360 Degrees And Performance Appraisal In Public Sector | EssayIvy.com

360 degrees and performance appraisal in public sector

#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals
City, State
#70852196 360 Degree feedbacks and performance appraisals
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
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

550 words

Our customers say

Customer Avatar
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!"

Customer Avatar
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!"

Customer Avatar
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."

  • 5-paragraph Essay
  • Admission Essay
  • Annotated Bibliography
  • Argumentative Essay
  • Article Review
  • Assignment
  • Biography
  • Book/Movie Review
  • Business Plan
  • Case Study
  • Cause and Effect Essay
  • Classification Essay
  • Comparison Essay
  • Coursework
  • Creative Writing
  • Critical Thinking/Review
  • Deductive Essay
  • Definition Essay
  • Essay (Any Type)
  • Exploratory Essay
  • Expository Essay
  • Informal Essay
  • Literature Essay
  • Multiple Choice Question
  • Narrative Essay
  • Personal Essay
  • Persuasive Essay
  • Powerpoint Presentation
  • Reflective Writing
  • Research Essay
  • Response Essay
  • Scholarship Essay
  • Term Paper
We use cookies to provide you with the best possible experience. By using this website you are accepting the use of cookies mentioned in our Privacy Policy.