360 Degrees And Performance Appraisal In Public Sector

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

IMPLICATIONS OF THE 360 DEGREE FEEDBACKS AND PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Name

Course

Professor

Institution

City, State

Date

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss the management of public

performance in general and implications of 360 Degrees feedback and performance appraisal

in the public sector specifically. Performance management has become a new public ideology

especially in the countries which have embraced the new public management systems of

administration. Because of the global crises, almost every public organization is facing

performance challenge, in a way or other. Years ago, performance measurement was based

on the various cost and management principles which were purely a financial means of

measuring performance. Performance measurement has turned out to be an integral part of

many public sector organizations. From a general perspective, performance management

involves activities that make sure organizational objectives are consistently achieved in an

effective way. This paper discusses the various reasons of introducing 360 feedback and

performance appraisal in the public sector.

A projection of the main features of a successful performance management is also

included. This paper also provides the benefits of employing 360 degrees feedback and

performance appraisal in management of the public sector. A discussion of the various

challenges which act as a barrier in implementations of performance appraisal and 360 degree

feedback is included. To pre-empt the conclusions of this paper, measuring the performance

of employees has turned to be a common human resource practice in many government’s

organizations. These schemes have also faced significant criticism from many government

employees for various reasons. Many government employees dislike the idea of being

evaluated or evaluating their fellow colleagues. It has also become so difficult to come up

with objectives and measurable performance parameters because the nature of public dealings

is difficult to quantify.

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

Performance Appraisal as Performance Assessment in the public sector

There are normally two levels of the performance systems employed in the public

sector: organizational –level and individual-level public sector. Organizational level

performance management refers to the system whereby each agency’s general performance

could be assessed with reference to main policy implementation, financial performance and

other major areas (Boland and Fowler,2000,P.424). To efficiently evaluate organizational-

level performance, use of the balanced scorecard approached is encouraged. This

performance evaluation is usually conducted by central government or equivalent agency in

conjunction with several agencies in the field of finance, human resource, auditing among

others. For the individual level performance, countries employ different assessment

techniques through performance agreement, trait-rating techniques or 360-degree feedback

technique. Individual level performance evaluation could be conducted by the human

resource department of each agency on a regular basis (Berman et al, 2006, P.29). Based on

the outcome of performance appraisal, encouragement could be provided to the government

employees.

Many countries utilize appraisal reports of the government employees as the basis for

promotion of employees. There are three basic approaches that are used. First, performance

agreement should be defined. This is used as away of promoting the execution of main public

policies. It is the individual appraisal system which stipulates an agreement between the

minister and supervisors in the public sector with objectives based on the strategic plan of the

ministry. Chief elements in the performance agreement could constitute employee

performance goals based on general organizational strategic objectives, performance targets,

and performance indicators among others (Fryer et al, 2009, P.483). It helps to establish the

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

individual achievement of employees. The effectiveness of performance agreement entirely

relies on higher-level officials’ enthusiasm to ensure that performance objectives are

specified in real terms and to reward achievements fairly with reference to objectives (Porter

and Edward, 1968, P.58). The main objective of conducting performance appraisal in the

public sector is to measure the performance of government employees and provide the

employee with feedback so that they may improve their performance. Typical performance

appraisal system could be founded on two area: job performance with reference to

completeness, job challenges, and timeliness among others and secondly, Job-fulfilling traits

with reference to innovation, communication (Talbot ,2008, P.1574). Performance appraisal

should be the backbone of promotion to reflect the importance of employee performance in

the government.

360 degree feedback in the public sector

As stated earlier, 360 degree feedback technique is one the individual-level

performance measurement in the public sector. It is a system whereby employees receive

confidential feedback from fellow employees. It is a process that involves the managers,

fellow employees, and direct reports. It is mostly conducted through the feedback forms

which constitute questions that are considered on a rating scale and also ask the participants

to offer written comments (Bearly and Jones,1996,P.70). The employee receiving feedback

also provides a self-rating survey questions that the rest of employees receive in their forms.

