LEGAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
Performance appraisal data as stated earlier, are used to make many important HR decisions (e.g. Pay, promotion, training, transfer and termination). The appraisal system is a common target of legal disputes by employees involving charges of unfairness and bias. An employee may seek the legal recourse to obtain relief from a discriminatory performance appraisal. One such case goes back to 1980s. In 1981, three junior employees of Williamsons Magor were promoted superseding 15 of their senior workmen. The basis for promotion was recommendations of the departmental heads and other authorities. The 15 workmen challenged the promotion to the three workmen in the Supreme Court and the court upheld the contention of the petitioners on the ground that he said recommendations of departmental heads and authorities were arbitrary and could not be the main basis for effecting promotions.
There are several recommendations 10 assist employees in conducting fair performance appraisal and avoiding legal suits. Gleaned from case laws, these recommendations are intended to be prescriptive measures that employers should take to develop fair and legally defensible performance appraisal systems.
1. Legally Defensible Appraisal Procedures
• All personnel decisions should be based on a formal standardized performance appraisal system.
• Any performance appraisal process should be uniform for all employees within a job group, and decisions based on those performance appraisals should he monitored for differences according o race, sex. national origin. Religion or age of the employees. While obtained differences as a function of these variables are not necessarily illegal. an organization will have more difficulty defending an appraisal system with ratings related to these variables.
• All specific performance standards should be formally communicated to employees.
• All employees should be able to review their appraisal results.
• There should be a formal appeal process for the rate to rebut rater judgments.
• All raters should be provided with written instructions and training on how to conduct appraisals properly to facilitate systematic, unbiased appraisals.
• All personnel decision-makers should be well informed of anti-discrimination laws.They should be made aware of the fine distinctions between legal and illegal activities regarding decisions based on appraisals.
2. Legally Defensible Appraisal Content
• Any performance appraisal content should be based on a job analysis.
• Appraisals based on traits should be avoided.
• Objectively verifiable performance data (e.g. sales, productivity, not ratings) should be used whenever possible.
• Constraints on an employee's performance that are beyond the employee's control should be prevented from influencing the appraisal to ensure that the employee has an equal opportunity to achieve any given performance level.
• Specific job-related performance dimensions should be used rather than global measures or single overall measures.
• The performance dimensions should be assigned weights to reflect their relative importance in calculating the composite performance score.
3. Legally Defensible Documentation of Appraisal Results
• A thoroughly written record of evidence leading to termination decisions should be maintained(e.g. performance appraisal and performance counseling to advise employees of performance deficit, and to assist poor performers in making needed improvements)
• Written documentation (e.g. specific behavioural examples) for extreme ratings should he required and they must be consistent with the numerical ratings.
• Documentation requirements should he consistent among the raters.
4. Legally Defensive Raters
• The raters should be trained in how to use an appraisal system
• The raters must have the opportunity to observe the ratee first hand or to review important ratee performance products
• Use of more than rater is desirable in order to lessen the amount of influence of any one rater and to reduce the effects of biases. Peers, subordinates, customers, and clients are possible sources.
Performance appraisal data as stated earlier, are used to make many important HR decisions (e.g. Pay, promotion, training, transfer and termination). The appraisal system is a common target of legal disputes by employees involving charges of unfairness and bias. An employee may seek the legal recourse to obtain relief from a discriminatory performance appraisal. One such case goes back to 1980s. In 1981, three junior employees of Williamsons Magor were promoted superseding 15 of their senior workmen. The basis for promotion was recommendations of the departmental heads and other authorities. The 15 workmen challenged the promotion to the three workmen in the Supreme Court and the court upheld the contention of the petitioners on the ground that he said recommendations of departmental heads and authorities were arbitrary and could not be the main basis for effecting promotions.
There are several recommendations 10 assist employees in conducting fair performance appraisal and avoiding legal suits. Gleaned from case laws, these recommendations are intended to be prescriptive measures that employers should take to develop fair and legally defensible performance appraisal systems.
1. Legally Defensible Appraisal Procedures
• All personnel decisions should be based on a formal standardized performance appraisal system.
• Any performance appraisal process should be uniform for all employees within a job group, and decisions based on those performance appraisals should he monitored for differences according o race, sex. national origin. Religion or age of the employees. While obtained differences as a function of these variables are not necessarily illegal. an organization will have more difficulty defending an appraisal system with ratings related to these variables.
• All specific performance standards should be formally communicated to employees.
• All employees should be able to review their appraisal results.
• There should be a formal appeal process for the rate to rebut rater judgments.
• All raters should be provided with written instructions and training on how to conduct appraisals properly to facilitate systematic, unbiased appraisals.
• All personnel decision-makers should be well informed of anti-discrimination laws.They should be made aware of the fine distinctions between legal and illegal activities regarding decisions based on appraisals.
2. Legally Defensible Appraisal Content
• Any performance appraisal content should be based on a job analysis.
• Appraisals based on traits should be avoided.
• Objectively verifiable performance data (e.g. sales, productivity, not ratings) should be used whenever possible.
• Constraints on an employee's performance that are beyond the employee's control should be prevented from influencing the appraisal to ensure that the employee has an equal opportunity to achieve any given performance level.
• Specific job-related performance dimensions should be used rather than global measures or single overall measures.
• The performance dimensions should be assigned weights to reflect their relative importance in calculating the composite performance score.
3. Legally Defensible Documentation of Appraisal Results
• A thoroughly written record of evidence leading to termination decisions should be maintained(e.g. performance appraisal and performance counseling to advise employees of performance deficit, and to assist poor performers in making needed improvements)
• Written documentation (e.g. specific behavioural examples) for extreme ratings should he required and they must be consistent with the numerical ratings.
• Documentation requirements should he consistent among the raters.
4. Legally Defensive Raters
• The raters should be trained in how to use an appraisal system
• The raters must have the opportunity to observe the ratee first hand or to review important ratee performance products
• Use of more than rater is desirable in order to lessen the amount of influence of any one rater and to reduce the effects of biases. Peers, subordinates, customers, and clients are possible sources.