http://www.managementhelp.org/emp_perf/emp_perf.

htm
Performance Management in Hospitality
Vladimir Stojanovski May 29, 2! " #omments $%
&weet
in Share
0
Here are some of the ways that business intelligence and performance management can be applied
in the Hospitality sector.
'n meas(ring and managing the performan)e of organi*ations in the hospitality se)tor, key indi)ators
in)l(de maintaining and improving )(stomer satisfa)tion, loyalty and servi)e despite less staff, poor
training, and high t(rnover. +(rthermore, hospitality organi*ations have to deal with the )omple,ities
)oming o(t of diverse geographies, -rands and properties. .a)h property may have lodging, dining,
gaming, retail, rides, et), with its own /01s.
2hile the list th(s far seems )hallenging, it is made even more diffi)(lt d(e to all the fa)tors that
asymmetri)ally affe)t this se)tor, and whi)h are o(tside of their )ontrol, s()h as e)onomi) )y)les,
gas pri)es, and terrorism.
'n this environment, hospitality organi*ations )an in)rease )(stomer servi)e, satisfa)tion and loyalty
-y providing timely and )omprehensive )(stomer reporting. 3olling fore)asts )an improve
responsiveness to e)onomi) sho)ks, terrorism and other o(tside events. +(rthermore, operational
e,penses )an -e red()ed via monitoring, reporting, analysis and fore)asting of e,penses s()h as
wages and -enefits, o(tso(r)ing, et). 3even(es per 4verage 5ser )an also -e ma,imi*ed -y
providing pri)ing analysis a)ross )ompetitors, seasons, events, et).
4nd last $or perhaps first6% is improving marketing and promotional res(lts thro(gh promotions and
)(stomer analyses.
Performance management in hospitality industry
3elease: Mar 27 28 89::2 4(thor: Mem-ers View: 2:88: times Print
&he great majority of organi*ations today, in order to prosper or even to
s(rvive, are o-liged )onstantly to seek ways of improving their
performan)e. 'n some )ases this may -e merely thro(gh fine t(ning
e,isting performan)e. 'n other )ases it may involve f(ndamental )hanges to
poli)y, market positioning, o-je)tives, str()t(res, so(r)ing materials,
h(man reso(r)es and even organi*ational )(lt(re. Many different
approa)hes to a)hieving these ends are (sed -y organi*ations, with
greater or lesser effe)t. &hese in)l(de performan)e;related pay $/3/%
systems, performan)e management systems $/MS%, empowerment and
vario(s forms of management -y o-je)tives $M-<%. +ig(re 9.8 s(mmari*es
what many wo(ld )onsider to -e the essentials of effe)tive performan)e
management. =ow ea)h of these is dealt with will vary from one employer
to another. 'n some )ases staff will -e f(lly involved in de)isions. 'n other
)ases senior management take all the de)isions and )omm(ni)ate them to
s(pervisors and staff.
't )an readily -e seen that there are )onsistent linkages -etween the
fa)tors highlighted in +ig(re 9.8 and the defining )hara)teristi)s of =3M as
dis)(ssed in another. 'ndeed, one aspe)t )onsidered to -e an essential
element of =3M in )ontrast to earlier versions of the so;)alled personnel or
people management is its )on)entration on individ(al and organi*ational
performan)e. =ol-e)he is (ne>(ivo)al in s(pporting the notion, arg(ing
that =3 helps to implement high;performan)e work pra)ti)es, ?-y )reating a
)(lt(re whi)h is s(pportive of high performan)e . . . )ond()ive to
prod()tivity and >(ality improvement@ $28: 827%. She stresses the
importan)e of iss(es s()h as )omm(ni)ation -etween management and
staff, the tr(st fa)tor, and prod()tivity meas(rement. Aeardwell, =olden and
#laydon $2B% also point to performan)e management -eing a )r()ial
aspe)t of the ?=3M Mantra@, whi)h )onsists of )ohesive )(lt(res, flatter
str()t(res, a )(stomer fo)(s, prod()tivity thro(gh people and a strong
leadership. 2ith a planned and dire)t )orrelation to )ontingent pay and
rewards systems, performan)e management )an -e seen as a -ridge
-etween =3M and the a)hievement of strategi) goals of organi*ations.
Figure 7.1 Managing performance some key elements
Standards of performan)e for the manager and/or departments or f(n)tions
are esta-lished.
Standards of performan)e for individ(als and gro(ps are esta-lished.
/oli)ies, o-je)tives, targets and plans are )omm(ni)ated to appropriate
people.
'ndivid(als and teams are involved in work organi*ation and allo)ation, with
)lear targets, roles and responsi-ilities set.
4ppropriate h(man reso(r)es, in n(m-ers and skills, are made
availa-le.
3eso(r)es and s(pport are made availa-le to s(pport the a)hievement of
the poli)ies, o-je)tives, targets and plans.
/ro-lems and opport(nities are identified thro(gh proper )omm(ni)ation
and )ons(ltation.
'ndivid(al and gro(p training and development needs that mat)h the
employer@s, individ(als@ and gro(ps@ o-je)tives are esta-lished.
Monitoring and eval(ation systems are set (p and operated to provide
a))(rate and timely information on performan)e.
<pport(nities for individ(als and gro(ps to parti)ipate in their own
performan)e reviews are provided.
4ppropriate feed-a)k is provided and development plans are
reviewed.
#a(ses of )onfli)t and instan)es of a)t(al )onfli)t are identifed and
pro)ed(res are developed for their resol(tion.
1egal re>(irements are met s()h as the need for health and safety
)ons(ltation and grievan)e pro)ed(res.
4t the heart of performan)e management in pra)ti)e lies the need to eval(ate or
appraise the performan)e of the people )on)erned. .a)h time a s(pervisor praises,
)o(nsels or dis)iplines a s(-ordinate, some form of performan)e appraisal has
almost )ertainly taken pla)e. +rom time to time, however, it may -e)ome ne)essary
for a s(pervisor to get away from the h(rly-(rly of the workpla)e and to e,amine
o-je)tively the performan)e of his or her s(-ordinates. &he s(pervisor needs to do
this -e)a(se the employer sho(ld know the strengths and weaknesses of the
employees and -e)a(se employees need to know how they stand. &he s(pervisor
sho(ld e,amine ea)h employee@s performan)e against e,pe)tations and at the same
time )onsider the person@s potential as well. =e or she sho(ld then de)ide what
steps sho(ld -e taken in -oth the employer@s and the individ(al@s -est interests.
&his pro)ess has several titles -(t is )ommonly )alled ?performan)e appraisal@. &his
important pro)ed(re, often formali*ing the ongoing feed-a)k to the employee, is
normally )arried o(t ann(ally, tho(gh some )ompanies have felt the need for a
more reg(lar o))(rren)e.
&he #hartered 'nstit(te of /ersonnel and Cevelopment reported that performan)e
appraisals ?are a definite motivating fa)tor . . . with over DE of workers feeling positive
and only 88E feeling demotivated@ $.mployment Fews, Mar)h 899D%. 'n an earlier
p(-li)ation the 'nstit(te identified a n(m-er of different reasons why employers
review the performan)e of their employees $'nstit(te of /ersonnel Management, +a)t
Sheet Fo. 7, 89!!%. &hese are shown in +ig(re 9.2. +rom this it is apparent that performan)e
appraisal is aimed at improving performan)e -oth of the individ(al and of the
employing organi*ation. &his is a)hieved -y
8 identifying -oth individ(als@ and gro(p@s weaknesses and strengths so that
weaknesses )an -e )orre)ted and strengths developed and -(ilt (pon
2 identifying ea)h individ(al@s hopes and aspirations so that, where these do not
)onfli)t with the organi*ation@s o-je)tives, they )an -e satisfied.
+rom a properly )ond()ted appraisal programme an employer sho(ld o-tain the
following:
8 #ommitment to a ?performan)e )ontra)t@.
2 4n analysis of development needs whi)h ena-les individ(al )ompeten)ies to -e
e,tended and gro(p or employment )ategory training needs to -e identified.
7 4 s())ession plan and management development programme that earmark individ(als
for promotion and identify their parti)(lar development needs.
+ig(re 9.2 3easons for reviewing performan)e $E of respondents%
So(r)e: '/M +a)t Sheet Fo. 7 $89!!%.
B 4 reasona-ly o-je)tive -asis for allo)ating rewards.
: 'mproved )omm(ni)ations.
&he individ(al also -enefits -y knowing
8 how he or she stands and what help is to -e given to improve performan)e and
)ompeten)ies
2 what his or her )areer prospe)ts are.
