DOCUMENT RESUME ED 391 541 IR 055 819 AUTHOR George, Verna ... · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 391 541 IR 055 819 AUTHOR George, Verna E. TITLE Performance Appraisal in an Academic Library:

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 391 541 IR 055 819

AUTHOR George, Verna E.

TITLE Performance Appraisal in an Academic Library: A CaseStudy.

PUB DATE 95

NOTE 17p.; In: Total Quality Management in AcademicLibraries: Initial Implementation Efforts.Proceedings from the International Conference on TQMand Academic Libraries (1st, Washington, DC, April20-22, 1994); see IR 055 811.

PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) Speeches/ConferencePapers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Academic Libraries; Case Studies; *Employee

Attitudes; Feedback; Foreign Countries; HigherEducation; Librarian Attitudes; Library Surveys;Organizational Change; *Personnel Evaluation;Professional Personnel; Questionnaires; *SelfEvaluation (Individuals); Staff Development; Tables(Data); *Total Quality Management; VocationalEvaluation

IDENTIFIERS Empowerment; *University of the West Indies(Jamaica);

ABSTRACT

Work Habits

Well-designed performance appraisals should provideemployees with feedback concerning their performance, serve as abasis for modifying behavior toward more effective work habits, andprovide managers with data which they can use to judge future jobassignments and compensation. Poorly-designed ones, used asshort-term control systems, can create fear and mistrust. Performanceappraisals can be very valuable, but they have been largely neglectedbecause of the time and effort needed for data collection. This paperdescribes changes made in the performance appraisal process at theMona (Jamaica) Campus of the University of the West Indies. The oldreview sys em included assessment by supervisors, review by acommittee of peers, and review by the Library Assessing Committee.The new appraisal process, in step with Total Quality management(TQM), begins with the assessee submitting a form on which he hasidentified both his achievements and areas for improvement. Aquestionnaire was administered eliciting the responses ofprofessional staff members to both systems, and 15 of 22 werereturned. Survey responses indicated that staff were unclear aboutthe library's goals and their own duties. They disliked the perceivedsubjectivity of the appraisals, the limited scope for registeringdisagreements, and the emphasis on publications. As for the newprocess, respondents liked the idea of self-evaluation and liked the

form itself but were unhappy about not being asked to participate inits development. The new system may continue to work if used inconjunction with other TQM principles like direct communication,setting the right goals, empowerment and training. Survey data isappended in nine tables. (Contains 13 references.) (BEW)

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN AN ACADEMIC LIBRARY:ACASE STLTDY Mmca changes have been made to

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

I] Tins document has hoer, reproduced asreee,ved horn the person or organizationwajinating 0

Verna E. GeorgeUniversity of the West Indies

Performance appraisals are a necessarypart of an organization's quality controlprocess to ensure that customers get theservice they deserve (Kadushin in Pecoraand Austin, 1987:57). Well-designedperformance appraisals should

Provide employees with adequatefeedback concerning theirperformance;

Serve as a basis for modifying orchanging behavior toward moreeffective working habits; and

Provide managers with data whichthey can use to judge future jobassignments and compensation(Levinson, 1976).

They can provide "... a profile of theorganization in terms of its human resourcesstrengths and weaknesses, an inventory ofemployees' skills and experiences, and anevaluation of the firm's human resourcescapital" (Fombrun and Laud, 1987:33).

However, both managers and employeesare often uneasy about performanceappraisal. Some of this unease, accordingto McGregor (1987:5), is a function of theperception that conventional appraisalprocesses smack of product inspection andconflict with convictions about "the wofthand dignity of the human personality."Poorly designed appraisal systems may beused as a short-term control systems ratherthan long-term strategic sources ofinformation for phinrung (Fombnin andLaud, 1987:38), may be ineffective in

PERMISSION TO RE PRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Laura A. Rounds

t I 1 HE F Dtfi..A DONAL RLSOURC[ S'NI I IRMA NON (EN I E

improve reproduction quaaty

Pmnis 01 Viev. Or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representoarcral OERI position or pohcy

identifying work habits or behaviors thatneed to be changed, and will provide datathat are invalid for deciding on"promotability" or compensation. Suchsystems can create fear and mistrust,lowering employees' self-esteem andproductivity, and hindering the provision ofquality service.

Despite the importance of performanceappraisal, it has been neglected inmanagement practice. One reason is thatperformance appraisal is complex and: inthe early stages at least, the process requirestime and effort. Managers seeking toinstitute fair and efficient performanceappraisals will find themselves having tocontinuously consult, communicate, modify,and train. Another reason is that manymanagers do not collect data on how theperformance appraisal systems they useaffect their staff. Therefore, they areunaware of the importance of these systemsas a management tool.

