Personnel performance appraisal practices in leisure service agencies

by James Brademas, Ph.D.
George Lowrey, Ph.D.
University of Illinois
John Beaman
Schiller Park Recreation Department

Establishing and applying an effective performance appraisal system is one of management's toughest problems—one that is seldom done effectively. Yet, it can be one of management's most rewarding activities. The following definitions of "performance" and "appraisal" will provide a common understanding of this critical personnel function.

By "performance" we mean an employee's accomplishment of assigned tasks. By "appraisal" we mean an assessment of an employee's past performance that is to be used as a basis for making decisions about such matters as training, granting awards, granting pay increases (whether regular or special), reassignment, promotion, or removal.

The process of performance appraisal is a means of obtaining needed information on which management and employees can base work-related decisions. Because performance appraisal is important to many goals of personnel management and because it involves the inexact process of one human being assessing the work of another, it is not surprising that methods for improving performance appraisal are much needed but difficult to prescribe.

Management has the responsibility to give each employee (1) a job description and a complete understanding of what is expected on the job, (2) an understanding of how much work and what quality or standard of work is required, and (3) an appraisal of how well he or she is performing. When management fails to provide this information, more misunderstanding, conflict, indifference, dissatisfaction, and poor work result than from any other management failure. Yet, how many agencies have and regularly apply effective performance standards?

If performance is to be appraised, it first has to be viewed and measured. If some type of formal rating system is not used, then obviously some type of informal rating system will be used; and informal systems are wide open for biased and arbitrary prejudices. Of course, even the best formal systems are somewhat subjective. There is no predominant method used in employee appraisal; there is, however, wide-spread agreement that there be some sort of measuring device and some type of form on which to record the results.

Purpose of the Study

This study was undertaken to determine the state of the art of personnel performance appraisal as practiced by public leisure service agencies in the state of Illinois. The primary objectives of the study were to determine (1) current performance appraisal practices, (2) the development of current practices, and (3) attitudes toward current practices. Secondary objectives were to determine the training needs of leisure service agency personnel in performance appraisal methods and guidelines for the improvement of performance appraisal practices.

The data were collected by means of a self-administered questionnaire consisting of 48 questions. The questionnaire was sent to 219 public, park and recreation agencies of varying sizes, including downstate and Chicago suburban agencies. A total of 59.4 percent (130) of the questionnaires was returned.

Summary and Recommendations

Experts on performance appraisal have suggested that the job description is the cornerstone around which performance appraisal is constructed. It was satisfying to find that the majority of the agencies (nearly 87 percent) had job descriptions for all full-time positions. However, less than half had job descriptions for part-time/seasonal positions.

It is also very important that job descriptions be kept up-to-date and accurate. Regular interviews are necessary to achieve this goal. Half of the sample indicated that they review and update job descriptions only when it is necessary. In addition, 74.2 percent of the agencies with job descriptions felt that their job descriptions were adequate, that is, presented a complete description of duties for each staff classification. Thus, combining the agencies without job descriptions with those which had inadequate job descriptions results in one-third of the sample failing to provide employees with accurate, up-to-date, comprehensive descriptions of their duties and responsibilities.

The most effective way to provide employees with accurate knowledge of their duties and responsibilities is through a written job description supplemented by verbal clarification and interpretation. Although 93 percent of the sample indicated that they did communicate the job duties and requirements to their employees, only 63 percent did so both in writing and verbally. Twenty-two percent of the agencies communicated only verbally, an often inefficient method for these purposes. Therefore, we strongly recommend that agencies develop complete, accurate job descriptions for every position, review them regularly to keep them accurate and up-to-date, and provide the employee with a written copy accompanied by a verbal clarification and interpretation.

Although it was encouraging to note that 62 percent of the agencies used a specific appraisal technique to evaluate full-time employees and that another 11.6 percent were in the process of developing techniques, there is some genuine concern based on the following. One must accept that all agencies appraise employee performance, and therefore those not using a specific appraisal technique must be relying solely on the supervisors' subjective judgments. Recent legislation requires that appraisal techniques be both valid and reliable. Subjective judgments are the least

Illinois Parks and Recreation 38 September/October 1981

effective appraisal technique. Another 11.5 percent used a personal trait scale which has also been questioned as to its reliability and validity. Thus, over 40 percent of the sample is relying on questionable appraisal techniques for performance of full-time employees. We recommend that all agencies develop a formal, comprehensive performance appaisal system which demonstrates validity and reliability.