&here are three main steps in )ond()ting appraisals )orre)tly:
8 =aving an (p;to;date and o-je)tive jo- des)ription, and performan)e targets or
performan)e )ontra)ts.
2 #omparing the person@s performan)e with the jo- des)ription and targets or
performan)e )ontra)ts.
7 #omm(ni)ating and dis)(ssing the s(pervisor@s and the person@s views regarding
his or her performan)e, and re)ording -oth the s(pervisor@s and the s(-ordinate@s
views $-(t see 7D;degree approa)hes -elow%.
Go- des)riptions have -een dis)(ssed in another arti)leH it now -e)omes apparent
why they sho(ld )ontain as many o-je)tive, meas(ra-le items as possi-leH for
e,ample, if the word ?satisfa)tory@ is (sed, s(perior and s(-ordinate may interpret
the word differently. <n the other hand, if an o-je)tive term s()h as ?DE gross
profit@ is (sed, neither person )an disp(te the interpretation of this fig(re so long
as ea)h is )lear a-o(t what is in)l(ded in the )al)(lation. 'n )omparing a person@s
performan)e with his or her targets, therefore, it is ne)essary to -ring together as
m()h relevant information as possi-le, s()h as -(dgets, fore)asts and other
re)ords.
&he approa)h to appraisal
&here are many different approa)hes to appraisal -(t it is possi-le to divide
s)hemes into those )on)erned mainly with
I o(tp(ts, i.e. res(lts orientated
I inp(ts, i.e. jo- -ehavio(r or personality traitsJorientated
I a )om-ination of the two.
&he '/M $#'/C% +a)t Sheet Fo. 7 s(rvey referred to a-ove identified a n(m-er of
different approa)hes:
3es(lts;orientated D7E
Go- -ehavio(rJorientated :2E
/ersonality trait rating 29E
4lpha-eti)al/n(meri)al rating 2!E
Farrative J free essay 2E
#ontrolled writing BBE
+or)ed distri-(tion glo-al rating 8E
+rom the a-ove it is o-vio(s that there are many different approa)hes to assessmentH
as organi*ational types -e)ome more diverse, so do approa)hes to assessment. 'an
3o-erts $in Aeardwell and =olden, 8999% reports a n(m-er of different approa)hes,
whi)h in)l(de the following.
4-sol(te methods
'n s()h methods individ(als are assessed relative to an a-sol(te standard.
#omparative methods
I 3anking where-y individ(als are assessed and pla)ed in a hierar)hy (sing )ertain
)riteria as a -en)hmark.
I /aired )omparisons where-y ea)h individ(al is )ompared with ea)h other individ(al
(ntil everyone has -een )ompared with everyone else, from whi)h a ranking
s)ale may -e prod()ed.
I +or)ed distri-(tion where-y individ(als@ performan)es are ranked and then allo)ated
to some predetermined distri-(tion point.
#riti)al in)ident te)hni>(es
4ssessment is -ased (pon positive and negative -ehavio(r in the employee@s
performan)e.
3es(lts;orientated methods
4ssessment is -ased (pon res(lts and not (pon -ehavio(r.
/ratt and Aennett $899% des)ri-e three )ommonly (sed te)hni>(es for rating performan)e.
&he first is the ?linear r(le@, whi)h re>(ires the appraiser to pla)e a ti)k
along a n(meri)al s)ale or in a -o, to represent ratings for the )hara)teristi)s. &hey
point o(t the distin)tion that needs to -e made -etween meas(ring res(lts, s()h as
>(antity of work, and traits, s()h as relia-ility. &he se)ond te)hni>(e is known as
A43S $-ehavio(rally an)hored rating s)ale%. 'n this te)hni>(e people familiar with a
jo- sele)t appropriate aspe)ts of it and des)ri-e e,amples of -ehavio(r ranging
from ineffe)tive to effe)tive along a s)ale for ea)h aspe)t. 4n appraiser )an then
identify individ(al performan)e on the s)ale. &hird, /ratt and Aennett des)ri-e
M-<, whi)h is dis)(ssed in another arti)le.
Some s)hemes re>(ire the manager making the assessment to pla)e ti)ks in
graded -o,es, or to award letters, grades or points, as j(dged appropriate. &hey are
relatively easy to operate, -(t j(st how relia-le or fair they are is very de-ata-le.
&hey are parti)(larly diffi)(lt to (se for the assessment of (n>(antifia-le fa)tors
s()h as personality traits. &he Aritish /sy)hologi)al So)iety was reported to have
fo(nd that s()h s)hemes were less pop(lar -e)a(se of the diffi)(lties asso)iated
with them.
'n written assessment s)hemes m()h greater importan)e is atta)hed to a freely
written report. &hese types of s)hemes have the advantage of en)o(raging the manager
making the assessment to think -roadly rather than having to (se presele)ted
la-els.
&here are systems that )ompromise -etween these two e,treme types and whi)h
ask the manager to fill in -o,es and to write a -road statement as well. <ne s()h
s)heme is shown in simplified form as +ig(re 9.7.

vvv2ho sho(ld -e appraisedK
&hese days where appraisal s)hemes are operated, most managers and s(pervisors
are in)l(ded. &he '/M $#'/C% s(rvey showed the following parti)ipation -y per)entage
of those employed -y responding )ompanies:
Cire)tors $-oard level% :2E
Senior management 9E
Middle management 9DE
G(nior management 92E
+irst;line s(pervisor 9!E
#leri)al/se)retarial DDE
Skilled/semi;skilled 2BE
Lnowledge workers, e.g. those who provide professional, ::E
s)ientifi) and advisory servi)es
<thers, e.g. grad(ate trainees 9E
2ho appraisesK
4s organi*ations red()e the n(m-er of layers of management, as more organi*ations
adopt more fle,i-le hierar)hies and pra)ti)es s()h as matri, management, the
>(estion of who appraises -e)omes more diffi)(lt in some )ases. &raditionally a person@s
s(perior was responsi-le for assessing a person@s performan)e, (s(ally moderated
-y the assessor@s own s(perior and sometimes a personnel offi)er. &his has
-een modified -y the adoption -y many organi*ations of self;assessment methods
in whi)h a s(-ordinate has a role in assessing his or her own performan)e.
Fowadays it is in)reasingly )ommon for an employee@s peers and even s(-ordinates
$(pward appraisal% or )lients $like st(dents reporting on a tea)her@s performan)e%
to -e involved. 'n some )ases, o(tside agen)ies are also -eing (sed.
Most organi*ations in re)ent times have -een thro(gh f(ndamental )hanges: they
have -e)ome less hierar)hi)al, more fle,i-le and str()t(rally flatter. Methods of
eval(ating performan)e have, as a )onse>(en)e, had to )hange.
&he 7D;degree feed-a)k method
4))ording to a &owers /errin s(rvey, the (se of 7D;degree feed-a)k is on the
in)rease $reported in Management #ons(ltan)y, Septem-er 899!%. &he system sets o(t
to assess employees@ performan)e -ased on feed-a)k from a wide )ir)le of work
)onta)ts in)l(ding s(periors, s(-ordinates, peers, )(stomers and, in some )ases,
s(ppliers. &he s(rvey fo(nd that 9BE of firms (se it for training and management
development, 78E (se it to assess potential, 29E (se it for s())ession planning
and 87E for promotion. <ne of the reported advantages is that ?it )rosses the
)(lt(ral divide J the tool will work in any )o(ntry@ $Management #ons(ltan)y,
Septem-er 899!%.
&here is f(rther eviden)e in re)ent )ommentaries that 7D;degree appraisal te)hni>(es
are -eing (sed more widely $see 4rmstrong, 22%, parti)(larly regarding
-ehavio(ral aspe)ts s()h as )omm(ni)ation skills and teamwork )apa-ilities. 3o--ins
$2:% reports that following a s(rvey in the 5S4, 28E of 5S organi*ations are (tili*ing
7D;degree formats and that sophisti)ation of te)hni>(e is growing within )ons(ltan)ies.
