New Look at Performance Appraisal for Scientists and Engineers

OVERVIEW: The performance appraisal as usually carried out by an organization's management is often incompatible with the needs of the technical staff. Nevertheless, it serves the organizational requirement for evaluation, albeit sometimes poorly. For most professionals, however, it probably does their development more harm than good. The authors propose two appraisals, a Management Performance Appraisal, and a Professional Development Appraisal. The management performance appraisal can be utilized as a management tool conducted for traditional purposes. The profession development appraisal would be a collateral process, separated from the conventional appraisal, but used to enhance professional growth and facilitate the intergenerational transfer of professional culture. Its two main characteristics would be mastery of one's technical proficiency and development of one's inner-directed character. The professional mentors rather than by management. Performance appraisal is undoubtedly one of the most critical, sensitive, and controversial practices in the career of a technical professional. It is critical in the sense that it is the one regular opportunity where professionals get formal feedback on the worth of their contributions. It is also sensitive and controversial because if handled poorly it can have devastating effects upon the individual professional's self-esteem and can create a demoralizing atmosphere in the appraisee's place of work. It is our view that in order to regenerate performance appraisal, guidelines for professional practice should incorporate recommendations for its conduct as a professional process. Such recommendations need to consider the impact it has on professional careers and the criteria and agents responsible for its implementation. THE MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Most studies of, and guidelines for, performance appraisal approach the issue from the standpoint and best interests of the employing organization. We shall use the term "management performance appraisal" (or MPA) to designate the process of evaluating the scientist's or engineer's performance in terms of the organization's needs, providing feedback to the employee to correct or reinforce behavior on the basis of that performance, and allocating corporate rewards--salaries, promotions and job assignments--accordingly. The wisdom of using the performance appraisal for this purpose is questionable and the subject of much criticism; however, there is no denying management's right, within reasonable moral constraints, to use performance appraisal as a tool to achieve it. Nevertheless, MPA systems seldom get good grades. Schainblatt notes, for example, that: "... there are no currently used systems for measuring the productivity of scientific and engineering groups without substantial flaws. Nor does the literature on productivity measurement offer encouragement that suitable systems will soon be available" (1). But whether MPA turns out to be good, poor or worse, it seems preferable to some available alternatives such as strict seniority, educational credentials, networks, personal friendship, nepotism, or payoffs (2). Despite the pessimistic evaluation of Schainblatt and many other students of the MPA, in all fairness some kind of standardized process is needed. To be judged on merit, as most MPAs profess to do, is a widespread professional belief. Thus, most scientists and engineers have been encouraged and want to believe that it should be possible, though difficult, to develop valid measures and standards of performance for their work. And most technical professionals also believe it to be fair that the best performers, and not those who are merely politically keen, be the most rewarded and acclaimed. It is unfortunate that this deeply ingrained belief is held despite the rather uninspiring results produced from the innumerable MPAs tested and tried over the years. …