The University of the West Indies (UWI)is an international institution serving 14different territories. Its three campuses arelocated at Cave Hill in Barbados, St.Augustine in Trinidad and Tobago, andMona. ;:o. Jamaica. Enrollment at theUniversity is over 14,000, with about 8500students registered at the Mona Campus forthe 1993/94 academic year.

The UWI Library is the chief informationresource center supporting research andteaching. The library at Mona holds some475,000 volumes and about 8000 currentperiodical titles. Its collections are dividedamong three locations: the Main Library,and the Science and Medical branch

2OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 141

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

libraries. The UWI Library at each campusis headed by a Campus Librarian. One ofthese is appointed as University Librarian,the administrative head of all three campuslibraries. The professional staff at Monacomprises the Campus Librarian, DeputyLibrarian, and 21 other librarians.

Past performance appraisal ofprofessional staff has been almostexclusively associated with the system ofstaff review for renewal of contract,promotion or indefinite tenure. This reviewsystem used at the university has been inoperation for a long time with some minormodifications. Recently, however, therehave been some changes in the appraisal ofcertain categories of university staff,including librarians. These changes have todo with how appraisals are carried out atthe departmental level and involve theintroduction of an appraisal form.

This paper will describe the reviewsystem, how performance appraisal wascarried out in the past, and the changesmade to the appraisal process at thedepartmental level. It will also presentfindings from a questionnaire survey on howlibrarians perceive the performanceappraisal process before and since the newperformance appraisal instrument has comeinto use. Based on the findings, the newperformance appraisal process will beevaluated using a framework based onTotal Quality Management (TQM).

THE REVIEW SYSTEMReview of librari ms is carried out

annually for all assistant librarians and, forother categories, when the person is beingconsidered for renewal of contract,promotion to a higher gradel, crossing amerit bar, or indefinite tenure.

Criteria for assessmentAccording to the University of the West

Indies Calendar, Vol. I: the Charter, Statutes

and Ordinances. 1984 (with amendments to1991), Ordinance 8.18 (iii.c), the criteria tobe used for review of librarians areprofessional competence, professionalexperience, professional activity,administrative ability, scholarship,contribution to university life, and publicservice.

These criteria have been expanded toprovide guidelines for assessing theperformance of professional staff. Forexample, professional competence includesthe elements performance of duties andinterpersonal skills. The followingstatements outline some of what is meantby interpersonal skills:

Works well with others, both colleaguesand users (ready to cooperate);

Has a positive influence on other membersof staff;

Flexibility/adaptability; and

Ability to accept and makesuggestions/criticisms in a harmoniousmanner.

The appraisal of a librarian for reviewpurposes was carried out as follows:

1. Assessment by supervisors. Thisincluded the librarian's immediatesupervisor as well as the Campus Librarianat each campus. The immediatesupervisor's assessment was based onobservation of the librarian over time, andguided by the university's criteria forassessment. In writing the report, thesupervisor developed "narrativeevaluations of the employee's workbehavior or job-related personality traits"(Pecora and Austin, 1987: 63). The reportwas sent under confidential cover to theCampus Librarian. The Campus Librarian's

142 ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES

report and recommendations were based onhis/her observations and incorporated thesupervisor's assessment. This documentwas submitted to the Library AssessingCommittee.

2. Review by a committee of peers. ThePeer Review Committee comprises sevenlibrarians, five of whom are elected by thestaff from among their peers. The other twomembers are the senior librarians who headthe Medical and Science branch libraries.The Committee, therefore, exdudes theCampus Librarian2 and the DeputyLibrarian qua Deputy.

The Peer Review Committee, under theleadership of its elected Chairman, assessedthe curriculum vitae, prepared by thelibrarian specifically for the review, anddiscussed the performance of each librarianup for review. The method tended to be asubjective one as defined by Howell andDipboye (quoted in Pecora and Austin,1987: 61). Assessment was based more onobservation of what people did, rather thanby examination of concrete outputs. Someattempt was made to relate the individualperformance to that of other librarians usinggroup norms. A report on the staff memberwas written. This report was signed byeach member of the Committee, signifyingagreement and then submitted, underconfidential cover, to the Campus Librarian.It was passed on to the Library AssessingCommittee.

3. The Library Assessing Committee.This committee comprises the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs(Chairman), two Deans, the Head of theDepartment of Library Studies, theUniversity Librarian, and one librarianelected by peers to serve on the committee.(The position on the committee is rotated ona regular basis among the three campuses).The Senior Assistant Registrar serves as

Secretary to the Committee. Each CampusLibrarian is invited to be present when thecases from his/her library are beingconsidered.

The Library . kssessing Committeereceived and revi !wed the followingdocumentation:

The librarian's curriculum vitae

The Peer Review Committee's report

The report of the Campus Librarian

Referees' reviews of the librarian'spublications.3

The recommendations of this committee,which may or may not have agreed withthose of the Campus Librarian, were sent tothe University Assessment and PromotionCommittee. Recommendations were madeat this level, and further submitted to theCampus Appointments Committee or theUniversity Appointments Committeedepending on the rank of the person beingassessed. While the University A & PCommittee "shall not be bound to givereasons for any decision, but may give suchreasons which shall be communicated inwriting to the member of staff to whom thedecision relates,"4 usually, the UniversityLibrarian was requested to speak toindividuals whose reviews were adverse.