In the public sector, the 360 degree feedback technique is mostly used to analyse employees

at senior position so as to understand their strength and weaknesses. This technique

automatically tabulates the outcome of the survey so that it becomes easier to design a

development plan. The individual employee responses are usually combined with feedbacks

from other employees in the same rater classification so as to maintain anonymity and to

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

create a clear picture of the overall strength and weaknesses. 360 feedbacks can also be

useful in assessing the lower level employees who are not in the supervisory positions. It

helps the public sector employees to be more effective in their daily routines. However, it is

important to note that 360 degree feedback cannot be used as a way of measuring the

performance objectives of public employees. It is also not away of establishing whether the

public employee is meeting their primary job requirements.

In the public sector, 360 degree feedback can be used in 2 main ways. One of the

ways is that it can be used as development tool to aid the public employees’ identify their

strengths and weaknesses so that they can become more effective (Edwards and Ewen,

1996,P.42). When conducted properly, 360 degree feedback can be extremely effective as a

development tool. The feedback technique provides employees a chance to provide

confidential feedback to a co-employee that they might otherwise be uncomfortable giving.

Feedback recipients obtain insight into how their co-workers perceive them and gain a chance

to correct behaviours and develop skills that will make them excel in their services. 360

degree feedback can also be used as a performance appraisal tool. It is a technique that has

been practised in several public sectors despite the experts warning that it is not a good idea.

It is a challenge to properly design a 360 feedback process that builds an atmosphere of

trust especially when used to measure performance. Moreover, this technique focuses on

behaviours and competencies to a significant extent compared to job requirements,

performance objectives or job description.

Implementing a 360 degree feedback process in the public sector

There are three important steps that need to be observed while implementing a 360

degree feedback technique in the public sector. The first is

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

Decision on the purpose of the process

Evaluating the performance of public employees through a 360 degree feedback

process is an extremely sensitive undertaking that can have a significant impact on the

general performance and culture of the public service. The tradition observed by employees

in a certain public sector is one of the chief determinants in whether a 360 degree assessment

should be implemented or ignored. If a tradition of honest communication, a learning culture

and trust is in practise, then 360 degree feedback can be easily implemented (Barlett and

Gloshal, 2002, P.38). If the employees in the public sector do not uphold the stated values,

then it is advisable to employ other formal performance measurement techniques. 360

feedback techniques should be implemented with a purpose. Possible reasons for

implementing this technique may include; establishing employee development plans, general

performance assessment, aiding team development, contract renewal among others.

Decision on the aspects to be evaluated

360 degree feedback should be strictly used to assess behavioural dimensions of job

performance. Performance based on job description should be evaluated using a different

system. The first issue to be settled on is which elements of employee’s behaviour to be

evaluated using this technique. Potential behaviours that can be assessed using this system

include; career ethics, leadership, motivation, communication skills, critical and creative

thinking, team work and cooperation among others (Carney, 1999, P.12). Within each of

these features of performance, a set of specific conducts should be developed to be used as

parameters through the evaluation process. The choice of traits to include in the 360 degree

feedback process is usually simple. The public sector wants to test how well their employees

are behaving as per the public values. The desired public values should be first identified. A

description on the behaviours a public employee should portray to represent the desired

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

public values should be made. The descriptions are then inserted into the 360 degree

feedback diagnostic. The diagnostic is then distributed to managers, and employees for them

to provide their feedback. All feedbacks should be gathered and put to use which was

intended.

Competency Framework

As stated earlier, the main objective of conducting performance evaluation in the

public sector is to improve performance of government employees. Generally, there are close

relationships between the goals of an agency and the performance of the employee.

Government employees should be informed on what they are supposed to achieve and

assessment technique to be employed. A clear guide on how employees should perform the

duties assigned to them so as to attain the levels that are acceptable by the organization is

referred as competency framework (Bregn, 2008, P.84). It involves a clear measurement

system that is well understood by all employees with the final achievement being approved

by the leader. It also describes the remedy for employees who fail to match the set standards.

