Running head: APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 1

Appraisals Aren’t Just For Students: Applying Human Resources Theory to College X’s Annual
Staff Performance Evaluation

Kaitlyn Vallance
Professor Rashmi Chordiya
Seattle University

Introduction
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 2

Within higher education (HE) institutions, processes for assessing individual performances,

providing direct feedback and implementing growth-oriented plans are happening constantly

throughout the academic year. The resources for and procedures around providing this level of

continuous assessment, feedback and growth-oriented planning are, naturally, mostly student-focused

since the essential function of colleges and universities is to support student growth and development

intellectually, emotionally and morally (Flaniken, F., 2009). However, while student performance

and progress are consistently being evaluated on college campuses through exams, advising sessions,

GPAs, persistence to graduation rates, etc., the staff who are charged with facilitating these

evaluative and developmental processes with students are often not afforded similarly robust, routine

systems for reflecting on their professional development and their performance as an employee of

their institution. In fact, Student Affairs practitioners have written at length about the lack of

effective performance appraisal practices, feedback mechanisms, and growth-oriented career

planning for higher education professionals (Creamer & Winston, 1999; Janosik et al., 2004; Naeem,

M., Jamal, W., & Riaz, M.K., 2017). Without consistent performance evaluations and feedback, it is

difficult for college staff to assess how effective they are within roles, their strengths and

weaknesses, and, ultimately, their meaning within the organizational context (Roethlisberger, F.J.,

1941).

In addition to the arguments made by HE professionals about the need for timely, effective

performance appraisals and feedback from a developmental and meaning-making perspective,

policy-makers and the public at large are increasingly demanding measurable outcomes and

accountability from higher education institutions. Heck, Jonsrud & Rosser (2000) describe this shift

toward holding HE institutions “accountable for measurable outcomes… a relatively new

phenomenon” brought about by the “increase in competition for scarce resources and the decrease in

the public’s trust in higher education practices” thus resulting in “unprecedented demands for

campuses to demonstrate their effectiveness and efficiency” (663). Through their demands for
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 3

increased accountability and evidence of effectiveness regarding HE practices and personnel,

policymakers and the public pose a significant question that echoes my earlier point concerning the

assessment of students by staff who receive minimal evaluation and feedback themselves: how can

we determine the quality of the evaluation, feedback and planning students receive in college when

higher education institutions regularly fail to assess the quality and effectiveness of the staff leading

those processes inside and outside the classroom? The simple answer to this question is HE

institutions cannot and should not determine the effectiveness of its staff absent regular, meaningful

performance appraisals (Creamer & Winston, 1999; Heck, Jonsrud & Rosser, 2000; Janosik et al.,

2004).

Clearly, there is a significant need for colleges and universities to take seriously the value of

effective, timely performance appraisals for higher education professionals. However, before HE

institutions move toward systemically enforcing the use of performance evaluations as

developmental and evaluative instruments, they should first analyze whether their “instruments” are

appropriate, effective, and meaningful in content and process (Boswell, W.R. & Bourdeau, J.W.,

2002). Failure to do so could ultimately devalue the important role of the performance evaluation in

an organization and make “the process… the object of jokes and the target of ridicule” within the

organization (Flaniken, F., 2009, 3). Undoubtedly, it is vital institutions adopt a framework for

analyzing existing performance evaluations to determine what effective changes can be made to

mitigate potential derision and dismissal among HE staff if presented with poorly developed

performance appraisals.