THE NEW PERFORMANCE APPRAISALPROCESS

While the review system remainssubstantially the same, the new appraisalprocess which occurs at the departmentallevel reflects some important changes. Inthe new process, all librarians are evaluatedannually. The appraisal instrument nowbeing used allows for input by the memberof staff in his/her evaluation.

To start the assessment procedure, each

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 143

`i

assessee fills in a prescribed formidentifying:

Duties and responsibilities during theyear under review;

Any major achievements for whichhe/she was wholly or largelyresponsible;

Changes/improvements related tosystems at work or the university as awhole that the librarian has proposed;

Significant ad hoc assignments;

Areas of competence and/ordiscomfort with work;

Obstacles to performance; and

Proposed career path and trainingnecessary.

The supervisor then rates the assessee'sperformance within the framework of theuniversity's criteria previously outlined, ona scale of 1-5 for each criterion. Thesescores will provide a profile of theindividual's performance over three years,the normal contract period.

The supervisor's evaluation is discussedwith the assessee who confirms by signingthat this has been seen and discussed. Anylibrarian who wishes to dispute theevaluation can do so under separate cover.The form is then sent to the CampusLibrarian who adds comments.

THE STUDYA questionnaire eliciting the perceptions

librarians hold of the old and new processeswas administered to 22 members of theprofessional staff. Of this number, 15returned questionnaires.5 Given the smallsize of the population, the level of

significance was put at 0.10. Since therespondents were not randomly sampled,the views elicited are those of thepopulation responding and are notnecessarily those of the professional staff asa whole. However, some findings mayindicate trends, as the populationconstitutes about 68 percent of thelibrarians on staff.

While the research was largelydescriptive, the author felt that there mightbe differences in the perceptions of the oldand new processes based on a respondent'stenure, length of service, status and whethera respondent was a supervisor or not.Therefore, these were included asexplanatory variables.

Of 14 persons who provided relevantinformation, seven had tenure: one hadtenure for less than five years, four for five-ten years, and two more than ten years.6Length of service of the population varied.Eight persons had served ten years or less,and six over 15 years. Nine were AssistantLibrarians/Librarians III and five fell intothe group "Librarian II or above." Therewere five supervisors responsible forassessing subordinate professional membersof staff.

PERCEPTIONS OF THE OLD PROCESSTable 1 shows the level of agreement

with selected statements about the oldappraisal process.

The high level of agreement among therespondents is interesting. On nine of the12 statements, 12 or more persons sharedthe same view with unanimity on onestatement that the input of externalcustomers was not taken into consideration.Most respondents found that seine featuresregarded as "basic" to any appraisalprocess were lacking. Pecora and Austin(1987:71) state, "Both workers andsupervisors need to have a common 'vision'and understanding of the central purposes,


goals, functions, and philosophy of theorganization. This understanding forms thefoundation for both worker commitmentand clarity of job tasks to be performed."

As a group, the respondents wereunclear about the library's goals, as well astheir own duties and responsibilities. Onlythree persons felt that, under the oldprocess, the library's goals were clearlydefined and only two felt their own goalswere clearly identified. The findings suggestthat job requirements were somewhat fluidor vague. Further, mutually agreed uponperformance goals and standards are anecessary criterion of effective performanceappraisal (Morrisey in Pecora and Austin,1987:61-62). Yet, only one person foundthis criterion satisfied. If goals are notdefined clearly, duties not identifiedprecisely nor arrived at by consensus,performance of tasks is not likely to havebeen the main focus of appraisal.

Schneier, Baird, and Beatty (1987:258)suggest that, in an organization movingtowards quality service, all systems,including performance appraisal, must bealigned with the organization's mission.Thus, quality improvement objectives mustbe integrated into strategic and operatingplans and objectives, and incorporated intothe performance appraisal system. Six ofthe 15 respondents agreed that the input ofinternal customers was taken intoconsideration. However, according to therespondents, external customers were nottaken into consideration. TQM theoryinsists that not only should the needs ofboth groups of customer be defined, butalso that some assessment of the extent towhich these needs are satisfied directly orindirectly by each member of staff isnecessary.

Communication about the process waslacking, with only three persons agreeingthat feedback was provided voluntarily bysupervisors. This lack meant that the

primary aim of the former process was notthat of providing information to employeesregarding their performance, thus assistingthem to make modifications toward moreeffective behavior. Evidently, the processfunctioned more in regard to promotion,renewal of contracts and so on than interms of the development of staff. In fact,about half the respondents disagreed (some"strongly") that it contributed to individualor staff career development (Table 2).