More generally a linkage has -een esta-lished -etween s()h systems and the
in)reasing (sage of a -alan)ed s)ore)ard approa)h to management, strategy and performan)e
meas(rement. 'n this pro)ess, organi*ations set spe)ifi) o-je)tives or targets
$dire)tly related to overall strategy% for the -(siness and eval(ate performan)e against
these defined aims $Forton and Laplan, 8992%. &hese o-je)tives normally fall within a
matri, of fo(r key imperatives, s()h as finan)ial/shareholder val(e performan)e,
employee;fo)(sed elements, )(stomer;perspe)tive iss(es and, for e,ample, innovations
in prod()ts or servi)e delivery )on)epts/systems. 'ndivid(al performan)e targets
wo(ld therefore need to -e set and appraised with a dire)t linkage to these elements
of the -alan)ed s)ore)ard. &his approa)h has -een fo(nd to -e an important and s())essf(l
part of the performan)e management system of Marriott =otels, as reported in
a st(dy -y Millett $22%.@@@
&he appraisal interview
&he )r()ial aspe)t of appraisal is the )ond()t of the interview itself. Some managers
find that asking their s(-ordinates to e,amine and )omplete an appraisal report
themselves makes the sit(ation easier. &his is sometimes known as ?self;appraisal@
and ena-les a s(pervisor to st(dy -eforehand a person@s views )on)erning his or
her own performan)e. &his o-vio(sly means that the s(pervisor is -etter e>(ipped
to get the -est res(lts from the interview, as he or she knows where the person is
likely to -e most sensitive. 4t the same time, if the person has identified known
weaknesses, the s(pervisor )an )on)entrate on means of improvement and on the
f(t(re witho(t dwelling on short)omings and the past.
Some s)hemes are now going even f(rther and allow the appraisee to a)t(ally
design the -asis of the performan)e review J sele)ting what he or she thinks is relevant
to a review.
&he appraisal form
&he type of form (sed to re)ord the appraisal sho(ld -e in)idental to the interview
itself altho(gh a well;designed form )an help in preparing for and )ond()ting an
interview. 'n )ases where the form itself is of more importan)e than the interview,
the approa)h to the management of people is likely to -e me)hanisti). 't ena-les
employers to a)hieve some of their o-je)tives witho(t f(lly )onsidering the individ(al@s
own needs and aspirations.
&he )ontents of the form therefore sho(ld -e dependent (pon the p(rpose of the
appraisal s)heme and the nat(re of the approa)h. <ne )on)erned with ?inp(ts@
wo(ld in)l(de the following type of information:
8 personal details, e.g. name, length of servi)e, jo-
2 performan)e report )overing
I knowledge
I skill
I appli)ation
I initiative
I e,pression J written and spoken
I a-ility to plan and to organi*e
I a-ility to work with others
I a-ility to dire)t others
I spe)ifi) jo- targets or o-je)tives and the meas(re of a)hievements.
7 training needs in present jo-
B potential
: training or development needs if promota-le
D general salary re)ommendation
9 employee@s )omments.
<ne )on)erned with ?o(tp(ts@, on the other hand, wo(ld -e more likely to look like
+ig(re 7.9, a typi)al M-< format.
4ppraisal styles
/ryor and Mayo s(ggest that there are si, styles on a )ontin((m )onsisting of dominating,
telling, advising, joint, self;assessment and a-di)ating. &hese relate to the
intera)tion -etween the appraiser and the appraised and )an -e seen on the
appraisal intera)tion model in +ig(re 9.B.
.ffe)tive appraisal interviews J some tips
4s with sele)tion interviewing, appraisal interviewing is a skilled te)hni>(e and
those responsi-le for )ond()ting these interviews need training and pra)ti)e, along
with the a-ility to e,amine and )riti)i*e their own performan)e. =ere are some (sef(l
r(les to follow:
)f)
Co
8 /lan the interview -y o-taining all ne)essary information and -y giving the person
to -e interviewed prior noti)e of the interview and its p(rpose.
2 3emem-er that interviews are a means of two;way )omm(ni)ation and that the
-est interviewers do little talking themselves.
7 S(spend phone )alls and other interr(ptions and allow plenty of time for the
interview.@
http://www.hotelmule.com/management/batch.download.php?aid=2988
+ig(re 9.B 4ppraisal styles
So(r)e: /ersonnel Management, G(ne 89!:.
B /(t the interviewee at ease and try to make the o))asion an informal one. +or
e,ample, avoid having the desk -etween yo(rself and the interviewee.
: Make the interviewee feel that the main p(rpose of the interview is to -enefit him
or her.
D Start -y praising strong points. 3emem-er a person@s ego and that any s(-se>(ent
)riti)ism will -e reje)ted as (nfair or even (ntr(e (nless the -alan)e is
maintained -y a)knowledging good points.
9 4sk the interviewee their reasons for any short)omings and ask for s(ggestions
for improvement.
! +inish the interview firmly on a positive note -y reiterating what performan)e
has -een agreed and what assistan)e the employee )an e,pe)t in the form of
training or other help.
9 3emem-er always that giving a person a poor appraisal )an -e a refle)tion on the
manager@s own a-ility.
Con@t
8 r(sh the interview. 't is one of the most important o))asions in a person@s working
year.
2 prej(dge the o(t)ome of the interviewH and therefore don@t finali*e the form (ntil
afterwards.
7 read o(t the printed form. Mo(r appraisal sho(ld )ome over in yo(r own words.
B prea)h or -e pompo(s. &his is an o))asion to dis)(ss how a person@s performan)e
targets may -e a)hieved.
Salary reviews and performan)e appraisal
&here is )onstant de-ate among =3 spe)ialists as to whether salary reviews and
proposals sho(ld -e part of performan)e appraisal systems. &he '/M 89!! s(rvey
showed that BE of employers (sed performan)e appraisal for salary p(rposes.
&he '/C 899D s(rvey reported that less than one third of appraisees had their
appraisal linked to their pay. &his s(ggests there has -een a red()tion in the n(m-er
of )ompanies dire)tly linking pay to appraisals. &he de-ate, however, is -o(nd
to )ontin(e -e)a(se, after all, it wo(ld -e manifestly (nfair if poor performers were
rewarded to the same level as e,emplary performers. More re)ently, nota-le management
)ons(ltan)ies s()h as M)Linsey and =ay have )ertainly promoted the
line of dire)t relationship -etween performan)e and pay. &his approa)h is in line
with the )on)ept(al models of =3M whi)h )onsider that there is a ?-(ndle@ of
=3M pra)ti)es, in)l(ding performan)e management and reward systems for
e,ample, whi)h will lead to performan)e enhan)ement, the so;)alled normative
perspe)tive $see N(est, 8999%.
Small organi*ations
'n the smallest organi*ations, with no more than a few employees, a formal approa)h
may -e (nne)essary and )o(ld even disr(pt some healthy s(periorJs(-ordinate
relationships. .ven so, employees with potential and prospe)ts sho(ld -e told of this
so that they will -e less likely to go to another employer for advan)ement.
4ppraisal is one of the most personal and potentially (nsettling sit(ations that
o))(rs in a working person@s life. 't )an -e, after all, an e,amination and j(dgement
of their main role in life and )onse>(ently it )an -e very damaging to the ego. 't
m(st therefore -e positive, )onstr()tive and helpf(l. 't sho(ld not -e an o))asion for
apportioning -lame or responsi-ility for past short)omings or fail(res. 'f these are
dis)(ssed, they sho(ld -e (sed as e,amples to ill(strate points from whi)h -oth
sides )an learn in order to take steps to -(ild for the f(t(re. 4ppraisal m(st -e )reative
and m(st res(lt in new o-je)tives and in agreement on the means -y whi)h
these o-je)tives )an -e a)hieved.@
+(rther 3eading and 3eferen)es
4rmstrong, M. $8999% 4 =and-ook of =(man 3eso(r)e Management, 9th edn, 1ondon: Logan
/age.
4rmstrong, M. $22% .mployee 3eward, 1ondon: #'/C /(-li)ations.
Aeardwell, '. and =olden, 1. $8999% =(man 3eso(r)e Management, 2nd edn, 1ondon: /itman.
Aeardwell, '., =olden, 1. and #laydon, &. $2B% =(man 3eso(r)es ManagementO4
#ontemporary 4pproa)h, Bth edn, =arlow: /renti)e =all.
N(est, C. $8999% =(man reso(r)e management and performan)e: 4 review and resear)h
agenda, in 'nternational Go(rnal of =(man 3eso(r)e Management, Vol. !, Fo. 7, 2D7J29.
=ol-e)he, 1. $28% 4ligning =(man 3eso(r)es and A(siness Strategy, <,ford: A(tterworth;
=einemann.
=ospitality &raining +o(ndation $899!% FVP Managing /eople, 1ondon: =&+.
'nstit(te of /ersonnel Management $#'/C% $89!!% +a)t Sheet Fo. 7, 2im-ledon: #'/C.
Gones, /. and 1o)kwood, 4. $89!9% &he Management of =otel <perations, 1ondon: #assell.
Millett, A. $22% /erforman)e management in international hospitality and to(rism, in
C@4nn(n*io;Nreen, F., Ma,well, N. and 2atson, S. $eds% =(man 3eso(r)e ManagementO
'nternational /erspe)tives in =ospitality and &o(rism, 1ondon: #ontin((m.