Which framework, then, is most useful for college and university leadership seeking to

analyze, re-develop and re-conceptualize their institution’s performance appraisals? Further, which

framework offers a means by which leadership can discern “high quality” versus “low quality”

performance evaluations? While a panoply of different organizational theory frameworks certainly

come to mind, I would argue a human resources theory (HRT) framework is most appropriate and
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 4

useful for university and college leadership when revising their performance evaluations. I suggest an

HRT framework, not only because direct feedback, individualization of workers and emphasis on

employee growth and development are central components of both this theory and higher education

institutions, but because two of the central assumptions underlying HRT relate heavily to the work of

HE professionals. These assumptions state: (1) “organizations exist to serve human needs (not the

reverse)” and (2) “organizations and people need each other (Organizations need ideas, energy and

talent; people need careers, salaries, and work opportunities.)” (Shafritz, J.M., Ott, J.S., & Jang, Y.S.,

2011, 150). Just as human beings - students, faculty and staff - are the lifeblood of HE institutions

and are necessary to the existence of these institutions, individuals are similarly centered and valued

within the human resources theory.

In order to demonstrate the usefulness of a human resources theory perspective as a

framework for analyzing performance evaluations within HE institutions, I will be examining

College X’s “Annual Staff Performance Evaluation” to determine the effectiveness of this

performance evaluation and offer suggestions for improvements. I have selected College X because it

(1) is an accredited institution of higher education; (2) has a robust full-time staff; and (3) outlines its

commitment to creating a culture of innovation, inclusion, transparency, collaboration, recognition

and camaraderie among staff (“Staff Council Site,” 2018). Since the values outlined regarding staff

culture at College X explicitly and implicitly reflect values posited within HRT, College X provides

a fantastic case study in determining whether HE institutions utilize human resources theory ideas in

their messaging while failing to implement the theory in institutional practice.

Human Resources Theory and Performance Evaluations

Before describing the ways in which human resources theory can be used as a framework for

analyzing the effectiveness of College X’s Annual Staff Performance Evaluation, I think it is critical

to define what I mean by “human resources theory.” Human Resources Theory (HRT) concerns itself

primarily with the behavior of human beings within an organization. More specifically, HR theorists
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 5

are interested in examining the ways organizations function as particular contexts where managerial

behaviors and structures encourage or discourage certain individual and group behaviors, activities

and performances. This influence is not exerted unilaterally though since human behavior is both

shaped by and shapes organizational behaviors (Shafritz, J.M., Ott, J.S., & Jang, Y.S., 2011, 150).

Given this “codependent” relationship, wherein organizational management works in tandem with

workers to co-construct the values, norms and culture of their organization, meaningful

communication between managers and workers in the organizational context is crucial.

Nowhere does this communication between manager and worker occur more intentionally

than during performance evaluations. According to educational leadership scholar Dr. Forrest

Flaniken (2009), “performance appraisal allows organizations to inform their employees about their

rates of growth, their competencies, and their potentials. It enables employees to be intentional in

creating their individual developmental goals to help in their personal growth” (3). Since HRT

underscores the importance of the organization as a space for workers to grow and develop, the

performance evaluation serves as an important mechanism managers use to assess the developmental

needs of staff and facilitate the creation of meaningful, individualized paths toward growth (Boswell,

W.R. & Bourdeau, J.W., 2002; Naeem, M., Jamal, W., & Riaz, M.K., 2017; Shafritz, J.M., Ott, J.S.,

& Jang, Y.S., 2011).

The performance evaluation does not only function as a developmental process wherein

managers facilitate a dialogue with their employee to identify that employee’s “strengths and

weaknesses, set goals, and identify of training needs” (Boswell, W.R. & Bourdeau, J.W., 2002, 392).

Many managers and employees also utilize performance evaluations as just that: an evaluative tool to

compare “an individual’s performance to a set standard, other organizational members, or the

individual’s previous performance” (393). There is significant disagreement among scholars

regarding the appropriateness of a single performance evaluation serving both an evaluative and

developmental function (Boswell, W.R. & Bourdeau, J.W., 2002; Convertino, G. J., 2008; Taskin,
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 6