On average, review took place onceevery three years. A majority of therespondents felt that this frequency wasadequate. However, had the performanceappraisal process been viewed as aperformance management tool rather thanas a tool for review and promotiondecisions, then both assessors andassessees should have felt the need for atleast an annual appraisal.

Kirkpatrick (1987:265) suggests that, inassessing appraisal systems, two questionsdeserve high ratings across the board,whatever the objectives, forms orprocedures used. These questions are: Dopeople know what's expected? and Do theyknow how well they are doing? In a systemunable to answer positively to these twoquestions, there may be "performancedeficiencies, and feelings of insecurity, andother problems."

Table 2, like Table 1, supports the viewthat the process was viewed negativelygenerally. The strongest feelings seemed tobe associated with

The perceived subjectivity of theprocess. As far as the respondentswere concerned, there was insufficientattention to setting clea.`y identifiedand mutually agreed performanceobjectives and standards (Table 1). Inthe face of this, respondents perceivedthat their assessment tended to besubjective.

6OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 145

The limited scope for registeringdisagreements. At the review level,an assessee can appeal if he/shedisagrees with a review decision. Theconditions for and process of appealare identified in the university'sordinances. However, there was noformalized procedure for registeringdisagreements with assessment at thedepartmental level.

The emphasis on publications.Publications is a requirement of theuniversity for all staff with academicstatus. No quantitative standardshave been set for publications thoughlibrarians are not expected to be asprolific as lecturers. In spite of this,there is some resistance to thisrequirement, expressed in thisperception of "overemphasis" by ninerespondents.

At first glance, the generally negativeperception of the old process could lead oneto conclude that, overwhelmingly, librarianswould have found it demotivating orgenerating insecurity or fear. On thecontrary, a majority of respondents did notfind it so. However, there were somerespondents who found the processdemotivating or fearful.

A peer review committee performs animportant function, not only in the reviewsystem but also in appraisal. According toEdwards and Sproull (1987:157), extensiveresearch shows that "... when manyindividuals rate an employee's performance,the consensus they reach is more reliable,credible, and defensible (and often lessbiased) than the supervisor's solejudgment." Also, the assessee should moreeasily accept the findings. Peer review mayalso provide an added perspective on howemployees perform as members of a team.For peer review to function satisfactorily,

however, the weighting given to itsrecommendations must be fully understood,and its findings communicated to theemployee. The former process did includereview by a librarian's peers but 11 personswere unsure whether the review wassatisfactory.

Respondents were asked to score boththe old and new processes on sevenconstructs normally associated with TQM.The marks were out of ten with ten being the"best" score. One-way analysis of variance(ANOVA) was used to see if there was anyassociation between mean scores and thepredictor variables identified earlier. It wassoon apparent that there was a high degreeof redundancy among the predictorvariables. Consequently, results arepresented for tenure and status only.

Table 3 shows mean scores for theformer process. The score for eachconstruct was very low, with participationpredictably being given the lowest score.These findings confirm those in Tables 1and 2. The table confirms, too, theunanimity noted above. There was nostatistically significant difference in meanratings between staff who had tenure andthose who did not. However, despite thefact that there was no statisticallysignificant difference between any of thepairs of scores, it was interesting that, onsix of the seven values, persons with tenurescored the process higher than personswithout. Using the Mann-Whitney U test,this result was significant (p < .10). Arandomly selected person with tenure islikely to score the old process higher thansomeone without.7

Table 4 is largely a repeat of Table 3because of the redundancy referred toabove. Librarians at Level II or above feltsomewhat better about the old process thanjunior librarians, but there was nostatistically significant difference betweenthe groups on any construct.


Evidently, persons further along thecareer path have learned to accommodate aprocess that even they have viewedcritically. Perhaps their greater securityhave led them to view the system slightlyless negatively than those who are not assecure.

PERCEPTIONS OF THE NEW PROCESSThe new form to be completed by staff

elicits staff input regarding duties andresponsibilities for the year under review.With few exceptions, respondents felt thatall questiong should be retained on the newform. Table 5 shows that, overall, the newprocess is viewed in a more positive lightthan the former process although 11respondents felt that there should have beenmore input from staff in the construction ofthe form. The respondents seemed to bedissatisfied, not with the content of theform, but rather the lack of participation inits design. Staff involvement in the designof an assessment process generally and,more specifically here, in the design of theappraisal form, will probably result in amore "user-friendly, customer-driven"performance appraisal (Schneier, Beattyand Baird, 1987b:13) and a sense ofownership. Perhaps some of the negativeperceptions that are still linked to the newprocess are a result of lack of ownership.

There is insufficient consensus on thelikelihood of the new process beingobjective, and insufficient attention so far tothe mutual setting of and agreement onperformance objectives. These two factorsare interrelated. The more the assessmentsrelate to clearly defined performanceobjectives, the less likely the appraisalprocess will be viewed as subjective.