It is interesting that 44.9 percent of those agencies using a formal appraisal format chose to use a system combining features of two or more techniques. This approach indicates an attempt to overcome the shortcomings of a single technique by combining the strengths of several to fit the agency's particular needs. However, it is discouraging that only 43 percent of those same agencies indicated that the appraisals were only partially based on criteria in the job description. The job description is the employee's guide to expected job performance, and if the employee is evaluated only partially on the job description, then the employee is at a disadvantage. All performance appraisal programs should utilize criteria based upon comprehensive job descriptions.

Of the responding agencies, 44.4 percent reported the development of in-house performance appraisal programs. This figure suggests that many agencies develop programs tailored to fit their own needs. Alarmingly however, 68.5 percent indicated that they had never received specialized training in performance appraisal, and only one-fourth or less felt that their staff members who counsel employees were properly trained in counseling and/or performance appraisal. Thus, the question is raised: How well qualified are agency staffs to develop performance apraisal systems? We recommend that agencies expend more effort to improve the training of all supervisory and administrative staff in personnel counseling and performance appraisal.

It has been suggested that one of the major pitfalls of performance appraisal occurs when appraisal results are not communicated to employees. One of the most encouraging findings of this study was that 93.7 percent of the agencies using formal appraisal programs do meet with each employee to discuss the results of the employee's appraisal. Virtually all respondents (98.9 percent) suggest areas of improvement to the employee in these post-appraisal meetings. Also encouraging was the fact that only 20 percent of the agencies consistently associate these meetings with wage/promotion decisions. This approach is crucial to appraisal acceptance by employees, and both improves the atmosphere surrounding performance appraisal and increases the likelihood that post-appraisal sessions are primarily aimed at counseling. We recommend that this procedure of post-appraisal sessions continue, and that it be adopted by all agencies, regardless of the techniques used in the performance appraisal program.

The results of the study revealed that there was a difference between appraisal techniques for full-time employees and part-time/seasonal employees. Thirty-one agencies which had appraisal programs for full-time employees did not have such programs for part-time/seasonal personnel, and over 76 percent of the ones which did have part-time/seasonal employee appraisals indicated that they used different approaches. The principal reasons for these differences appeared to be the large numbers of part-time/seasonal employees and a general feeling that appraisals for part-time/seasonal staff did not need to be as comprehensive as for full-time staff. Over half of the agencies used a supervisor's judgment as the only method for appraisal, and for the other half, the two most popular techniques were checklists and personal trait scales. Thus, the validity and reliability of appraisals for part-time/seasonal employees is even more suspect than that for full-time employees. We urge that appraisal techniques for part-time/seasonal employees be vastly improved, because these employees are valuable members of the staff.

The use of formal perform-

Illinois Parks and Recreation 39 September/October 1981

ance appraisal programs appeared to be related to the number of full-time personnel employed. The larger the organization, the greater the need for more comprehensive personnel practices. However, 78.6 percent of the agencies now developing formal appraisal programs had only one to ten full-time employees, suggesting that agencies with small staffs are increasingly adopting the practices of their larger counterparts. In addition, a majority of respondents felt that both employees being evaluated and the staff members who were doing the evaluating viewed performance appraisal in a positive manner.

Only 21.5 percent of the respondents were "very much aware" of the federal legislation affecting performance apraisal, and only 23.9 percent indicated that they were earnestly attempting to follow federal guidelines. This situation implies that the majority of agencies are partially uninformed and perhaps not fulfilling the law as it applies to performance appraisal.

The increased plans for initiating performance appraisal on a formal basis, coupled with a generally positive attitude toward performance appraisal, gives some evidence of a need for continuing education efforts in this area. However, a greater need for promoting education in this area is indicated by the lack of knowledge of the law and a marked absence of attempts to follow federal guidelines, as well as the previously indicated lack of training in this area of personnel practice. The respondents agreed; 87.7 percent indicated an interest in workshops, seminars, and published material on performance appraisal. Since there was little interest in extramural or correspondence courses, we strongly recommend that continuing education opportunities through workshops, seminars, and published materials be made available through state societies and educational institutions for practicing professionals in the field.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 40 September/October 1981