Performance Management And Appraisal Medical Center This Hea

Performance Management And Appraisalmedial Centerthis Healthcare Orga

Performance Management and Appraisal MEDICAL CENTER This healthcare organization provides a wide array of services including inpatient services, transitional care services, and outpatient treatment and testing. A few years ago, the facility changed its performance appraisal methodology. It shifted from a subjective performance appraisal system to a more objective rating system that focused on the actions and behaviors of the employee. This shift can be considered as a good move because the use of behavior-based scales tends to overcome evaluation errors that plague more subjective evaluations. Employee evaluations in this organization were performed once a year.

The performance appraisal system was instituted in this healthcare organization as a four-step process: Step 1: The employee performs a self-appraisal first by completing an appraisal sheet and then submitting it to his or her supervisor. Employees generally welcome use of self-appraisal, and it tends to decrease defensiveness about the process. Step 2: The supervisor then responds to the same questions the employee had previously answered based on his or her perceptions and observations of the employee’s performance. Step 3: Finally, the supervisor and employee meet and discuss the ratings on the evaluation. Step 4: The results of the evaluation are intended to then be used as a guiding tool to determine the annual raise of the employee.

The questions in the performance evaluation questionnaire were divided into two sections. The first section was based on the overall organizational standards that had been set for the entire hospital. Areas addressed in this section include professionalism, efficiency, and quality of work, respect, and service. Every employee, full-time and part-time, has to complete this section of the performance appraisal. The second section of the appraisal consisted of various competencies for each individual position.

These competencies were specific to the tasks required to fulfill the duties of the individual in their respective positions. The competencies, varying greatly from position to position, were based strictly on duties required for that position. This is important, as having similarly situated employees evaluated on like criteria improves the consistency of the appraisal process. In this healthcare organization, both the employee and the supervisor were instructed on the evaluation instrument to rate the employee on each of the areas on the following scale: 0 = Not Applicable 1 = Does Not Meet Expectations 2 = Meets Expectations 3 = Exceeds Expectations This system was implemented to improve performance appraisals and make them more objective.

The use of the same evaluation form throughout the organization improved the consistency in the evaluation process. The healthcare organization also used some guidelines regarding what should be done if an employee obtained a certain score. Here is a brief description of the organization’s policies. If the person being rated received a mark of 1 or 3, then documentation had to be provided to justify that rating. Also, if the employee was given a rating of 1 by the supervisor, then some method of learning was to be designed to help the employee to achieve a level of meeting expectations. Following this, the employee was to be reevaluated in this area and was required to demonstrate abilities to meet expectations.

Paper For Above instruction

The shift from a subjective to an objective performance appraisal system within the healthcare organization marks a significant enhancement in the evaluation process of employee performance. This transition reflects a broader trend in human resource management aimed at increasing fairness, accuracy, and developmental utility of performance appraisals, essential for maintaining high standards of patient care and organizational efficiency.

Assessment of the Objectivity of the New System

Evaluating whether the new system is truly more objective requires an understanding of its core components. The organization implemented a behavior-based rating system, dividing evaluations into standardized sections with clearly defined criteria and rating scales. Use of structured, behaviorally anchored scales reduces subjectivity by focusing on observable actions rather than vague judgments or personal biases (Pulakos, 2004). Additionally, the organization mandates documentation for ratings at the extremes of the scale (1 and 3), which adds an evidential basis for evaluation and reduces potential bias or inaccuracies (DeNisi & Williams, 2018). Furthermore, the alignment of evaluation criteria across positions enhances consistency, which is a key feature of objective assessments.

Importance of Documentation for Certain Ratings

The requirement for documentation when employees receive ratings of 1 (Does Not Meet Expectations) or 3 (Exceeds Expectations) serves multiple purposes. Primarily, it ensures accountability and transparency, making evaluators justify their judgments with concrete examples. This process minimizes arbitrary or racially biased ratings, fostering fairness and credibility in the appraisal process (Cascio & Aguinis, 2008). For ratings of 1, documentation facilitates targeted developmental interventions, enabling supervisors to design specific learning plans to support employees in meeting organizational standards. For ratings of 3, documentation validates exceptional performance, which can be used as evidence for recognition and reward. Overall, documentation acts as a safeguard against subjective biases, reinforcing the integrity of performance evaluations.

Strengths of the New System

Several strengths emerge from this redesigned appraisal system. Firstly, the use of standardized forms and scoring scales creates a uniform framework that enhances consistency across departments and roles (Aguinis, 2009). This comparability ensures that performance evaluations are fair and equitable, which is vital in healthcare settings where high-quality patient care depends on staff performance. Secondly, incorporating self-appraisals fosters employee engagement and reflection, promoting a culture of continuous improvement (London, 2003). Thirdly, the focus on behaviors and competencies directly linked to job performance supports developmental feedback rather than mere performance ranking. This alignment with competency-based management enhances both individual growth and organizational effectiveness (Campbell & Hawley, 1997).

Weaknesses of the Process

Despite its strengths, the system also has potential weaknesses. One concern is that behavior-based ratings, while more objective, may oversimplify complex aspects of performance by reducing them to measurable actions, potentially neglecting broader contextual factors (DeNisi & Williams, 2018). Additionally, reliance on documentation and ratings may create a compliance-oriented culture where employees focus on meeting minimum expectations rather than intrinsic motivation or innovative performance. Moreover, the annual evaluation cycle may limit ongoing performance feedback, which is more effective in fostering continuous improvement and adjusting to dynamic healthcare environments (Arvey & Murphy, 1998). Finally, the process might become bureaucratic if documentation is overly emphasized, potentially leading to wasted administrative effort rather than meaningful development conversations.

Conclusion

Transitioning to an objective, behavior-based performance appraisal system in healthcare organizations offers notable advantages, such as increased consistency, fairness, and developmental alignment. The structured approach, combined with documentation requirements, strengthens accountability but must be carefully managed to avoid potential drawbacks like rigidity and bureaucratic inefficiencies. Ultimately, continuous refinement and integration of ongoing feedback mechanisms are recommended to sustain the system’s effectiveness and enhance employee development, which is critical in healthcare settings that demand high performance for optimal patient outcomes.

References

• Aguinis, H. (2009). Performance management. Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141-168.
• Campbell, J. P., & Hawley, J. (1997). Designing and using performance measures. Psychological Science, 8(6), 350-353.
• Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Staffing and performance management. Human Resource Management, 47(4), 735-755.
• DeNisi, A. S., & Williams, K. J. (2018). Performance appraisal and management. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 71-101.
• London, M. (2003). Employee development: Making the most of your talent. Kogan Page.
• Pulakos, E. D. (2004). Performance management: A framework for management practice. Human Resource Management, 43(3), 263-277.