The new process allows for discussionof the evaluation with the supervisor as wellas inclusion of assessees' comments and theprevious scope for appeal of reviewdecisions still exists. Yet only six persons

felt that there was adequate scope forregistering disagreement. This may meanmerely that, as the process has just beenimplemented, respondents are beingconservative in their expectations. It couldalso imply that respondents are unclearabout the weighting their comments willreceive.

Respondents were asked which criteria8should be retained for use in the newprocess. Most respondents felt that allshould be retained (with least support forthe criterion, "Contribution to Universitylife") (Table 6). However, this should notbe seen as an unqualified endorsement sinceten of the 15 respondents were "Unsure"whether these same criteria (used in the oldprocess) were appropriate (see Table 2). Itmay indicate, therefore, a lack of knowledgeof alternatives. In addition, somerespondents expressed reservations aboutsome criteria with regard to weighting, theamount of time required to fulfill somecriteria and whether all criteria wereapplicable to everybody.

Table 7 shows the mean scores for thenew process on selected constructs bytenure of respondent.

The first difference between the scores inthis table and those in Table 3 is that thescores in this table are all higher than theircounterparts (Table 8). But these changeswere predictable from the data in Table 5.Still, it is suggestive that the greatest changeoccurred in the scores for "Participation byassessee in process." What is beingunderscored here is the degree to whichparticipation and, by extension, ownershipchange the way a person feels about anappraisal process.

Table 7 shows, too, that the optimism ofrespondents with tenure was less guardedthan those without. This time, however,there were significant differences in fourcases. And despite the small number ofresponses, differences were significant at

6 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 147

the .05 and .01 levels.The constructs on which the differences

were most significant were participation byassessee in process; clarity about tasksassigned; agreement on performancestandards. There are several reasons whythis might have happened:

These constructs relate to aspects ofthe appraisal process whoseimplementation depends primarily onsupervisors.9 Because of this,questions about these constructs willbe more threatening to supervisors andthere is greater pressure on them thanon assessees to score these constructshigher;

Newer members of staff, thosewithout tenure, do not know as muchas tenured staff about the processbecause they have not been asinvolved in its design. Staff withtenure have enjoyed greaterinvolvement with it at senior levelmeetings;

Untenured staff are less secure and,therefore, more conservative in theirexpectations;

Although both groups of staff werenegative about the old process, thoselacking tenure are more likely to haveviewed the deficiencies of the oldprocess as contributory to their lack oftenure. This makes them less likely, inturn, to buy into any changes takingplace; and

Those persons administering thesystem will view small gains morefavorably than those lower in thehierarchy.

Table 9 shows the results by status.

There were significant differences on thesame constructs though the levels ofsignificance were lower.

The new performance appraisal (PA)process is viewed in a more positive lightthan the one it replaces. Yet, the programhas not been "sold" sufficiently to allmembers of staff and while some of thereservations could have been due to a "waitand see" approach, librarians lower in thehierarchy were more guarded in theiroptimism. Special attention should be paidto those with the greater reservations, sothat the gains are not lost.

COMMENTIn TQM philosophy, developing an

organization's human resources is essentialto delivering quality service. A committedand empowered team of people will beessential for the delivery of high qualityservice to external customers. It is thereforeimportant for any organization undergoingself-review to examine its policies andprocedures regarding its internal customersas well as its external customers. What doour internal customers most value? Whatare the barriers that rob people of pride intheir work? How can the potential of allemployees be released? TQM philosophysuggests that managers need to eliminatefear, encourage self-improvement throughtraining and ongoing education, involvestaff in decision making and emphasizecommunication.

While the University of the West IndiesLibrary has not officially launched a TQMprogram, there has been increased emphasison delivering a high quality serviceespecially in view of the recent increases inthe cost of tuition borne by students in astraightened economy. There are likely to bemany similarities between the UWI (Mona)Library at such a stage and other academiclibraries in the initial implementation stageof a TQM program. There will be much


rethinking and reexamination o f pastpolicies and changes in procedures. In amilieu of change increased emp'aasis on thehuman resources of the organi7ationbecomes necessary.

As performance appraisal is one area ofmanagement which may have significantimpact (positive or negative) on employees,this is a prime area for focusing attention asan organization undergoes change. TQMphilosophy suggests some ways in whichperformance appraisal can be made moreresponsive to the needs of staff, and morebeneficial for the organization.

COMMUNICATIONKirkpatrick (1987:266) lists the

requirements of performance appraisal (PA)processes. All participants mustunderstand the process, and there must beclear and direct communication between allparties involved. Neither the designers ofnor the participants in the new PA programin this library seemed to have accordedsufficient importance to the element ofcommunication. Yet it is vital that everyoneunderstand what is being assessed, howand why. There must also be clear andongoing feedback. Feedback is not onlyimportant for clarifying individualweaknesses and strengths, btAt also ensuresthat those being assessed uncle:stand howthe process is in fact operating.