L., & Ndayambaje, J., 2018). HR theorists, like Boswell and Bourdeau (2002), argue against the dual

function of a performance evaluation as both developmental and evaluative because of the

problematic role of the immediate supervisor within the evaluation process. According to Boswell

and Bourdeau (2002), “the immediate supervisor is often so close to the workers that he/she may not

be an effective evaluator” (395). This ineffectiveness as an evaluator derives largely from the

difficulties inherent in trying to balance both objective, measured feedback (evaluative) and

subjective, goal-orientated discussion (developmental) within a single evaluation process. Ultimately,

managers will tend to value one function of the performance evaluation over the other due to

managerial preference (Convertino, G. J., 2008). Managers who feel uncomfortable with conflict or

who do not like giving critical feedback that could disappoint an employee will likely not utilize the

evaluative function of a performance appraisal (2008); similarly, managers who feel overwhelmed by

the significant amount of time and energy goal-setting and professional development planning

requires will similarly avoid using development-oriented sections of a dual-function performance

appraisal (Taskin, L., & Ndayambaje, J. 2018).

Another issue with the role of the supervisor when using a dual-functioning performance

evaluation concerns the potential for conflict between the manager and the employee being

evaluated. As Mary Follet points out in her essay, “The Giving of Orders,” subordinates typically

react negatively when given orders or directives by their supervisors or managers because they feel

as if their “self-respect has been attacked” (Follet, M.P., 1926, 158). During performance appraisals,

an employee's behavior is being assessed and they are being held accountable for poor behavior they

may have demonstrated. This assessment can trigger feelings of resentment and/or hostility from the

employee toward the supervisor conducting their evaluation since individuals inherently do not like

being “bossed around.” As Follet states: “the more you are ‘bossed’ the more your activity of thought

will take place within the bossing-pattern, and your part in that pattern seems usually to be opposition

to the bossing” (1926). This presents a significant issue for creating effective performance appraisal
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 7

within an HR framework since the very act of assessing an employee creates an adversarial

relationship between employee and manager. While Follet offers a solution to this issue by

recommending “orders” and directives be depersonalized, that does not seem possible when HR

theorists reinforce the importance of developmental performance appraisal processes - a decidedly

personalized experience where a manager explores goal-setting with an employee and holds them

accountable for achieving that goal through asking for the completion of meaningful outcomes

(Follet, M.P, 1926; Naeem, M., Jamal, W., & Riaz, M.K., 2017)

Boswell and Bourdeau (2002) offer another solution aimed at circumventing employee

hostility toward managers during the evaluation process. They recommend bifurcating the

performance evaluation process - with direct supervisors focused on the developmental aspect of

employee performance appraisal and a supervisor-once-removed focusing on the evaluative aspect.

Boswell and Bourdeau’s (2002) suggestion is interesting considering in HE institutions many

supervisors-once-removed are directors, vice presidents and deans and may not regularly interact

with the employee they are “objectively” evaluating. However, the benefit of removing the

evaluative component from the immediate supervisor’s purview arguably outweighs the potential

issue presented in giving this responsibility to the supervisor-once-removed since “the immediate

supervisor is no longer required to act as an evaluator” or disciplinary figure, and can instead “focus

their attention on employee development” and building meaningful relationships with their

employees as a professional mentor” (392). Clearly, splitting an employee’s performance evaluation

between an evaluative-minded supervisor-once-removed and a development-minded immediate

supervisor alleviates the dual responsibility from the immediate supervisor and mitigates potential

conflicts between employees and managers within the evaluation process.

College X’s Staff Performance Evaluations

As I have demonstrated throughout this paper, “performance assessment is often considered

one of the most important human resources [theory] practices” (Boswell, W.R. & Bourdeau, J.W.,
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 8

2002). As discussed, effective performance evaluation processes consist of several key components:

(1) a bifurcated process separating the developmental and evaluative functions of the performance

appraisal; (2) with the immediate supervisor handling the responsibility of goal-setting, identifying

employee strengths and weaknesses, and facilitating career development opportunities as described

in the developmental function; and (3) the supervisor-once-removed handling the responsibility of

objectively assessing certain behaviors and attitudes exhibited by an employee using institutionally

determined performance metrics. With these key components of an effective performance evaluation

established within an HRT framework, we can analyze whether College X’s Annual Staff

Performance Evaluation aligns with those standards and the improvements that can be made to the

process and form.