Many assessment systems usually have: work plan which allows for written assessment and

marking; others will contain a summary of major duties of the job-this applies in a situation

where the job description is not defined; a competency framework or other means of

recording behaviour ; a section for recording training needs and finally written feedbacks on

performance. Competency framework is often employed in both private and public sectors. A

competency framework basically covers the knowledge, behaviours and skills which an

employee needs to demonstrate to perform their duties well. It describes what will be

appreciated and what is unacceptable. These are the behavioural fundamentals required for

any job. All jobs usually have behavioural elements.

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

The success of any government agency is directly connected to the performance of its

staff, and this calls for not only excellent occupational skills, but also behavioural skills

which create the environment that supports success (Halachmi, 2011,P.37). As noted earlier,

competency framework describes the behavioural skills required for an organization and

provides a means to communicate them clearly to employees and then measure them. Instead

of having general and vague statements on the skills and behaviour needed, government

agencies can state what is important to them; put it down in a document that should also

contain detailed examples of what is required of leaders and employees. One of the pillar

strengths of a competency framework is clear identification of skills and behaviours needed.

It gives the organization an opportunity of identify what is crucial, standardize it and then

provide means to measure how well the employees meet these standards. This can also aid

precise identification of training and development requirements of the employees to meet the

standards of the competency framework and also classify those who are not able to meet

these standards. A competency framework can also be used by an organization to promote

cultural change by identifying how well employees acknowledge and implement changes.

Competency framework has several benefits to the public sector which include: fairer

recruitment exercise and promotion; it establishes a clear connection between the goals of the

agency and that of employees; provides clear guidelines to leaders and employees on how to

behave and provides a better opportunity for them to achieve that goal (Talbot, 2008,

P.1580). A competency framework should not cover occupational skills simply because they

are normally categorised as part of the job description. Competency framework should not be

too complicated because this will result to challenges during the formulation and

implementation process. Government agencies should only adapt packages that are relevant

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

to them. Communication with employees is necessary so that the performance of employees

can be easily matched against the needs of the organisation.

Incentives for Performance

An incentive is any factor that encourages a particular course of action. It can also be

referred to as an anticipation that motivates people to behave in a given way. It can be

categorised into various classes such as monetary incentives, non-monetary incentives, and

remunerative incentives among others. The most common incentive employed in the public

sector is the monetary incentive commonly referred as performance related pay. Employing

performance related pay to increase productivity has been a primary thinking of many

governments in the World. This tradition emerged in an atmosphere of fiscal stress and its

main aim was to stress on the productivity of employees. The global financial crises that did

hit many countries back in the mid 1970s encouraged governments to uphold businesslike

approach in public administration. Working procedures needed to be reviewed and be

adjusted to efficient ways to produce better results. In the late 1990s, a number of

governments decided to reduce the burden of length of service by introducing the element of

individual performance (Itperry ,1991,P.27). Performance related pay schemes come in

different forms, including those making use of variable pay, gain sharing among others.

The popularity of performance related pay is based extensively on the assumption that

it corrects primary flaw in traditional compensation systems by making pay agreement on a

performance basis (Pollitt,2005,P.27). This system is very motivating for employees.

Performance of government employees is encouraged through performance linked payment.

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

This system is motivating to the degree that it is linked with satisfying employees’ need for

achievement and being appreciated. With such a pay system, the government employees will

always choose behaviours that result to the greatest reward. It is argued that the usual systems

of pay administration do not provide government supervisors the discretion and flexibility

they need to use pay as an efficient motivator (Nigro and Nigro, 2000,P.48). Performance

related pay sounds attractive as a rational way to encourage better performance by

government employees. This payment system played a significant role to overcome the

lagging performance which was a characteristic of public sector. PRP can be an important

tool in the hand of government inspectors and politicians to affirm their power in facilitating

reforms or implementing other policy goals. There are several advantages that related with

PRP. One of its advantages is that it attracts highly qualified and motivated individuals into

the public sector employment. The superior performers are fairly compensated which is very

encouraging. This system focuses the attention of management on the significance of precise

performance appraisals using standard measures and objectives. The supervisors also get a

chance to pressure the low performers to improve their performance. This system facilitates

proper utilization of government resources.