Further, Kirkpatrick insists that allparticipants must be convinced that theprogram is worthwhile. The program mustbe sold. The research showed that eventhose respondents who scored the newprocess above average did not award it"Excellent" scores. They, too, havereservations. Resistance to appraisalprograms does not come from assesseesonly but also from supervisors. McGregor(1987:4) attributes supervisors' resistanceto normal dislike of criticizing asubordinate, lack of skill, dislike of changes

accompanying a new procedure and"mistrust of the validity of the appraisalinstrument."

The art of communicating can onlydevelop with constant practice. Asassessors and assessees become morecomfortable with communicatingreservations or fears, as goal setting comesvia discussion, and as feedback becomesongoing rather than an annual exercise, therelationship between supervisor andassessee is more likely to be a mutuallysupportive and nurturing one.

SETTING THE RIGHT GOALSIt is important that goals be set, but

even more important that these goals be theright ones. The right goals are those thattake into account the needs of the peoplethe library aims to serve as well as theneeds of those serving the clientele. Thesegoals must evolve from a clearunderstanding of and commitment to theoverall mission of the library of providingquality service to customers. The missionstatement is what will provide a focus andresult in "constancy of purpose" amongemployees (Mackey and Mackey, 1992:58).

While this library's new PA process hasincreased the emphasis on mutual goal-setting, Levinson's (1990) critique of theMBO-type approach to goal setting aresalutary. He sees it as imperative thatemployees' personal goals be taken intoaccount, as "the highest point of self-motivation arises when there iscomplementary conjunction of thesubordinate's needs and the organization'srequirements" (205). Care must be takenalso that the goal-setting process does notbecome a static and sterile one with littleroom for creativity and "spontaneity ofservice and self-assumed responsibility."Some element of team goal setting andappraisal of group and tean.-members'contribution must be built in. Appraisal of


supervisors by subordinates should also beincluded since the supervisor has someresponsibility for what the worker does andhow it is done.

There will be difficulty in clarifying andagreeing c what is to be appraised,especially for professional work in whichthere are a variety of tasks, unprogrammedwork and complex requirements (Schneier,Beatty and Bird (1987:9). Much of theimportant work of librarians cannot bequantified and, if quantifiable, cannot beeasily monitored. From the perspective ofthe customer, an important requirementfrom a reference librarian is a user-friendlyattitude. But how is this measured in theone-on-one contact between librarian andcustomer that begins at the circulation deskand ends up in the West Indies and SpecialCollections by way of the Reserved BookCollection? A preoccupation withnumerical data is misplaced (Deming'seleventh point) and some assessmentsrequire nothing more "scientific" than soundjudgment using qualitative data.

EMPOWERMENTPeople begin to be empowered when

fear is driven out. Performance appraisalthat is perceived as exclusively linked todecisions about promotion; and thatemphasizes the "defects" of the employeewithout taking into account defects ofsystems, are likely to create fear andinsecurity.

But the academic librarian is alsoempowered by a sense of autonomy.Autonomy may be fostered by encouraginginvolvement. Participation in the designand application of the PA program, forexample, will increase the likelihood that allmembers of staff, including the newerrecruits feel a sense of ownership. It is byencouraging this sense of ownership thatsome of the fears regarding performanceappraisal will be allayed.

Some element of self-assessment is alsodesirable for professionals and can beformally incorporated in the newassessment process (McGregor, 1987). Theonus would be on librarians to draw up adocument to define broad areas ofresponsibility. They would then use this toestablish their own short-term performancegoals and strategies. The supervisor wouldassist in modifying this document byrelating individual performance objectivesto those of the library. At the end of aspecified period, the librarian would carryout self-appraisal based on the targets setpreviously. The supervisor and librariantogether would discuss this self-appraisaland set new targets.

Self-appraisal should mean a shift forthe employee from passive to active, andfor the PA process from past, limitedknowledge and appraisal of personality tofuture, self-knowledge/insight and analysisof performance. McGregor reminds that thesupervisor has veto power at each step ofthe process. However, this rarely needs tobe exercised, as most subordinates tend tobe realistic about potentialities andachievements, especially if their evaluationis completed before that of the supervisor.As under TQM, the supervisor's rolebecomes that of consultant and coach(Grant, Shani and Krishnan 1994:28).

TRAININGDeming emphasized the importance of

training, education, and self-improvement ina quality-focused organization. Trainingand retraining staff can lead to increasedpride in work, prevent burnout, preparestaff for advancement, and rewardinitiative (Mackey and Mackey,1992:59,61). Further, training provides anopportunity to "teach an employee how todo a job within the culture of theorganization."