Forton, C. and Laplan, 3. $8992% &he -alan)ed s)ore)ard: Meas(res that drive performan)e, in
=arvard A(siness 3eview, Gan./+e-., 98J99.
/ratt, L. G. and Aennett, S. #. $899% .lements of /ersonnel Management, Bth edn, 2okingham:
N...
/(gh, C. S. and =i)kson, C. G. $8999% 2riters on <rgani*ations, :th edn, 1ondon: /eng(in.
3o--ins, S. $2:% <rgani*ational Aehavio(r, 88th edn, Few Gersey: /earson .d()ation 'n).
Sisson, L. $ed.% $89!9% /ersonnel Management in Aritain, <,ford: Ala)kwell.
&orrington, C., =all, 1. and &aylor, S. $22% =(man 3eso(r)e Management, :th edn, =arlow:
/earson .d()ation.
Performance management and performance appraisal-hospitality industry
3elease: Ce) 7 2! 22:: 4(thor: #hina=otelier View: 2!79B times Print
'n )onsidering the nat(re of performan)e management and performan)e
appraisal
we firstly need to appre)iate how these two aspe)ts are related -(t e>(ally
sho(ld
not -e seen synonymo(sly. 'n fairly simple terms performan)e
management )an
-e seen as a holisti) pro)ess whi)h aims to -ring together a n(m-er of
aspe)ts,
in)l(ding appraisal. &h(s, performan)e management may -e tho(ght of as
-eing
more strategi) in its intent to a)hieve high levels of organi*ational
performan)e. Ay
)ontrast, performan)e appraisal is -est seen as -eing more operationally
fo)(sed,
with a fo)(s on individ(al employees short; to medi(m;term performan)e
and
development $#'/C, 2:a%. #onse>(ently, to f(lly )onte,t(ali*e the notion
of per;
forman)e appraisal it is important to lo)ate it within wider iss(es )on)erned
with
performan)e management systems $/MS% whi)h may have an
organi*ational, team
or individ(al fo)(s. 4rmstrong $28: BD9% s(ggests that performan)e
management
has a n(m-er of aims:
/erforman)e management is a-o(t getting -etter res(lts from the organi*a;
tion, teams and individ(als -y (nderstanding and managing performan)e
within an agreed framework of planned goals, standards and )ompeting
re>(irements. 't is a pro)ess for esta-lishing shared (nderstanding a-o(t
what is to -e a)hieved, and an approa)h to managing and developing
people
in a way whi)h in)reases the pro-a-ility that it will -e a)hieved in the short
and long term. 't is owned and driven -y management.
#learly, then, organi*ations are always seeking improvements in their
perform;
an)e and these )an -e s(stained -y either development;type initiatives or
more
eval(ative or even p(nitive meas(res, potentially en)ompassing aspe)ts of
dis)ip;
line. 'n that sense performan)e management and performan)e appraisal
)an
arg(a-ly -e seen to again refle)t to some degree the notions of ?hard@ and
?soft@
=3M. +or e,ample, the harder approa)hes wo(ld point to the need for
organi*a;
tions and managers to seek )ontrol over their employeesH on the other
hand softer
approa)hes wo(ld point to the role of /MS in esta-lishing greater
)ommitment
and developing )areers. 3e)ogni*ing the a-ove dis)(ssion this arti)le will
aim to
)onsider the >(estion of what options are open to an organi*ation seeking
to
improve the performan)e of its employees.
&he nat(re of performan)e management and
performan)e appraisal
3e)ent resear)h (ndertaken -y the #'/C provides a snapshot of a n(m-er
of fea;
t(res of performan)e management, as o(tlined in &a-le !.8.
#learly one of the most important aspe)ts of enhan)ing performan)e is per;
forman)e appraisal, whi)h is a )riti)al element of performan)e
management and a
key feat(re of organi*ational life. 4s Aa)h $2:: 2!9% notes, ?performan)e
appraisals
have -e)ome far more than j(st an ann(al rit(al and are viewed as a key
lever to
enhan)e organi*ational performan)e@. /erforman)e appraisal is defined -y
=eery
and Foon $28: 9% as, ?Q the pro)ess of eval(ating the performan)e and
assessing
&a-le !.8 +eat(res of performan)e management
+eat(re /er)entage
'ndivid(al ann(al appraisal D:
<-je)tive setting and review D2
/ersonal development plans
D2
#areer management and/or s())ession planning 79
#oa)hing and/or mentoring
7D
#ompeten)e assessment 78
/erforman)e related pay 78
Self;appraisal 7
&wi)e yearly/-iann(al appraisal 29
#ontin(o(s assessment 8B
7D;degree appraisal 8B
S(-ordinate feed-a)k 88
3olling appraisal 8
/eer appraisal !
#ompeten)e related pay 9
&eam appraisal D
#ontri-(tion related pay B
&eam pay 7
So(r)e: &his material is taken from Managing /erforman)e: /erforman)e
Management in 4)tion -y 4rmstrong, M. and Aaron, 4., 2nd edition $2:%,
with
the permission of the p(-lisher, the #hartered 'nstit(te of /ersonnel and
Cevelopment, 1ondon.
the development/training needs of an employee@. 13C $8999: 7% similarly
note
how performan)e appraisal is, ?4 pro)ess of reviewing individ(al
performan)es
against pre;determined )riteria or o-je)tives, involving the gathering of
informa;
tion, one or more meetings and some form of report whi)h may in)l(de a
per;
forman)e rating@. 'n s(m, then, appraisal is a pro)ess that allows for an
individ(al
employee@s overall )apa-ilities and potential to -e assessed for the
p(rposes of
improving their performan)e.
4 re)ent s(rvey -y '3S $2:a% s(ggests that over 9 per )ent of workpla)es
have some form of performan)e appraisal, (s(ally a )onventional top;down
appraisal system. Moreover there has -een a shift in re)ent years whi)h have seen
more and more organi*ational mem-ers s(-je)t to s()h appraisal, whi)h had trad;
itionally -een geared more to managerial staff. #learly given the skills mi, whi)h
was dis)(ssed in arti)le B, whi)h points to a predominan)e of semi and (nskilled
workers in to(rism and hospitality, there may well -e a >(estioning of whether it
is worthwhile appraising s()h workers, espe)ially (nskilled workers, as these jo-s
are likely to involve little te)hni)al e,pertise. +or e,ample, notwithstanding the
earlier point a-o(t more organi*ational mem-ers -eing appraised, '3S $8999% s(g;
gested that less than a >(arter of organi*ations a)ross the e)onomy as a whole s(r;
veyed semi or (nskilled workers. 'f these employees are to -e appraised some
diffi)(lties may -e en)o(ntered in attempting to esta-lish readily o-serva-le stand;
ards and )riteria -y whi)h performan)e )an -e meas(red. &here may also -e the
additional iss(e in to(rism and hospitality of the predominan)e of small; and
medi(m;si*ed enterprises. Noldsmith et al. $8999% note that appraisal is (nlikely to
-e something that is realisti) for a small family;)on)ern type -(siness or a single
person operation. #onse>(ently they advo)ate that appraisal has )ertain min;
im(m re>(isites or parameters, in)l(ding $p. 8D:%:
R the e>(ivalent of at least 2 f(ll;time non;managerial employeesH
R a minim(m of one layer of professional management -etween the organi*ation@s
proprietor and operative staffH
R some eviden)e of departmentali*ation where individ(al departments have their
own heads or s(pervisors.
Niven the a-ove dis)(ssion it might seem reasona-le to imagine that appraisal is
less likely to -e a part of a systemati) approa)h to =3M in to(rism and hospitality.
=owever, the eviden)e seems to s(ggest that the opposite may in fa)t -e tr(e. +or
e,ample, 1()as $2B% in her interrogation of the 2orkpla)e .mployee 3elations
S(rvey data, fo(nd that !: per )ent of managers in the hospitality and to(rism
ind(stry had responsi-ility for performan)e appraisal. 'nterestingly, 1()as also
fo(nd that performan)e appraisal is more likely to -e (sed in the hospitality
ind(stry )ompared to all private se)tor servi)e organi*ations. Similarly, =o>(e
$8999% fo(nd that !9 per )ent of the 272 hotels he s(rveyed reg(larly (sed appraisal,
)ompared to D2 per )ent of similar si*ed esta-lishments in man(fa)t(ring. 2oods
et al. $899!% also fo(nd a high in)iden)e of appraisal within the 5S. 'n a s(rvey of
8 hotels )overing all geographi) areas, all types of market segment, ownership
type, si*e and n(m-er of employees 2oods et al. fo(nd that two;thirds of his sam;
ple had an ann(al appraisal. #learly appraisal then is a signifi)ant part of -roader
=3M )on)erns in hospitality and to(rism and we )an now go on to )onsider some
of the )hallenges fa)ing managers in operationali*ing appraisal s)hemes.
