Performance appraisal systems are an important tool of personnel management, but not all municipalities utilize this technique. The study analyzed the major reasons why municipal governments do not implement a formal performance appraisal system. The data was derived from a national sample of municipal government personnel officers. The results indicate that the most important barriers were a lack of expertise in performance appraisal and insufficient resources to adequately support a system. Discriminate analysis showed that western and southern cities were more likely to utilize an appraisal system, while eastern cities were least likely. Other significant variables associated with existence of a performance appraisal system were a favorable labor relations climate and lower turnover rates. Implications for development of a performance appraisal system are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmmonsD. (1987). Executive satisfaction with managerial performance appraisal in city government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 8, 33–48.
2.
AmmonsD.RodriguezA. (1986). Performance appraisal practices for upper management in city governments. Public Administration Review, 46, 460–467.
3.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
4.
BernardinH.BeattyR. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work.Boston: Kent Publishing Company.
5.
CarrollS.SchneierC. (1982). Performance and review systems: The identification, measurement, development of performance in organizations.Dallas: Scott, Foresman and Company.
6.
DaleyD. (1991). Performance appraisal in North Carolina municipalities. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 11(3), 32–50.
7.
DresangD. (1990). Public personnel management.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
8.
EnglandR.ParleW. (1987). Non-managerial appraisal practices in large American cities, Public Administration Review, 47, 498–504.
9.
FeldmanJ. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 127–148.
10.
FolgerR. (1987). Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace. Social Justice Research, 1, 143–159.
11.
FoxC. (1991). Employee performance appraisal: The keystone made of clay. In BanC.RiccucciN. (Eds.), Public personnel management: Current concerns-future challenges (pp. 58–72) Longman: New York.
12.
GabrisG. (1986). Can merit pay systems avoid creating discord between supervisors and subordinates: Another uneasy look at performance appraisal. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 7, 70–89.
13.
GreenbergJ. (1986a). Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair. In LewickiR. J., (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations. (Vol- 1, pp. 25–41). Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press.
14.
GreenbergJ. (1986b). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342.
15.
GreenbergJ. (1986c). The distributive justice of organizational performance evaluations. In BierhoffH. W., (Eds.), Justice in Social Relations, (pp. 337–351). New York: Plenum Press.
16.
GreenbergJ. (1987). Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals. Social Justice Research, 1, 219–234.
17.
IlgenD.FeldmanJ. (1984). Performance appraisal: A process focus. In Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 141–197.
18.
LachoK.StearnsG.VillereM. (1979). A study of employee appraisal systems of major cities in the United States, Public Personnel Management, 8, 111–125.
19.
LathamG.WexleyK. (1981). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal.Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
20.
LaumeyerJ.BeebeT. (1988). Employees and their appraisal: How do workers feel about the company grading scale. Personnel Administrator, 33(12), 76–80.
LovrichN.ShafferR.HopkinsD.YaleD. (1980). Public employees and performance Appraisal: Do their servants welcome or fear merit evaluation of their performance?Public Administration Review, 40(3), 214–222.
23.
MeyerH. H. (1974). The pay-for performance dilemma. Organizational Dynamics, 3(1), 39–50.
NalbandianJ. (1981). Performance Appraisal: If only people were not involved, Public Administration Review, 41(3), 392–396.
26.
NormanC.ZawackiA. (1991). Team appraisals-team approach. Personnel Journal, 70(9), 101–103.
27.
NorusisM. J. (1985). SPSSX advanced statistics guide.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
28.
PoisterT.McGowanR. (1984). The use of management tools in municipal government: A national survey. Public Administration Review, 44, 215–223.
29.
RaineyH. (1991). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30.
RobertsG. (1990). The influence of participation, goal setting and acceptance on measures of performance appraisal system effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
31.
RobertsG. (1992) “Maximizing performance appraisal system acceptance: Perspective from municipal government personnel administrators,” Paper submitted for publication.
32.
SchwabeC. (1986). Performance appraisals in local government, Baseline Data Report, 8, Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association.
33.
ThayerF. (1978). The presidents's management ‘reforms’: Theory X triumphant. Public Administration Review, 38(4), 309–314.
34.
ThayerF. (1987). Performance appraisal and merit pay systems: The disasters multiple. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 7(2), 149–154.