Despite these advantages, however, the public sector experience with pay-related-

performance program has not been very positive. One of the main shortcomings of appraisals

in the public sector is that they tend to create an exaggeration of performance rating and

payments and as a result increase the employee cost. Sometimes under pressure to maintain

to maintain staff or employ new staff so as to overcome internal bottleneck, sometimes also

the government supervisors award better ratings to employees that do not deserve. This leads

the government employees and their unions to view performance based pay as a negotiable

fraction of the salary, with effort being withdrawn unless performance based pay is awarded

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

(Talbot, 2008, P.76). A World Bank research paper on factors that influence better

performance of public employees points out that: a) establishing a meritocratic public service

is of universal importance for performance; b) a well-established system of administrative

procedures provide a suitable foundation for meritocracy; and c) performance management

processes demonstrated astonishingly little influence on performance of government

employees and in some situation its outcome has just been negative. The research concluded

that reinforcing both meritocratic public service management and administrative procedures

should act as a foundation for performance management systems. A recent study also

indicates that performance based pay has little impact on increasing the incentive of

government employees.

The weaknesses traditional appraisal

There are three weaknesses that can be related to the traditional appraisal systems.

One of the weaknesses is the lack of agreement on performance criteria. In the public sector,

it is very common for the supervisor and the lower levels employees to agree on elements to

be evaluated so as to achieve an effective appraisal (Carney, 1999,P.86). If the supervisor and

other government employees cannot agree on what constitutes good performance, it is likely

that they would not agree also on the actual quality of employee’s productivity. The public

sector can make efforts to overcome this challenge by focussing the appraisal entirely on

whether the employee has achieved substantial objectives. The second shortcoming of

traditional appraisal is the inability to handle lots of information. To plan for an effective

appraisal process requires proper planning. The planning process is a complex undertaking

that involves a lot if information. The human information processing capacity is limited

consequently most of supervisors and public employees simplify the appraisal task and work

from general impressions rather than the required details. Different ways to approach

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

appraisal process between the employees and supervisors leads to disagreement on the final

evaluation.

For some of the public employees, appraisals provide a podium to reaffirm their value

to their agencies and to celebrate their success over the previous years. For others, appraisals

are awfully threatening, the most demoralising part of employment (Carney, 1996, P.69).

Defence mechanism shields most of the employees’ self-concept making them generate a

twisted view of their contributions. When government employees explain away poor

performance so as to cover their positive self-image, harmony on the evaluation will be a

challenge. This means that employees and supervisors will be making an effort to ‘fix’ an

appraisal model that is not functional. This implies that government resources will not be

utilized efficiently and the whole appraisal process will be a waste of time, energy and

resources.

Challenges to the implementation of pay related schemes

Despite the increasing popularity of performance-related pay systems in public

sectors, these programs have impending limitations, which may decrease credibility with

public sector employees. If the government employees do not have faith in this performance

related system, then the system will not create the motivational impact. The human resource

managers and other relevant authorities in the civil service must address the potential

challenges with PRP programs. One of the leading challenges facing the implementation of

PRP is the lack of experience in utilizing the system. PRP is a system that was adapted from

the private sector of the developed countries. Most of the governments have little or no

experience with PRP. This lack of experience with PRP system results to conflict during

implementation of the system. The second challenge facing the public sector is Union’s

disagreement and Egalitarian culture (Bregn, 2008, P.87). It is recommendations from central

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

personnel authority not to award equal bonuses to civil servants whose performances differ.