4ppraisal in pra)ti)e
&o -egin to assess the impa)t of performan)e appraisal we sho(ld start with a sim;
ple >(estion: 2hy sho(ld organi*ations appraise people at workK 4 range of writers
$see e.g. Aa)h, 2:H '3S, 2:a, -% s(ggest a n(m-er of reasons, in)l(ding:
R 4ppraisal )an -e an integral part of ens(ring that organi*ational mem-ers are
aware of what is e,pe)ted of them and )an th(s play an important part in so)ial;
i*ing organi*ational mem-ers to ?-(y in@ to the organi*ational )(lt(re. +or
e,ample, Nroes)hl and Coherty $22: :!% note how, ?'ts val(e as an organi*a;
tional so)iali*ation pro)ess is )losely asso)iated with organi*ational attempts
to manage S)(lt(reT, another essential element of the =3M approa)h to the
employment relationship@. 'ndeed, Aa)h $2:% notes that in)reasingly organ;
i*ations are now (sing performan)e management as a means to introd()e )(l;
t(ral )hanges in organi*ations.
R 'mprove )(rrent performan)e.
R /rovide feed-a)k: 2e all seek approval and )onformation that we are doing the
right thing, and we also like to advise or dire)t others on how they sho(ld do
things.
R 'n)rease motivation.
R 'dentify training and development needs.
R 'dentify potential.
R 1et individ(als know what is e,pe)ted of them.
R +o)(s on )areer development and s())ession planning.
R 4ward salary in)reases/performan)e related pay.
R .val(ate the effe)tiveness of the sele)tion pro)ess.
R Solve jo- pro-lems.
R Set o-je)tives: 5sing the SM43& mnemoni), spe)ifi) or stret)hing $define pre;
)isely what is re>(ired in )lear lang(age%, meas(ra-le $-oth >(antitatively and
>(alitatively%, a))epted $o-je)tives agreed and not imposed%, realisti) $a)hiev;
a-le and fairly allo)ated% and time;-o(nd $)lear target dates%. +or e,ample, in a
to(rism and hospitality )onte,t it might -e things like servers trying got
in)rease their sales per shift, )ham-ermaids )leaning more rooms, re)eptionists
attempting to -e)ome more skilled in information te)hnology, improving )om;
m(ni)ation skills or learning to speak a foreign lang(age.
'n reality, in most workpla)es staff are -eing )ontin(ally monitored and assessed -y
management in an informal manner. 'ndeed, 4#4S $2:: 2% s(ggest that, ?reg(lar
dialog(e -etween managers and their staff a-o(t work performan)e sho(ld, of
)o(rse, -e en)o(raged@. &hat said, the danger with s()h informality is that it is very
m()h dependent on individ(al managers and whether they are giving reg(lar feed;
-a)k. #onse>(ently, 4#4S f(rther note that an appraisal system )an develop a
greater degree of )onsisten)y -y ens(ring that managers and employees meet for;
mally and reg(larly to dis)(ss performan)e and potential. 2hat we are )on)erned to
e,amine in this arti)le is the formali*ed manner -y whi)h staff are assessed d(ring
performan)e appraisals. &hat is, the pro)ess of reviewing individ(al performan)e
against pre;determined )riteria or o-je)tives, involving the gathering of information
and one or more meetings on a >(arterly, D monthly or ann(al -asis, and prod()ing
some form of report whi)h is likely to in)l(de a performan)e rating. 4s des)ri-ed
a-ove performan)e appraisal )an -e seen in a fairly positive vein and (sef(l in terms
of things like raising morale, )larifying e,pe)tations, improving (pward and down;
ward )omm(ni)ation and so on $and see =3M in pra)ti)e !.8%.
3eview and refle)t
2hat are some of the likely diffi)(lties in appraising employees in to(rism and hospitalityK
=3M in pra)ti)e !.8 4ppraisal: Some
good news
3esear)h )ond()ted -y 4rmstrong and Aaron $2:% on -ehalf of the 'nstit(te of
/ersonnel and Cevelopment in the late 899s fo(nd that employees and managers
offered favo(ra-le rather than (nfavo(ra-le views on appraisal. Some of the )omments
from the resear)h in)l(ded:
?Mo( need appraisal to get the -est o(t of people and develop them.@
?'n a one;to;one meeting, people )an -ring things o(t to their s(pervisors who say
S'@ve never -een aware of that: why didn@t yo( tell (s -eforeKT &hat@s definitely an
advantage.@
?+or me, the real strength of the pro)ess lies in the )ontin(ing dialog(e and negoti;
ation as the year goes on.@
?Mo(@re one;to;one with yo(r -oss. Mo(@ve )hatted, and it wasn@t as if it was yo(r
-oss. 't was more rela,ed. =e wo(ld listen and then yo(@d )hat a-o(t it. ' enjoyed it.@
Cespite the a-ove dis)(ssion, whi)h points to why performan)e appraisal might
-e tho(ght of as a ?good@ thing, in reality there is m()h de-ate and )on)ern s(r;
ro(nding the notion of appraisal. +or e,ample, 2. .dwards Ceming, a leading
advo)ate of &PM, has s(ggested that appraisal is wrong in prin)iple and an inef;
fe)tive management philosophy, des)ri-ing it as a ?deadly disease@ $)ited in Aa)h,
2:%. Similarly, Stephen #ovey, the well;known management g(r(, has des)ri-ed
appraisal as a ?disg(sting ha-it@, o(tmoded and more s(ited for an ind(strial age
that no longer e,ists $)ited in '3S, 2:a%. 'ndeed, as long ago as 89:9 the famo(s
management theorist Co(glas M)Nregor, of &heory U and M fame, was s(ggesting
that appraisal is the most )ontentio(s and least pop(lar part of a manager@s jo-.
Managers dislike the pro)ess as they do not like ?playing Nod@, whi)h leads to a
j(dgemental and (ltimately de;motivating approa)h:
&he respe)t we hold for the inherent val(e of the individ(al leaves (s dis;
tressed when we m(st take responsi-ility for j(dging the personal worth of
a fellow man. Met the )onventional approa)h to performan)e appraisal for)es
(s, not only to make s()h j(dgements and to see them a)ted (pon, -(t also
to )omm(ni)ate them to those we have j(dged. Small wonder we resist6
$M)Nregor, 89:9: 9%.
=3M in pra)ti)e !.2 4ppraisal: Some
)ommon negative managerial tho(ghts
a-o(t appraisal
?2ell, here we go again, '@m s(re yo( don@t like this -(siness any more than ' do, so let@s
get on with it.@
?Fow, there@s nothing to worry a-o(t. 't@s >(ite painless and )o(ld -e (sef(l. So j(st
rela, and let me p(t a few >(estions to yo(.@
?' wonder if ' will end (p )onning yo( more than yo( will s())eed in )onning me.@
?3ight. 1et -attle )ommen)e6@
Managers may also regard appraisal as a waste of time and overly -(rea()rati)
and may also see it as a pro)ess that involves relatively high )osts in setting (p the
s)heme and training employees in (sing the s)heme $and see =3M in pra)ti)e !.2%.
'n part, some of these negative views of appraisal )o(ld potentially -e
addressed -y training for managers to ens(re that they are )lear of the importan)e of
appraisal. +or e,ample, '3S $2:a: 9% note that, ?if managers are not properly
trained and )ommitted to the appraisal system, the performan)e review )an -e)ome
j(st a paperwork e,er)ise, at -est, or J at worst J a harmf(l one@. &his view points to
the iss(e of whether appraisals per se are pro-lemati) or whether m()h of the pro-;
lem lies in )arrying o(t the appraisal, spe)ifi)ally whether appraisals are performed
poorly -y (ninterested or -adly trained managers. &raining, then, may help man;
agers to appre)iate the importan)e of appraisal within a -roader performan)e man;
agement approa)h and also the need to develop )oa)hing skills to fa)ilitate a more
developmental approa)h.
S()h training may -e appropriate in attempting to address some of the pro-lems
whi)h may plag(e appraisal s()h as $Aa)h, 2:H &orrington et al., 2:H '3S, 2:a%:
R /rej(di)e, for e,ample, se, or ra)e dis)rimination.
R S(-je)tivity and -ias, espe)ially with regard to rater -ias.
R 'ns(ffi)ient knowledge of the appraisee J so appraiser position is -ased on pos;
ition in hierar)hy, rather than any real knowledge of person@s jo-.
R &he ?halo@ and ?horns@ effe)t where managers rate employees on the -asis of their
personal relationships rather than -y o-je)tive meas(re of their )ompeten)ies and
a-ilities.