Immediately upon looking at the first page of College X’s Annual Staff Performance

Evaluation, the developmental function of this performance appraisal is apparent. A brief statement

occupies the center of the page and reads:

[t]he purpose of performance evaluation is to stimulate communication, provide

College X heavily emphasizes the developmental function of their Annual Staff Performance

Evaluation process in a manner that is strengths-focused. Within that statement, many key themes

from human resources theory are highlighted: open communication between supervisor and staff

member; goal-setting practices to encourage individual growth; and focusing on supporting

individual employees through individualized attention and direct feedback. However, this statement

avoids any mention of weaknesses or areas for improvement, which are also important within HRT.

This performance evaluation, at face value, does not seem to provide the kind of holistic assessment

of an individual’s performance recommended within the human resources theory literature because it

fails to address the need for both strengths and weaknesses to be explored through the evaluation
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 9

process (Taskin, L., & Ndayambaje, J., 2018). Even the mention of past problematic or lacking

performance is reframed as “areas of improved performance,” instead of balancing the discussion of

what is improved with what still needs to be improved. Although a strengths-based perspective is

certainly a powerful one for motivating employees, this initial message signals College X may have a

Staff Performance Evaluation process which actively avoids promoting discussions about employee

weaknesses or shortcomings.

The next three sections of College X’s Annual Staff Performance Evaluation process outline

a narrative-structured goal-setting process divided by semesters (fall, winter and summer) and

consisting of prompts around goals, objectives and accomplishments. In these sections, there is a

mention about “areas for improvement;” however, this prompt is not given narrative space of its own.

Instead, it shares space with a question about objectives and goals for the next semester. In contrast,

both the “accomplishments” and “progress” prompts are designated considerable narrative space -

communicating to employees that managers and supervisors are more interested in positive

discussions around accomplishments than challenges (Appendix 1). This aversion to exploring

potentially uncomfortable facets of an employee’s performance could reflect College X’s concern

about the potential for conflict Mary Follet (1926) described between staff and managers when

managers “give orders.” While the evaluative function of the performance evaluation tends to

inflame tensions more than the developmental function, College X’s consistently strong messaging

around strengths and accomplishments in their staff performance evaluation may signal anxiety over

the performance evaluation as a whole, not just certain components. My recommendation to College

X for improving this aspect of their Staff Performance Evaluation process is simple: provide more

literal space on the page for employee’s to reflect on what they think their areas for improvement and

growth are. If the language of “improvement” is what troubles College X in these evaluations, they

can maintain positive messaging by substituting “areas of improvement” with “areas for growth,”

“areas for continued learning” or “opportunities for change.” These phrases each maintain positive
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 10

language while also grounding “improvement” in the tradition of learning and growth - central

concepts for institutions of higher education!

The anxiety over minimizing potential conflict during the Staff Performance Evaluation

process may also be the result of a non-bifurcated evaluation process. At the top of several pages of

the Staff Performance Evaluation, it states: “to be completed together by manager and employee”

(Appendix 1). Because managers are facilitating both the developmental and evaluative functions of

the performance evaluation, their desire to avoid potential conflict is understandable within an HRT

framework. My strong recommendation to College X is to adopt a bifurcated evaluation process with

the immediate supervisor taking on the developmental portion of the evaluation and the supervisor-

once-removed taking on the evaluative portion of the evaluation. As with many small, private

colleges, the number of supervisors-once-removed are rather limited since most managers directly

report to a VP or the Provost; however, the small college environment may benefit College X since

these supervisors-once-removed could reasonably connect with each staff member they are

evaluating throughout the year to observe their performance before performance evaluations

(Appendix 2).