However, union leaders have always pushed for equal performances bonuses to all employees

without considering their performance. When a government employee is treated better than

the rest, this will accelerate sensitivity in the work environment even if the employee is being

rewarded for their outstanding performance. It is true that PRP motivates the hardworking

employees but there is a significant risk of this system being sabotaged by insensitive

demands of fellow civil servants (Risher and Charles, 1997, P.69). In the constitutions of

many countries, equality and fair treatment of all citizens have been prioritised. Such

sentiments may promote egalitarian tradition. There are also other cultural barriers which

affect the success of PRP system. Such cultural factors depend on personality of the

employee such as their character trait.

The third challenge is the insignificant monetary values and lack of differentiation

among performers. There are cases where the PRP system may fail to motivate employees as

intended. The motivation theory clearly states that increase in performance should be

matched with an increase in reward. The government and employees may have different

opinions on what performance they consider large enough to deserve a reward. In the private

sector, PRP system can be self financing because better performance means an increase in the

company’s total earnings but this may not be applicable to the public sector. In the public

sector, there is a possibility of employees being merited even in situations that they do not

deserve the merit (Barlett and Gloshal,2002,P.41). The supervisor might recommend an

employee for a pay increase out of fear of animosity. It has been argued that PRP generate

expectations of salary supplements, but the salary difference between the poor and best

performers may not have big in many countries. As a result, poor performance may get a

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

similar salary increment just like the outstanding performance. This can be very demoralising

for the exemplary performance and they may start to question the need for their hard work.

The fourth challenge is poor performance measure in the public sector. In the public

sector, the civil servant’s performance seems to be evaluated subjectively, relying on the

supervisor’s judgement (Pollitt, 2005, P.33). It has been noted that in the public sector

performance assessments often depend on the supervisors subjective evaluations of

employee’s performance. This evaluation is subject to several errors such as the halo, central

tendency, recency, spill-over effect among other errors. These errors usually weaken the

credibility of performance assessment process. Performance assessment process that is not

credible does little to build the feeling among employees that pay and performance are

directly correlated. An accurate and integrative performance measure that takes into

consideration the whole scope of an employee job is basic to successful PRP. Unfortunately,

developing error-free performance measure for every job is both challenging and expensive.

The fifth challenge is the negative effects of competition. PRP focuses on the

performance of individual employees and does not acknowledge any team work. In most

cases, the budget for rewarding merits is limited consequently employees must compete for

this limited fund. Competition among employees can be regarded as very productive

especially if team work is encouraged. However, merit increases usually cover jobs which

employees work independently. This system might create adverse outcomes especially where

team work is needed. When employees perceive competition as a zero-sum game, where one

employee gain equals to the loss of the other employee, PRP system can lead to undesirable

outcome (Kaplan and Norton,1996,P.88). Other challenges of PRP can be summarised as:

disagreements among raters ; lack of supervisory conformity with the program requirements ;

distrust of management’s motive among others.

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

Recommendations

There are several ways to improve performance management in the public sector. One

of the ways is to improve pay system of the public sector. In many countries, civil servants

have a general dissatisfaction with the pay system used by the government and such

situations breed distrust between the government and employees, as well as discontent with

the present pay system including PRP. Governments need to improve their pay system before

implementing other means of improving their employee’s performance (Berman et al, 2006,

P. 75) Governments should also establish efficient appraisals that will encompass the

complex goals associated with public service. Supervisors and employees should work as a

team to correct any performance deficiencies experienced in work places. It is also important

for the system to clearly differentiate among performers to avoid the leniency problems

(Boland and Fowler,2000,P.422). Civil servants should see noticeable differences between

exemplary performers and the poor ones. In some situations, no matter how efficient the

appraisal system is, some employees might not realise that fact. This behaviour pattern is

common especially among the low performers. The government supervisors need to involve

the employees in the objective formulation process.