R &he pro-lem of )onte,t J the diffi)(lty of disting(ishing the work of appraisees
from the )onte,t in whi)h they work, espe)ially when there is a degree of )om;
parison with other appraisees.
R 2hat might -e termed the ?parado, of roles@ in terms of the )onflation of j(dge
and )o(nsellor $mentor% role whi)h )an lead to )onf(sion. +or e,ample, in the
shift from an eval(ative to a developmental approa)h managers have to man;
age s()h tensions.
R &he paperwork J overly -(rea()rati) and simply a-o(t form filling.
R &he formality J for -oth appraiser and appraisee it )an -e an (n)omforta-le
e,perien)e.
R <(t)omes are ignored.
R .veryone is ?average or j(st a-ove average@, for e,ample, managers may find it
diffi)(lt to give an employee a -ad rating as they wo(ld not want to j(stify the
)riti)isms in the performan)e review interview.
R 4ppraising the wrong feat(res J too m()h stress on easily identifia-le things
like timekeeping, looking -(sy, -eing pleasant and so on.
R ?3e)en)y -ias@ leading to a tenden)y to -ase appraisals on the re)ent past, regard;
less of how representative it is of performan)e over the )o(rse of the previo(s
year.
'n many respe)ts the a-ove iss(es refle)t what Aa)h $2:% )alls the ?orthodo, )ri;
ti>(e@, wherein many of the pro-lems a-ove )o(ld potentially -e addressed -y
seeking to remedy the imperfe)tions in the design and implementation of the
appraisal system or -y improving managerial training in )ond()ting appraisals.
+or some tho(gh there may well -e m()h more f(ndamental )riti)isms to -e made
a-o(t the pro)ess of appraisal.
Aa)h $2:% notes the emergen)e of more )riti)al a))o(nts of appraisal, in par;
ti)(lar re)ogni*ing how, ?(nitary ass(mptions a-o(t the -enevolent p(rposes of
appraisal are repla)ed -y a more radi)al ideology )on)erned to e,amine managerial
o-je)tives, espe)ially tighter )ontrol over -ehavio(r and performan)e, the potential
to individ(ali*e the employment relationship and the s)ope for managers to (se
appraisal as a veneer to legitimate informal management@ $p. 7:%. +or e,ample,
many of the )riti)isms, drawing on the work of +o()a(lt, see appraisal as inherently
sinister and a-o(t aiming to )ontrol all aspe)ts of employee -ehavio(r and eliminat;
ing s)ope for employee resistan)e, so appraisal is simply a-o(t -olstering man;
agerial power and )ontrolH a point that is similar to some of the )riti)isms of
organi*ational )(lt(re o(tlined in arti)le 7. 'n s(m, Aa)h s(ggests that )riti)al
perspe)tives seek to highlight that it sho(ld not -e ass(med that )learer o-je)tives
and training of appraisers will ne)essarily yield satisfa)tory res(lts. #onse>(ently
it is important to re)ogni*e how, ?the )ontested nat(re of appraisal, the spe)ifi)
managerial o-je)tives so(ght, and the nat(re of the )onte,t in whi)h it is applied,
all have an important -earing on the impa)t of the appraisal pro)ess@ $p. 7D%.
&h(s, we )an appre)iate that appraisal is very m()h a )ontested iss(e, -oth )on;
)ept(ally and pra)ti)ally. .>(ally, tho(gh, as =oldsworth $8998: D:% rightly s(ggests,
?appraisal is a )omp(lsively fas)inating s(-je)t, f(ll of parado,es and loveJhate rela;
tionships. 4nd appraisal s)hemes are really )ontroversial Q Some s)hemes are pop(;
lar, with overtones of evangeli)al fervo(r, while others are at least e>(ally detested
and derided as the Sann(al rain dan)eT, Sthe end of term reportT, et).@ $and see =3M
in pra)ti)e !.7 for how a n(m-er of the iss(es dis)(ssed a-ove were played o(t
within 4F<, a +ren)h hotel )hain, whi)h introd()ed a new appraisal system%.
5ltimately, despite the de-ates s(rro(nding its (tility, appraisal is a fa)t of
organi*ational life, and as Aratton and Nold $27: 2:2% note, ?making j(dgements
a-o(t an employee@s )ontri-(tion, val(e/worth, )apa-ility and potential has to -e
)onsidered as a vital relationship with employees@. Moreover, as we noted a-ove
there may -e an arg(ment, rather like employment interviewing, to say that the
pro)ess in itself is not ne)essarily flawed, -(t the individ(als operationali*ing it
are ins(ffi)iently skilled.
3eview and refle)t
2hat are some of the skills likely to -e re>(ired -y managers in order to )ond()t a good
appraisalK
Niven the reality of performan)e appraisal -eing an inevita-le part of a manager@s
life we )an now look at the pra)ti)alities in appraising employees. 'n appraising
employees a n(m-er of writers have o(tlined two main perspe)tives the eval(;
ative and the developmental. 'n the former approa)h the main aim is to make a
j(dgement a-o(t an appraisees performan)e, with s()h a j(dgement -eing made
against aspe)ts s()h as the jo- des)ription and esta-lished o-je)tives, whi)h may
-e linked to e,trinsi) rewards. <ften this will also involve managers making rating
or ranking de)isions that differentiate -etween staff on the -asis of their relative
=3M in pra)ti)e !.7 &he rhetori) and reality
of appraisal in 4F< =otels
Nroes)hl and Coherty $22% report on the introd()tion of a new appraisal system in
4F<, whi)h is part of a +ren)h m(ltinational travel and to(rism gro(p and operates at
the three star level. 'n 899! a standardi*ed appraisal system was developed for the )om;
pany as a whole in order that it )o(ld -e implemented in all their -rands, in)l(ding 4F<.
&his attempt at standardi*ing appraisal was to ens(re that all employees a)ross the )om;
pany@s vario(s -rands wo(ld -e appraised against the same )riteria to ens(re a )onsistent
eval(ation of employee performan)e. &he new appraisal system was developed at the
)orporate head>(arters and the working gro(p whi)h developed the system initially
eval(ated the old system to identify weaknesses. <n)e this was done they then developed
s(ggestions and proposals for the new system, whi)h were then sent to regional man;
agement teams for their )omments and feed-a)k. &hese e,)hanges )ontin(ed for
D months -efore finally there was agreement on the standardi*ed )riteria and a n(m-er
of aims and o-je)tives. 4 key aim of the new system was to ens(re a -asis for planning
for a)tion, parti)(larly with regard to )areer progress. &he new appraisal system was an
e,ample of a development;oriented appraisal system and the appraisal format was )on;
sidered a formal and sophisti)ated do)(ment. .mployees were assessed with ratings
ranging from ?very good@ to ?ins(ffi)ient@ on 87 standardi*ed )ompeten)ies, in)l(ding
aptit(des and skills. 4ltho(gh the pro)ess of introd()ing a new appraisal system seemed
well planned and tho(ght o(t there was still some iss(es that emerged. +or e,ample,
some managers seemed (na-le to s(ffi)iently differentiate from day;to;day feed-a)k
with the formal appraisal pro)ess. 4ppraisers wo(ld also often -e in)onsistent in their
preparation for appraisal, failing to notify appraisees s(ffi)iently in advan)e or not filling
in the appraisal form )orre)tly. 4ppraisers wo(ld also often r(n appraisals in p(-li)
spa)es, s()h as -ars and resta(rants, whi)h r(ns )o(nter to the advi)e often offered in
te,t-ooks. 1astly, there was also signifi)ant varian)e in the appraisers style. Some
appraisers re)ogni*ed the developmental nat(re of the new system and developed an
advisory/s(pportive role in the appraisalH whilst others were m()h more j(dgemental and
a(thoritarian. 'n s(m, altho(gh 4F< had )lear o-je)tives, do)(mentation and g(ide;
lines, all of whi)h refle)ted good pra)ti)e =3M, the implementation proved rather tri)k;
ier. #loser monitoring of the pro)ess -y the =3 managers, or line managers with a strong
interest/involvement in =3M )o(ld have improved the sit(ation. .>(ally, the )ase seems
to point to the need to provide managers with the appropriate skills whi)h allows them
to take on more of a fa)ilitator or )oa)hing role in the appraisal pro)ess.
=3M in pra)ti)e !.B 4ppraisal talking
points: .val(ating or developingK
4s we have already noted there may -e some de-ate as to whether performan)e reviews
of appraisals sho(ld -e eval(ative or developmental. #onsider how yo( wo(ld respond
to the talking points -elow in assessing this )on(ndr(m.
