FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W65829971> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W65829971 endingPage "100" @default.
• W65829971 startingPage "92" @default.
• W65829971 abstract "The purpose of this article is to outline models of performance appraisal in business, assess the current status of performance appraisal in higher education, review practices of business which are applicable in the higher education setting, and present a new model of performance appraisal, the DEVELOP model. There are many definitions of performance appraisal in the literature. Some authors equate performance appraisal with the performance interview, while others distinguish between the interview and other aspects of the appraisal process (Langan-Fox, Bell, McDonald & Morizzi, 1996). For instance, Winston and Creamer (1997) maintain that performance appraisal is an organizational system. Bianco (1984) defines performance appraisal as a formal interview. In higher education, the literature indicates a mixed review of the success and benefits of performance appraisals (Blackburn & Pickney, 1988; Fulk, Brief, & Barr, 1985). Winston and Creamer (1997) assert that in most institutions, staff members report performance appraisals are a weak link in the overall staffing practices. In addition, staff reported that annual reviews take place, possibly as dictated by the institution's human resources unit. However, many practitioners do not participate in regular evaluations or have opportunities for feedback. Why do many student affairs organizations not have a formal, ongoing appraisal system in place? Many staff and supervisors become focused on the appraisal meeting itself while placing less attention on or even neglecting the rationale or purpose behind the appraisal process. Cumbersome forms developed by human resources units often do not adequately identify key job functions of student affairs positions. At state institutions, classification structures and guidelines and policy regarding performance appraisal can be an impediment. Many state systems have a one size fits scheme with similar forms at all levels. With sometimes outdated forms or forms that are so broad as to cover large numbers of positions or classifications, it is no wonder why many student affairs practitioners are not implementing good staffing practices. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of performance appraisal models in business, discuss the opportunities for student affairs practitioners to learn from these business models, and to present a new model of performance appraisal. Business Models of Performance Appraisal Grote (1996) explains that before World War II, performance appraisal systems could only be found in a small number of companies. Gradually, more and more organizations added performance appraisals into standard operating procedures. Today, performance appraisals seem here to stay. In most organizations, some form of review or appraisal is conducted with all employees. However, confusion continues concerning just what encompasses performance appraisal. Is it a one-time meeting annually or a systematic process of ongoing feedback? Performance appraisal should go beyond the annual review meeting. It is more than a form that supervisor and supervisee sign once each year. Performance appraisal should focus on an ongoing process of individualized, professional development. The approaches to performance appraisal vary widely--influenced by factors such as organizational structure, purpose of the organization, and supervisory style. Many approaches include ongoing professional development, approaches to managing the cycle of the formal review, the inclusion of peer raters in the review process, and facilitative software. Team-Focused Appraisal Models Team-focused appraisals include any appraisal systems or processes that incorporate a variety of employees or staff giving feedback. One newer model is 360 degree or multi-source performance appraisals (Allender, 1995; Chappelow, 1998; deLeon & Ewen, 1997; Hein, 1998; Westerman, 1996). …" @default.
• W65829971 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W65829971 creator A5021486557 @default.
• W65829971 date "2001-01-01" @default.
• W65829971 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W65829971 title "Approaches to Performance Appraisal in Student Affairs." @default.
• W65829971 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W65829971 type Work @default.
• W65829971 sameAs 65829971 @default.
• W65829971 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W65829971 countsByYear W658299712013 @default.
• W65829971 countsByYear W658299712018 @default.
• W65829971 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W65829971 hasAuthorship W65829971A5021486557 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C107645774 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C202372285 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C2777512617 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C2777873905 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C2781405653 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W65829971 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C107645774 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C111919701 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C120912362 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C15744967 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C162324750 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C17744445 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C187736073 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C199539241 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C202372285 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C2777512617 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C2777873905 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C2781405653 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C39549134 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C41008148 @default.
• W65829971 hasConceptScore W65829971C98045186 @default.
• W65829971 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W65829971 hasLocation W658299711 @default.
• W65829971 hasOpenAccess W65829971 @default.
• W65829971 hasPrimaryLocation W658299711 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W1507360277 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W1535342862 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W1596211012 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W1971577236 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W1991450265 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W2003051508 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W2036179857 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W2068368378 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W2178562710 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W2213291987 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W2288211301 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W2524041999 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W2884443760 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W2887723929 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W2895044145 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W3121777314 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W3123330251 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W3143951068 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W2181820732 @default.
• W65829971 hasRelatedWork W2504050411 @default.
• W65829971 hasVolume "21" @default.
• W65829971 isParatext "false" @default.
• W65829971 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W65829971 magId "65829971" @default.
• W65829971 workType "article" @default.