supp. 139 (S.D. GA 1972), cert. denied 419 U.S. 1033, 42 L. Ed. 2d
308, 95 S. Ct. 515 (1974).
Berke v. Ohio Dept. of Public Welfare, 628 F.2d 980 (6th Cir. 1980).
Brito v. Zia Co., 478 F.2d 1200 (10th Cir. 1973)
Cerminara v. Allegheny Housing Rehabilitation Corp., 37 Fair Employment
Practices Cases (BNA) 998 (WD PA 1985).
Chamberlain v. Bissell, 547 F. Supp. 1067 (WD MI 1982).
Dace v. ACF Industries, 722 F.2d 374 (8th Cir. 1983).
DeMeo v. Goodall, 640 F. Supp. 1115 (D. NH 1986).
Dominic v. Consolidated Edison Co., 652 F. Supp. 815 (SD NY 1986), aff'd 822
F.2d 1249 (2d Cir. 1987).
Ezold v. Wolf Block Schorr and Solis-Cohen, 751 F. Supp. 1175 (W D PA 1990).
Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 635 F.2d 1007 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied,
452 U.S. 940, 69 L. Ed. 2d 954, 101 S. Ct. 3083 (1981).
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 28 L. Ed. 2d 158, 91 S. Ct. 849
(1971).
Harper v. Mayor, 359 F. Supp. 1187 (D. MD 1973), aff'd in part and modified
in part, 486 F.2d 1134 (4th Cir. 1973).
Hill v. Western Electric, 12 F.E.P. Cases 1175 (E.D. VA 1976), aff'd in part
and rev'd in part, 596 F.2d 99 (4th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 929, 62
L. Ed. 2d 186 (1979).

*322 Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, 737 F. Supp. 1202 (D.C. 1990), 920 F.2d 967
(D.C. Cir. 1990), 825 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir. 1987) and 490 U.S. 228, 104 L. Ed. 2d
268, 109 S. Ct. 1775 (1989).
Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 18 Cal. Reptr. 2d 83, 14 Cal. App. 4th 958
(Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1993).
Jones v. Western Geophysical Co., 761 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1985).
Lanphear v. Prokop, 703 F.2d 1311 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
Lee v. Walters, 1988 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11336 (E.D. PA 1988).
Loiseau v. Dept. of Human Resources, 567 F. Supp. 1211 (D. OR 1983).
Nord v. U.S. Steel Corp., 758 F.2d 1462 (11th Cir. 1985).
Rouse v. Pepsi-Cola, 642 F. Supp. 34 (E.D. Mich. 1985).
Rowe v. General Motors Corp., 457 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1972).
Segar v. Civiletti, 508 F. Supp. 690 (D. D.C. 1981).
United States v. City of Chicago, 573 F.2d 416 (7th Cir. 1978).
Vaughn v. Edel, 918 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1990).
Wade v. Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service, 372 F. Supp. 126 (N.D. MS
1974).
Watkins v. Scott Paper Co., 530 F.2d 1159 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429
U.S. 861, 50 L. Ed. 2d 139, 97 S. Ct. 163 (1976).
Weahkee v. Perry, 587 F.2d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
*323 j. Generally.
Ron Alridge, Annual Performance Reviews are a Royal Pain, Electronic Media,
April 5, 1993, page 24.
Brendan D. Bannister and David B. Balkin, Performance Evaluation and
Compensation Feedback Messages, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63,
No. 2, June 190, pages 97-111.

Christine S. Becker, Performance Evaluation: An Essential Management Tool.
Int'l City-Cty Mgt., 1988.
H. John Bernardin, Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior at Work.
Boston: Kent-Wadsworth, 1984.
Derick W. Brinkerhoff & Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Appraising the Performance of
Performance Appraisal, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, Spring 1980,
pages 3-16.
William J. Bruns, Performance Measurement Evaluation and Incentives.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School, 1992.
David Cameron, Performance Appraisal and Review. Birmingham, AL: MCB
Publications, 1981 and Management Decision, Vol. 19, No. 6, 1981, pages 1- 54.
Steven J. Carroll and Craig E. Schneier, Performance Appraisal and Review
Systems. Glenview, IL: Scoot, Foresman, 1982.
Michael R. Deblieux and Lee T. Paterson, Supervisor's Guide to Employee
Performance Reviews. Parker & Son, 1990.
David L. Devries, Performance Appraisal on the Line. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1981.
*324 Robert G. Eccles, The Performance Measurement Manifesto, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 69, No. 1, Jan./Feb. 1991, page 323.
Peter R. Eyes, Realignment Ties Pay to Performance, Personnel Journal, Vol.
72, No. 1, January 1993, pages 74-77.
Saul W. Gellerman and William G. Hodgson, Cyanamid's New Take on Performance
Appraisal, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66, No. 3, May/June 1988, pages 36, 37
& 40.
Elaine Gruenfeld, Performance Appraisal: Promise and Peril. Ithaca, NY: New
York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell Univ., 1981.
Stephen C. Harper, Adding Purpose to Performance Reviews, Training and
Development Journal, September 1986, pages 53-55.
Richard I. Henderson, Performance Appraisal, 2nd Ed. Reston, VI: Reston
Publishing Co., 1984.
Arturo A. Jacobs, What's Wrong with Performance Evaluation Programs?,
Supervisory Management, July 1977, pages 10-15.