&alking point 8
4s part of an appraisal pro)ess yo( want to tell a mem-er of staff in yo(r travel agen)y
that yo( feel as tho(gh they la)k initiative and that this is severely hindering their per;
forman)e in their front;line jo-. =ow do yo( approa)h this iss(eK
&alking point 2
Sho(ld appraisal -e linked to payK
&alking point 7
Sho(ld appraisal look forwards or -a)kwardsK
performan)e. <n other hand, developmental approa)hes are likely to have a differ;
ent premise, where the appraiser and appraisee aim to dis)(ss the progress, hopes
and fears of the appraisee in a m(t(ally s(pportive atmosphere and where the
(ltimate aim is on developing performan)e -y -(ilding on employees strengths
$and see =3M in pra)ti)e !.B%.
'n reality, within any given organi*ational setting there may not -e s()h an
a-sol(te and )lear )(t distin)tion and their may -e elements of -oth eval(ative
and developmental approa)hes, s()h that the p(rpose of performan)e appraisal
has tended to os)illate -etween )on)erns a-o(t short;term performan)e to a more
developmental orientation. 4ppraisal has also -een (sed as a dis)iplinary tool -y
some organi*ations, with poor performan)e -eing something that appraisals sys;
tems have so(ght to address, a point to whi)h we will ret(rn later. 4s we have
already noted a-ove tho(gh the )hara)ter and emphasis of appraisal has in)reas;
ingly )hanged in re)ent years. +or e,ample, Aa)h $2:: 298% notes how:
C(ring the 899s there was a shift from almost e,)l(sive emphasis on reward
driven systems, -ased on individ(al performan)e related pay and >(antifi;
a-le o-je)tives, towards more ro(nded systems of performan)e management
with a stronger developmental fo)(s.
=3M in pra)ti)e !.: &he (se of A43S in the
4meri)an hotel ind(stry
A43S aims to eval(ate managers@ a)tions. 5m-reit et al. $89!D% developed a A43S format
to eval(ate what hotel managers do in their jo-s (sing seven rating s)ales for a n(m-er
of key aspe)ts of jo- performan)e. &he aspe)ts of jo- performan)e were: )omm(ni)a;
tion skills, handling g(est )omplaints and promoting g(est relations, developing market;
ing strategies and monitoring sales programmes, motivating and modifying employee
-ehavio(r, implementing poli)y, making de)isions, and delegating responsi-ilities, moni;
toring operations and maintaining prod()t >(ality and handling personnel responsi-il;
ities. +or e,ample, with regard to )omm(ni)ation skills, at the top of the s)ale at 9 is a
manager who )omm(ni)ates effe)tively -y for e,ample )alling a meeting to e,plain why
the hotel will -e )(tting staff. 'n the middle is a manager who )omm(ni)ates satisfa)tor;
ily -etween B and :, for e,ample, a manager who meets with several employees on)e a
week for an informal talk a-o(t the hotel@s a)tivities. 1astly, at the -ottom is a manager
who e,perien)es diffi)(lties in )omm(ni)ating with staff at 8J2, for e,ample, d(ring an
e,e)(tive meeting a manager who dismisses a s(-ordinates )omments as st(pid.
So(r)e: 2oods et al. $899!%.
2e will )onsider this point in d(e )o(rse. =owever, it is important to re)ogni*e
that many appraisal systems will still retain attempts to meas(re performan)e,
often (sing a variety of te)hni>(es. +or e,ample, 2oods et al. $899!% fo(nd that
hotels in their s(rvey (sed one or more of fo(r approa)hes, these -eing manage;
ment -y o-je)tive $MA<% $B! per )ent%, -ehavio(rally an)hored rating s)ales $A43S%
$B8 per )ent%, narrative essay $79 per )ent% and graphi) rating s)ale $2! per )ent%.
<ther methods whi)h organi*ations may (se in)l(de performan)e standards and
mat)hing performan)e against jo- des)riptions, rating an employee -ased on a s)ale,
whi)h may for e,ample range from ?o(tstanding@ to ?(na))epta-le@ and )riti)al
in)idents $and see also =3M in pra)ti)e !.:%.
=3M in pra)ti)e !.: gives an indi)ation of the types of a)tivities whi)h may -e
assessed in j(dging the performan)e for managers in the to(rism and hospitality
ind(stry. #learly, in addition to these aspe)ts there may -e a range of other attri-;
(tes that )an -e (sed to meas(re the individ(al performan)e of an employee. +or
e,ample, #'/C $2:-% reporting on a s(rvey of over : organi*ations a)ross the
&a-le !.2 #riteria (sed to meas(re individ(al performan)e
3espondents $E%
Very 'mportant Fot very Fot (sed as a
'mportant 'mportant meas(re
#(stomer )are B: B 9 :
P(ality B9 BB 7 B
+le,i-ility 22 :D 87 B
#ompeten)e :7 B 7 2
Skills/learning targets 8! :9 8D B
A(siness awareness 89 :2 28 D
2orking relationships 7: :7 9 7
#ontri-(tion to team 7B :9 B 2
+inan)ial awareness 88 B9 2! 8
/rod()tivity 7B B9 9 D
4ligning personal 29 B! 8D B
o-je)tives with
organi*ational goals
4)hievement of o-je)tives :2 B2 7 8
So(r)e: &his material is taken from /erforman)e Management S(rvey 3eport -y #'/C $2:%, with
the
permission of the p(-lisher, the #hartered 'nstit(te of /ersonnel and Cevelopment, 1ondon.
e)onomy o(tline a n(m-er of )riteria and their relative importan)e to how organ;
i*ations meas(re individ(al performan)e, and these are )onsidered in &a-le !.2.
Similarly, 'CS $89!9, )ited in M)Lenna and Aee)h, 22% s(ggest a n(m-er of
performan)e fa)tors whi)h are likely to -e appraised, the most important -eing:
R Lnowledge, a-ility and skill on the jo-.
R 4ttit(de to work, e,pressed as enth(siasm, )ommitment and motivation.
R P(ality of work on a )onsistent -asis and attention to detail.
R Vol(me of prod()tive o(tp(t.
R 'ntera)tion, as e,emplified in )omm(ni)ation skills and a-ility to relate to
others in teams.
4s we noted a-ove tho(gh the fo)(s of appraisal is in)reasingly arg(ed to -e shifting
to one of a more developmental fo)(s. Niven that m()h of the dis)(ssion a-ove has
o(tlined an approa)h to appraisal whi)h is predominately top;down, there may -e
other approa)hes, whi)h may -e seen as less -iased and potentially offering greater
s)ope for development. Some of these other approa)hes are now -riefly dis)(ssed.
Self;appraisal: Aa)h $2:% notes the manner in whi)h the appraisal pro)ess in a
n(m-er of organi*ations in)reasingly e,pe)ts employees to take greater owner;
ship, ?with employees assigned greater responsi-ility for esta-lishing their own
performan)e goals and for o-taining feed-a)k on their performan)e@ $p. 297%. 2ith
self;appraisal, then, instead of employees@ -eing passive re)ipients of their line
manager@s appraisal they are in)reasingly involved via some form of self;assessment,
often -eing more )riti)al than if the manager )ond()ted the appraisal $M)Lenna
and Aee)h, 22%. 'n s()h an approa)h employees are in)reasingly e,pe)ted to take
the lead in the dis)(ssions J it sho(ld not j(st -e a )ase of downwards feed-a)k
from the line manager. 'ndeed, in some instan)es employees may draft their own
performan)e reviews, whi)h then forms the -asis for the dis)(ssion with their line
manager $'CS, 2:%.
/eer appraisal: +ellow team mem-ers, departmental )olleag(es or sele)ted indi;
vid(als with whom an individ(al has -een working provide the assessment of
performan)e.
5pward appraisal: Managers are appraised -y their staff $and see the dis)(ssion
of attit(de s(rveys in arti)le 8%.
#(stomer appraisal: 3edman $2D% notes the in)reasing importan)e of )(stomers
in the appraisal pro)ess, whi)h in part refle)ts the emergen)e and development of
&PM and )(stomer )are programmes. 4s he re)ogni*es, ?one impa)t of these initia;
tives is that organi*ations are now in)reasingly setting employee performan)e stand;
ards -ased (pon )(stomer )are indi)ators and appraising staff against these@ $p. 8D7%.
+or e,ample, 3edman notes how these )an -e -oth in terms of ?hard@ >(antifia-le
meas(res, s()h as whether a drink is delivered in a )ertain amo(nt of time in a
resta(rantH to ?soft@ meas(res, whi)h are more >(alitative, s()h as whether a warm
and friendly greeting is given -y staff in giving the )(stomer the drink. Moreover,
3edman notes the (se of servi)e g(arantees, ?whi)h involve the payment of )om;
pensatory moneys to )(stomers if the organi*ations do not rea)h the standards@
$p. 8D7%, whi)h again also means a greater (se of )(stomer data in appraisal ratings.