The objectives of assessment should be in agreement job descriptions of the

employee. This approach is important in reducing the probability of dissatisfaction among

employees because it stipulates the standards against which performance is measured.

Governments should make the effort to stimulate to encourage all levels of employees to be

productive. It is also important to avoid distracting behaviours while implementing appraisal

system. Such behaviours include: I) setting unrealistic target and struggling only to achieve

them; manipulating records to forge high performance; focusing on meeting target at the

expense of public values; making use of indicators that to influence the outcome of the

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

exercise (Halachmi,2011,P.38). Failure to correct the above problems, there will be a

distortion of the overall goal.

Conclusions

In an increasingly aggressive World, performance enhancement is not an option; it is

a requirement for improving government’s competitiveness. In an era of borderless economy,

government employees need to improve their performance for the benefit of their country. In

that view, having performance appraisals in the public sector including PRP programs looks

like a good idea. However, a well designed system based on a deep understanding of the

unique nature of public service should be encouraged. This implies that there need to be

understanding of the connection between strategy, the public, and performance systems.

Although there are significant differences among the countries, it can be fair to conclude that

performance assessment has been widely adopted by many countries and government

employees are very much aware of this system. Despite the various controversies connected

the various appraisal techniques employed in the public sector, this system has made a

significant impact. Lastly, governments should invest in human capital to offer more

opportunities for human resource growth. Motivated employees are central to the functional

of any government that needs to make a mark in the global economy map. Governments need

to develop the engaging and encouraging tradition needed to attract, excite and maintain

employees with exceptional skills.

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

References

Barlett, Christopher A. and Ghoshal, Sumantra. 2002. “Building Competitive

AdvantageThrough People,” MIT Sloan Management Review 43 (2): 34-41.

Bearly, William L and Jones, John E. 1996.360 Degree Feedback: Strategies, Tactics, and

Techniques for Developing Leaders. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Berman, E., Bowman, J., West, J., and Van Wart, M. 2006. Human Resource Management in

Public Service. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Boland, T. and Fowler, A. 2000. “A Systems Perspective of Performance Management in

Public Sector Organizations,” International Journal of Public Sector Management 13

(5):417-446

Bregn, Kirsten. 2008. “Management of the New Pay Systems in the Public Sector: some

implications of insights gained from experiments,” International Review of

Administrative Sciences 74 (1): 79-93.

Carney, K. 1999. “Successful Performance Measurement: a Checklist,” Harvard

Management Update. (November, 1999).

Edwards, Mark R. and Ewen, Ann J. 1996.360 Degree Feedback: The Powerful New Model

For Employee Assessment and Performance Improvement. Toronto: American

Management Association.

Fryer, K., Antony, J., and Ogden, S. 2009. “Performance Management in the Public Sector,”

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

International Journal of Public Sector Management 22 (6): 478-498.

Halachmi, Arie. 2011. “Imagined Promises versus Real Challenges to Public Performance

Management,” International Journal of Productivity and Performance

Management60 (1): 24-40

Kaplan, R and Norton, D. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kellough, J. Edward and Selden, Sally C. 1997. “Pay for Performance Systems in State

Governments,” Review of Public Personnel Administration 17 (1): 5-21.

Nigro, Felix A. and Nigro, Lloyd G. 2000.New Public Personnel Administration. 5th ed.

ItPerry, James L. 1991. “Linking Pay to Performance: The Controversy Continues,” in C

Carolyn

Pollitt, Christopher. 2005. “Performance Management in Practice: A Comparative Study of

executive Agencies,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 25-

Porter, Lyman W. and Lawler, Edward E. 1968.Managerial Attitudes and Performance.

Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Risher, Howard and Fay, Charles H. 1997.New Strategies for Public Pay. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass

Talbot, Colin. 2008. “Performance Regimes: the Institutional Context of Performance

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals

Policies,” International Journal of Public Administration 31: 1569-1591

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

360 degrees and performance appraisal in public sector

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

Ian McGregor

Shannon Williams