Lastly, College X’s Staff Performance Evaluation form positions its brief evaluative section

- 5 questions where employees are scored 1 - 5 on a Likert Scale - between two large narrative-driven

developmental sections (Appendix 1). While the developmental function of performance appraisals

align more easily with the educational/reflective mission of HE institutions, the evaluative function

will likely become more important as external forces, like policymakers and the public, demand

accountability and measurable outcomes from HE professionals (Heck, Jonsrud & Rosser, 2000).

While bifurcating the Staff Performance Evaluation Process will likely underscore the importance of

the evaluative function of staff evaluation, College Xshould focus on making this evaluative section

lengthier in size with more meaningful questions reflecting what external forces are interested in

assessing. While policymakers and the public should not have the final say in a college’s staff
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 11

assessment processes, I believe that, as colleges and universities compete for public trust and

resources, institutions who develop assessment metrics and questions responsive to the demands of

external communities will thrive and enjoy the continued support of their immediate communities.

Conclusion

While I highlight several shortcomings within College X’s Staff Performance Evaluation

processes and form, I do not think these shortcomings are unsolvable - especially if College X

utilizes the HRT framework I did when analyzing their process. Additionally, I appreciate how

adaptive this form is to a diverse area of employee experiences, personality types and career goals

since it does rely heavily on co-constructed narrative and dialogue (Appendix 1). According to Steve

Janosik, author of Supervising New Professionals in Student Affairs: A Guide For Practitioners,

“performance appraisal systems should not be rigid or overly bureaucratic. They should be flexible,

adaptable, supple, and sensitive to the fact that invaluable people and their lives and careers are at

stake” (Janosik et al., 2004, 149). In this passage, Janosik (2004) wonderfully demonstrates why a

human resources theory framework is so easily applied within higher education contexts: both human

resources theory and higher education institutions deeply value the individual and individual’s

experiences above all else and are committed to their development. This commitment to the

individual instills me with great faith that performance evaluations will continue to analyzed,

redeveloped and implemented within institutions of higher education with College X serving as proof

of this possibility.

Reference
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 12

Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2002). Separating the Developmental and Evaluative

Performance Appraisal Uses. Journal of Business & Psychology, 16(3), 391–412.

Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.seattleu.edu/login.aspx?direct=

true&db=a9h&AN=12428593&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Convertino, G. J. (2008). A perspective on current human resources practices by human

resource

executives at institutions of higher education (Order No. 3329877). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (304185797). Retrieved from

http://login.proxy.seattleu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.proxy.seattleu.edu/docview/304185797?accountid=28598

Heck, R. H., Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. J. (2000). Administrative effectiveness in higher

education: Improving assessment procedures. Research in higher education, 41(6),

663-684.

Flaniken, F. (2009). Performance appraisal systems in higher education: An exploration of

Christian institutions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University of Central

Florida Libraries. (3857)

Follet, M.P. (1926). The giving of orders. In Shafritz, J.M., Ott, J.S., & Jang, Y.S. (Eds.),

Classics of organizational theory (pp. 156 - 161). Cengage Learning

Naeem, M., Jamal, W., & Riaz, M. K. (2017). The relationship of employees' performance

appraisal satisfaction with employees' outcomes: Evidence from higher educational

institutes. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 11(2), 72 - 80.

Roethlisberger, F.J. (1926). The hawthorne experiments. In Shafritz, J.M., Ott, J.S., & Jang, Y.S.

(Eds.), Classics of organizational theory (pp. 162 - 171). Cengage Learning

Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (2011). Classics of organization theory. Cengage

Learning.

Staff council site. (2018, November 11). Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/a/cornish.edu/

all-staffcouncil-site/home?pli=1

Taskin, L., & Ndayambaje, J. (2018). Revealing the dominant anthropological consideration of

humankind in the teaching of Human Resource Management: A critique of individual

performance evaluation. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 18(2), 277–301.

Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.seattleu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&

db=a9h&AN=130921615&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Appendix 1
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 14
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 15
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 16
APPRAISALS AREN’T JUST FOR STUDENTS 17

NOTE: These are relevant pages from a longer evaluation.