CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1  Background to the Study

Largely, the need for evaluation is to reward high performing employees, recognize areas for improvement of staff as well as organizations, and provide recommendation in case of un-reconcilable negligence of staff (Shamsuzzoha, 2013). Though these reasons should make any organization want to adopt evaluation system, most organizations that perform evaluations disrupt the system with too many human interpretations or bias. Others run away from implementing these performance systems due to cost. Performance evaluations are usually not as effective as they should be because some organization’s performance process lack credibility; no clarity in the aspect of job being evaluated, no standards against which performance is measured (Cintron, 2011). Performance Evaluation is bias, manual, vague and incomplete in most Organizations (Daoanis, 2012). Most Organizations do not have intelligent systems to appraise their staff thereby adopting manual process which injects subjectivity into staff appraisal (Kateřina, 2013). A recent investigation of major U.S organizations revealed that 40% of managers admitted to forging or controlling performance data because it was clear to them that the evaluation served no valuable purpose in the way it was managed in their Organization (Gordon, 2016).

Appraisal system should track targets, accomplishments and projects of each employee, otherwise, a staff is appraised based on human judgments and traits. Employee is then evaluated by finding a score that best characterizes his or her level of performance for every quality rather than the competence and accomplishment of tasks. A need for automation of the process is indicated. Employee performance is essentially identified with employment obligations, which are expected from a worker, and how well those obligations were accomplished. Managers assess their employees’ performance on a yearly or quarterly basis, keeping in mind the end goal, to help them recognize and recommend areas for improvement (Shaout et al., 2014). The cogent components of an effective appraisal and performance system should include regular feedbacks aimed at providing employees with feedbacks expounding employee’s strengths and improvement areas, to deduce appropriate support plans and to help in decision making on issues such as compensations and recommendations (Chris, 2011). Thus, performance evaluation (PE) is key in enhancing the quality of work input, in inspiring staff and making them more engaged. PE additionally introduces a foundation for increment in monthly remuneration and guides an organization in the development of its employee succession and promotion plans (Shaout et al., 2014).

Several appraisal methods, such as graphic rating scale method, forced choice distribution method, behavioural check list method and so on, were used for employee performance appraisal. New methods like Management by Objectives (MBO) and assessment centres have been suggested (Shaout et al., 2014). The need for an efficient performance evaluation system cannot be overemphasized. Review of existing performance evaluation frameworks and systems revealed subjectivity concerns as performance scoring still remains based on human judgment. Impraise (Daoanis, 2012), talentpeak (Cintron, 2011), Performly (Lawler, 2012), PeopleGoal (Katerina, 2013), Namely (Boachie-Mensah, 2012), Tessello (Bretz, 1992), and Fego (Kondrasuk, 2011), ClearCompany (Mayhew, 2016), BambooHR (Capterra, 2015) among others, computer-based applications designed to handle employee appraisals are still subject to human biases because the employer/manager have to play some roles in the appraisal process; giving the score, checking the feedback report, sending the feedback report to be sent to the employee, and so on. The need to rid biasness and quit robbing employees of their promotion calls for an intelligent based performance evaluation system.

1. 1. This material content is developed to serve as a GUIDE for students to conduct academic research work
2. 2. As a source for additional understanding of the subject.
3. 3. As a source for ideas for your own research work (if properly referenced).
4. 4. For PROPER paraphrasing (see your university definition of plagiarism and acceptable paraphrase)
5. 5. Direct citing (if referenced properly)
Thank you so much for your respect to the authors copyright.