'n terms of the (se of )(stomer servi)e data and how it may -e (sed to appraise
employees, 3edman notes how it )an -e gathered -y a variety of means.
R #(stomer s(rveys: <rgani*ations are now -e)oming in)reasingly sophisti)ated
in the manner in whi)h they gather )(stomer feed-a)k, whi)h is gathered via a
n(m-er of means s()h as the (se of )(stomer )are )ards, telephone s(rveys,
interviews with )(stomers and postal s(rveys.
R 3ange of s(rveillan)e te)hni>(es: Managers may ?sample@ the servi)e en)o(nter.
+or e,ample, if a travel )ompany had a )all )entre managers )o(ld listen to
some of the )alls -etween )(stomers and the )all )entre operatives.
R ?Mystery@ or ?phantom@ shopper: Mystery shoppers o-serve and re)ord their e,peri;
en)e of the servi)e en)o(nter and report these findings -a)k to the organi*ation.
4ltho(gh this method may -e seen as rather )ontroversial J employees may
view the mystery shoppers as ?spies@ or ?snoopers@ and ind(lge in ?shopper
spotting@ J it is widely (sed in the to(rism and hospitality ind(stry. 3edman
arg(es that the )ontroversy s(rro(nding mystery shoppers may -e dissipated
to an e,tent if they are (sed primarily for en)o(raging and rewarding good per;
forman)e, rather than p(nishing staff for performing poorly.
3eview and refle)t
'f yo( have -een s(-je)t to any of the a-ove aspe)ts in yo(r working life in to(rism and
hospitality how did yo( feel a-o(t -eing assessed -y these meansK Cid yo( feel that it
gave a fair representation of yo(r performan)eK
#(stomer feed-a)k may -e (sed as a stand;alone aspe)t of performan)e manage;
ment, or may -e an integral part of 7D;degree feed-a)k.
M(lti;rater or 7D;degree feed-a)k: #'/C $2D% notes how 7D;degree feed-a)k has
-een in)reasingly talked a-o(t, if not ne)essarily widely (sed. /erforman)e data is
generated from a variety of so(r)es, whi)h )an in)l(de the person to whom the indi;
vid(al -eing assessed reports, people who report to them, peers $team )olleag(es or
others in the organi*ation%, and internal and e,ternal )(stomers. 't may also in)l(de
self;assessment and will often -e part of a self;development or management devel;
opment programme. 7D;degree feed-a)k is felt to provide a more ro(nded view of
people, with less -ias than if an assessment is )ond()ted -y one individ(al.
&he pra)ti)alities: the appraisal form and interview
Most /MS are likely to have a formal final performan)e review, where an individ;
(al employee is assessed against their o-je)tives $inp(ts and o(tp(ts%. &his review
is also likely to allow for a review of training and development needs. 2ith regard
to the pra)ti)alities of )ond()ting the review, it is likely that most )ompanies will
(se the appraisal form to str()t(re the dis)(ssion. 4#4S $2:% notes how most
performan)e appraisal forms sho(ld )ontain provision for:
R -asi) personal details, s()h as name, department, post, length of time in the jo-H
R jo- titleH
R jo- des)riptionH
R a detailed review of the individ(al@s performan)e against a set of jo- related
)riteriaH
R an overall performan)e ratingH
R general )omments -y a more senior managerH
R )omments -y the employeeH
R a plan for development and a)tion.
'n approa)hing the appraisal interview the dis)(ssion to date gives a sense of
some of the potential pitfalls that might -efall a manager in )ond()ting an
appraisal interview. &o an e,tent as well the nat(re and tone of the appraisal inter;
view will -e di)tated -y whether a s)heme is seeking a -roadly eval(ative
or developmental approa)h. &hat said, &orrington et al. $2:% in their review of
appraisal interviewing advo)ate the need to seek an approa)h whi)h is )on;
)erned with seeking joint approa)hes to enhan)e performan)e. 5nderpinning
s()h an approa)h is a pro-lem;solving style, whi)h is s(mmari*ed in the follow;
ing manner:
&he appraiser starts the interview -y en)o(raging the employee to identify
and dis)(ss pro-lem areas and then )onsider sol(tions. &he employee there;
fore plays an a)tive part in analysing pro-lems and s(ggesting sol(tions, and
the eval(ation of performan)e emerges from the dis)(ssion at the appraisal
interview, instead of -eing imposed -y the appraiser (pon the employee
$4nderson, 8997: 82, )ited in &orrington et al., 2:: 7B8%.
M()h of the a-ove dis)(ssion points to the need for managers to have the right
skillset that allows them to appraise wellH as well as (nderstanding how appraisal
fits in to the wider iss(e of performan)e management and organi*ational strategy
generally. 'n terms of pra)ti)al skills tho(gh there may -e aspe)ts s()h as asking
the right >(estions, the a-ility to -e a good listener and giving (sef(l feed-a)k. 'n
s(m, #'/C $2:a: B% offers a view on what ?good@ and ?-ad@ appraisals look like:
<n the one hand a ?good@ and )onstr()tive appraisal meeting is one in whi)h:
R 4ppraisees do most the talking.
R 4ppraisers listen a)tively to what they say.
R &here is s)ope for refle)tion and analysis.
R /erforman)e is analysed and not personality.
R &he whole period is reviewed and not j(st re)ent or isolated events.
R 4)hievement is re)ogni*ed and reinfor)ed.
R .nds positively with agreed a)tion plans.
<n the other hand a ?-ad@ appraisal meeting:
R +o)(ses on a )atalog(e of fail(res and omissions.
R 's )ontrolled -y the appraiser.
R .nds with disagreement -etween appraiser and appraisee.
Managing poor performan)e
<f )o(rse there is always the potential iss(e of how to manage poor performers and
a )lear rationale for the introd()tion of /MS is to seek to identify and address any
instan)es of poor performan)e. 'f a /MS is (nderpinned -y reg(lar meetings, feed;
-a)k and )oa)hing then these iss(es sho(ld -e pi)ked (p relatively >(i)kly.
<rgani*ations )an then attempt to address poor performan)e thro(gh some form of
improvement development programme, whi)h will often involve employees -eing
given e,tensive help in the form of training and )oa)hing. 4rmstrong $28: B!BJB!:%
s(ggests that there are five -asi) steps in handling performan)e pro-lems:
8 'dentify and agree the pro-lem thro(gh analysing feed-a)k and getting agree;
ment from the employee what the shortfall has -een.
2 .sta-lish the reason$s% for the shortfall and avoid )r(dely atta)hing -lame for
pro-lems in the jo-.
7 Ce)ide and agree on the a)tion re>(ired, whether it -e things like a )hange in
attit(de, -ehavio(r or improvements in )ertain skills or a-ilities.
B 3eso(r)e the a)tion -y providing )oa)hing, training and g(idan)e to ens(re that
)hanges )an -e made.
: Monitor and provide feed-a)k, whi)h may also in)l(de an element of self;
management in the learning pro)ess.
&h(s, as 'CS $2:: 9% notes, ?in this way, most poor performers will either improve to
a satisfa)tory level within a given times)ale or as a last resort wo(ld -e lia-le for dis;
missal (nder )apa-ility pro)ed(res@, an iss(e that is f(rther dis)(ssed in arti)le 82.
#on)l(sion
Cespite )on)erns performan)e appraisal remains a key part of organi*ational life.
<ften an integral part of a -roader /MS performan)e appraisals are a )r()ial, if rather
(nloved, part of a manager@s jo-. 2e re)ogni*ed in the arti)le how de-ates a-o(t
performan)e appraisal may not j(st refle)t f(ndamental )riti)isms -(t also more pro;
sai) iss(es, s()h as managers not having the ne)essary skillset to )ond()t appraisals
whi)h are more developmentally oriented in parti)(lar. Many of these iss(es are par;
ti)(larly prono(n)ed in the to(rism and hospitality se)tor where the predominan)e
of SM.s, the nat(re of the skills mi, in the ind(stry and diffi)(lties in j(dging ?softer@
and less >(antifia-le aspe)ts of performan)e may all mean that the development of a
systemati) approa)h to appraisal remains pro-lemati). Fevertheless eviden)e s(g;
gests that the majority of to(rism and hospitality organi*ations are seeking to
appraise their employees. Niven this reality it is important for organi*ations and
managers to re)ogni*e the )hallenges in )ond()ting positive appraisals. 3e)ognition
of these )hallenges and the skills needed to address them means that ?playing Nod@
may not -e >(ite so painf(l for managers as has often -een the )ase in the past.