Article Review: Kline, J. B. T. & Sulsky, M. L. (2009). Measurement and Assessment Issues in Performance Appraisal. Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 161-171.
Article Review: Kline, J. B. T. & Sulsky, M. L. (2009). Measurement and Assessment Issues in Performance Appraisal. Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 161-171.
In their thesis, Kline and Sulsky (2009) argued that in organizations, even the most experienced and daring managers approach performance appraisal in fear and apprehension due to measurement issues. In support of this through literature review as the methodology, it was found that: first, performance measurement has broadened due to concerns over previous perspectives; two, the complexity and dynamic nature of work environment have rendered the previous approaches deficient while the adoption of indirect over direct approaches has given rise to new challenges; four, in today’s pertinent social-context, performance measurement goes beyond the psychometric rating systems; finally, new challenges posed by team performance appraisal, the emergence of multisource systems as well as increased litigation all indicate the complexity of performance appraisal. Consequently, it was concluded that the challenges posed by performance appraisal measurement and the significance of the practice as identified imply that it will remain a prominent area to both researchers and practitioners.
Performance appraisal comprises complex techniques (Paynter & Kearney, 2010, p. 927), a trait that is consistent with the argument presented by Kline and Sulsky above (2009). Arguably, the rate at which the nature of jobs is changing is high, with changes in technology and the impact of other contemporary trends implying so. It is quite difficult to device a performance appraisal measurement in the judicial system for instance, which Paynter and Kearney (2010) observed presents serious problems. However, this may not be the case for some jobs and therefore Kline and Sulsky should have considered focusing on one job industry rather than generalizing their argument. Consequently, the methodology employed should have also entailed a case study approach to cement the evidence presented as was the case in Paynter and Kearney (2010). Despite this, Kline and Sulsky’s argument is logical, and with such substantial evidence as provided, it is agreeable that performance appraisal measurement will be a mainstay issue in the future as predicted in their conclusion.
Appraisal. Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 161-171.
Paynter S. & Kearney, C. R. (2010). Who Watches the Watchmen? : Evaluating Judicial
Performance in the American States. Administration & Society, 41(8): 923-953. Retrieved from: http://aas.sagepub.com/content/41/8/923.