Donald L. Kirkpatrick, Performance Appraisal: Your Questions Answered,
Training and Development Journal, May 1986, pages 68-70.
Howard J. Klein, Scott A. Snell and Kenneth N. Wexley, Systems Model of
Performance Appraisal Interview Process, Industrial Relations, Vol. 26, No. 3,
Fall 1987, pages 267-280.
John Knibbs and Stephen Swailes, Implementing Performance Review and Career
Planning, Management
*325 Decision, Vol. 30, No. 1, 1992, pages 49-53 and No. 2, 1992, pages 30-
34.
Gary P. Latham and Kenneth N. Wexley, Increasing Productivity through
Performance Appraisal. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981.
Robert I. Lazer and Walter S. Wikstrom, Appraising Managerial Performance:
Current Practices and Future Directions. Report No. 723. New York: Conference
Board, 1977.
Seymour Levy, A Guide to Counseling: Developing Employees through Performance
Review. M.M. Bruce, 1976.
Seymour Levy, Improving Performance Through Performance Review: A Guide to
the Employee. M.M. Bruce, 1970.
Clinton O. Longenecker and Stephen J. Goff, Why Performance Appraisals Still
Fail, Journal of Compensation and Benefits, Nov./Dec. 1990, pages 36-41.
Danielle R. McDonald, Performance Review Designed by Secretaries for
Secretaries, Journal of Compensation and Benefits, Vol. 7, No. 3, Nov./Dec.
1991, pages 36-38.
Douglas McGregor, An Uneasy Look at Performance Appraisal, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 35, May/June 1957, pages 89-94.
Donald W. Myers, Human Resources Management: Principles and Practice.
Chicago: Commerce Clearing House, 1986. Chapter 9 on Performance Appraisal.
John E. Newman and John R. Hinrichs, Performance Evaluation for Professional
Personnel, Studies in Productivity: Highlights of the Literature Series, Vol.
14. Pergamon and Work in America, 1982.
*326 Stephenie Overman, A Measure of Success, HR Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 12,
December 1992, pages 38-40.
S.E. Parnes, The Personnel Manager's Handbook of Performance Evaluation

Programs. Business Legal Reports, 1982.
Brian Reilly, My Boss is Wrong and Here's Why, Electronic Media, April 12,
1993, pages 14 & 36.
Berkeley Rice, Performance Review: The Job Nobody Likes, Psychology Today,
Vol. 19, September 1985, pages 28-36.
George A. Rieder, Performance Review -- A Mixed Bag, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 51, No. 4, July/Aug. 1973, pages 61-67.
Mary Riley, One Manager's Journey Beyond Performance Reviews, Management
Solutions, Vol. 33, No. 6, June 1988, pages 16-21.
Melvin E. Schnake, Apples and Oranges: Salary Review and Performance Review,
Supervisory Management, Vol. 25, No. 11, November 1980, pages 32-36.
Melvin E. Schnake, The Performance Evaluation as Motivating Tool, Supervisory
Management, Vol. 23, No. 7, July 1978, pages 29-32.
Donald V. Schuster, Performance Recognition: The Power of Positive Feedback,
Training, January 1985, pages 69-74.
Jay R. Schuster and Patricia K. Zingheim, The New Pay: Linking Employee and
Organizational Performance. New York: Lexington Books, 1992.
Roy Serpa, Why Many Organizations -- Despite Good Intentions -- Often Fail to
Give Employees Fair and Useful Performance Reviews, Management Review, Vol. 73,
No. 7, July 1984, pages 41-45.
*327 Ronald G. Wells, Guidelines for Effective and Defensible Performance
Appraisal System, Personnel Journal, Vol. 61, October 1982, pages 776-782.
Patricia K. Zingheim and Jay R. Schuster, Linking Quality and Pay, HR
Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 12, December 1992, pages 55-59.
Management Performance Appraisal Programs. Washington, DC: Bureau of National
Affairs, 1974. Personnel Policies Forum Survey No. 104.
Performance Appraisal: What Three Companies Are Doing. Chicago: Commerce
Clearing House, 1985.
END OF DOCUMENT

Nathan Rosen PLI 1993 performance appraisals and staff evaluations a reemerging management tool or a legal mine field

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Nathan Rosen PLI 1993 performance appraisals and staff evaluations a reemerging management tool or a legal mine field

Similar to Nathan Rosen PLI 1993 performance appraisals and staff evaluations a reemerging management tool or a legal mine field (20)

More from Nathan Rosen

More from Nathan Rosen (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Nathan Rosen PLI 1993 performance appraisals and staff evaluations a reemerging management tool or a legal mine field