In the old process, lack of clarity in


11

performance goals may have contributed towhat many respondents perceived asinadequate training for all duties. The newinstrument allows employees to identifyformally areas of their work with whichthey are uncomfortable, and factorspreventing performance of.d uties. Comingout of this, areas for training will beidentified so performance can be improved.

Those carrying out the review must alsobe trained. Appraising performance doesnot come naturally. Assessors need to havesome basic training in what and how toobserve, how to document observations,pitfalls to avoid and how to coachemployees. If employees feel assured thatthose assessing them are aware of theseelements, they may not fear evaluation.Supervisors also are more likely to feelconfident.

CONCLUSIONBased on the responses, the superiority

of the new assessment process lies in theincreesed participation, clarity, objectivity,transparenc) and communication over theformer process. However, this superiority isrelative. The scores on the new processindicate that more needs to be done,particularly in the areas of goal setting,agreement on performance standards,communication, and participation generally.As implied above, one challenge is to retainand increase the support of the more seniormembers of staff while, simultaneously,providing opportunities for lower level staffto "buy in" more fully to the process. If thischallenge is met, the new process willcontribute to the empowerment of allprofessional staff.

NOTES

1 In ascending order are Assistant Librarian,Librarian III, Librarian II. The gradesLibrarian III and II contain salary 'merit bars.'There are specific criteria for crossing the meritbars. Deputy Librarian, Campus Librarian, andUniversity Librarian are appointees.

2 Up to 2 years ago, the Campus Librarianchaired the Peer Review Committee.

3 The publications are refereed by subjectspecialists outside the Library, and if possible,at one of the other campuses.

4 University of the West Indies Calendar, Vol.I: the Charter, Statutes and Ordinances. 1984(with amendments to 1991). Ordinance 8.22.

5 The author excluded herself from the survey.

6 'Tenure' refers to indefinite tenure.

7 This pattern is repeated in the other tables.

8 The criteria used in the questionnaire weretaken from 'Excerpt from Minutes of Meeting ofLibrary Assessing Committee held on Friday,July 10, 1992.' The criteria identified in thatdocument were 'Professional competence,''Performance of duties,"Interpersonal skills,''Administrative/Supervisory ability,''Scholarship,"Professional activity,' and'Contribution to University life.'

9 As already noted, tenure is a close surrogatefor supervisory status, as most supervisors onstaff have tenure.

1 2 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 151

Table 1. Level of agreement with statements about the old process

STATEMENT NUMBERAGREEING

Frequency of assessment was adequate 9The main focu: of the appraisal was performance of tasks 1

My duties and responsibilities were always clearly identified 2Training for all duties was adequate 3The Library's goals were always clearly defined 3

3The main focus of the appraisal was personal attribUtesThe input of external customers was taken into consideration 0The input of internal customers was taken into consideration 6Feedback was provided voluntarily by the supervisor 3The feedback_process identified a librarian's weaknesses 5Duties/responsibilities to be assessed were agreed betweensupervisor and assessee

1

The feedback process identified a librarian's strengths 2

Table 2. Numbers of persons disagreeing with, unsureof, or agreeing with selected statements about the old process .

STATEMENT DISAGREE UNSURE AGREEThe assessment processcontributed to career

7 4 4

Overall the assessment processwas demotivafing

8 3 4

The criteria for assessment wereappropriate

1 10 4

The assessments tended to besubjective

0 5

There was adequate scope forregistering disagreement withassessments

9 2

The assessment processcontributed to my own careerdevelopmentThe process generated insecurityor fearThe assessment process was

..a..ifficientl trans aiL._E_m_l_ntc_io ean n

The peer review process wassatisfactLny

6 5 LI.

1 11

Too much emphasis was placedon publications

13


Table 3. Mean scores on selected constructs [old process],respondents with tenure and those without

CONSTRUCT OVERALLMEAN

HAVETENURE?

MESSINGCASES

YES NOObjectivity of process 3.80 3.83 3.75 5Participation by assessee in process 1.58 2.14 0.80 3Clarity a.Dout tasks assigned 3.50 3.83 3.00 5Specificity of output expected 2.56 2.40 2.75 6Agreement on performance standards 2.40 3.17 1.25 5Transparency of process 2.30 3.17 1.00 5Process su. ortive of career develo ment 2.36 3.14 1.00 4

Table 4. Mean scores on selected constructs [old process] by status of respondent


STATUS MISSNGCASES

LIBM jlIBllObjectivity of process 3.80 3.80 3.80 5Participation by assessee in process 1.58 1.29 2.00 3Clarity about tasks assigned 3.50 3.00 4.00 5Specificity of output expected 2.56 2.60 2.50 6Agreement on performance standards 2.40 1.67 3.50 5Transparency of process 2.30 1.20 3.40 5Process supportive of career development 2.36 1.00 4.00 4

Table 5. Responses to new process/form

STATEMENT YES NO DON'T KNOWThe provision for inclusion of staffmember's comments is adequate

8 5 2

There is adequate scope for registeringdisagreement with evaluation

3

Some uestions are threatenin:The new .rocess is likel to be sub ective 9 4 2Performance objectives for the year havebeen discusseci_anc agreed onFeedback is likel to be satisfactoThe construction of this form could havehad more input from library staff

11

I 4


Table 6. Number of persons agreeing that criteria should be retained

CRITERION NUMBER. OFPERSONS

Professional competence 13Performance of duties 13Interpersonal skills 13Administrative/Supervisory 7.:01lity 13Scholarship 12Professional activity 12Contribution to University life 9

Table 7. Mean scores on selected constructs [new process] by tenure

CONSTRUCT OVERALL MUANETENURE?

MISSINGCASES

YES NOObjectivity of process 6.20 7.17 4.75 5Participation by assessee in process 6.00 7.29 3.75*** 4Clarity about tasks assigned 5.56 6.83 3.00** 6Specificity of output expected 4.63 5.60 3.00 7Agreement on performance standards 5.38 7.00 2.67** 7Transparency of process 5.63 6.50 3.00* 7Process supportive of career development 4.50 5.00 3.33 5

p<.011. : p<.05 : p.10

Table 8. Overall mean scores for constructs by tenure old and new processes

CONSTRUCT OVERALL MEAN SCOREFORMER PROCESS NEW PROCESS

Objectivity of process 3.80 6.20Participation by assessee in process 1.58 6.00Clarity about tasks assigned 3.50 5.56Specificity of output expected 2.56 4.63Agreement on performance standards 2.40 5.38Transparency of process 2.30 5 .63Process supportive of career development 2.36 4.50

15


Table 9. Mean scores on selected constructs [new process] by status


STATUS MESSINGCASES

LIB In LIB II

Objectivity of process 6.20 5.00 7.40 5Participation by assessee in process 6.00 4.50 7.80** 4Clarity about tasks assigned 5.56 3.75 7.00* 6Specificity of output expected 4.63 3.00 6.25 7Agreement on performance standards 5.38 3.50 7.25* 7Transparency of process 5.63 3.67 6.80* 7Process supportive of career development 4.50 3.40 5.60 5: p < .01 : p < .05 : p < .10

1 6


REFERENCES

Edwards, Mark R. and J. Ruth Sproul"Making Performance AppraisalsPerform: The Use of Team Evaluation."The Performance Management Sourcebook.Amherst, MA: Human ResourceDevelopment Press, 1987, 157-160.

Fombrun, Charles J. and Robert L. Laud."Strategic Issues in PerformanceAppraisal: Theory and Practice." ThePerformance Management Sourcebook.Amherst, MA: Human ResourceDevelopment Press, 1987, 33-38.

Grant, Robert M., Rami Shard., and R.Krishnan. "TQM's Challenge toManagement Theory and Practice."Sloan Management Review. 35 (2) Winter1994, 25-35.

Kirkpatrick, Donald L. "Two Ways toEvaluate Your Performance AppraisalSystem." The Performance ManagementSourcebook. Amherst, MA: HumanResource Development Press, 1987, 265-267.

Levinson, Harry. "Appraisal of WhatPerformance?" Harvard Business Review54 (4) July-August 1976, 30-46.

------ "Management by WhoseObjectives?" Manage People, NotPersonnel: Motivation and PetformanceAppraisal. (Harvard Business ReviewBook series). Boston, MA: HarvardBusiness School Publishing Division,1990, 197-215.

Mackey, Terry and Kitty Mackey. "ThinkQuality: The Deming Approach DoesWork in Libraries." Library Journal 117(9), 1992, 57-61.

McGregor, Douglas M. "An Uneasy Lookat Performance Appraisal." ThePerformance Management Sourcebook.Amherst, MA: Human ResourceDevelopment Press, 1987, 4-8.

Mullen, Janet A. "Total QualityManagement: A Mindset and Methodto Stimulate Change." Journal of LibraryAdministration 18 (3/4), 1993, 91408.

Pecora, Peter J. and Michael J. Austin.Managing Human Resources Personnel.Sage Human Services Guides 48.Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987.

Riggs, Donald E. "Strategic QualityManagement in Libraries." Advances inLibrarianship 16 (1992), 93-105.

Schneier, Craig E., Lloyd S. Baird, andRichard W. Beatty. "How to Constructa Successful Performance AppraisalSystem." The Performance ManagementSourcebook. Amherst, MA: HumanResource Development Press, 1987, 9-13.

"Total Quality ImprovementBecomes Reality Through PerformanceManagement." The PerformanceManagement Sourcebook. Amherst, MA:Human Resource Development Press,1987b, 257-264.


Documents

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 391 541 IR 055 819 AUTHOR George, Verna ... · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 391 541 IR 055 819 AUTHOR George, Verna E. TITLE Performance Appraisal in an Academic Library: