job, and are capable of discerning competent from inappropriate performance. The
BOS forewarn the appraiser and the appraisee of the speciWc behaviors that are to
be appraised. Hence the BOS focuses both a supervisor’s and a subordinate’s
attention on the same critical behaviors. The BOS are comprised of complete
behavioral statements (e.g. ‘Gives performance appraisals on time,’ ‘Involves
employees in the appraisal process’). Appraisers, as is the case with BARS, are
encouraged to keep an ongoing record of their observations. The BOS should
consist of the behaviors required to implement an organization’s strategy (Latham
and Latham 2000 ). The individual items on a scale are derived from an item or
a factor analysis. A category label is given for each scale (e.g. Interactions with
Clients; Development of Subordinates; Service to Firm).
- 3 Technology
Advances in technology raise a question for which currently there is no answer:
How should appraisal formats using the latest technologies be designed to best
facilitate feedback/development and goal-setting?
An emerging trend in performance management is to bypass appraisal formats
altogether and rely instead on electronic performance monitoring or EPM (Alge
2001 ). EPM is viewed positively by many organizations because it allegedly enforces
performance standards and decreases negative behaviors such as theft, absentee-
ism, or tardiness. Moreover, it allegedly lessens the necessity of daily supervision
devoted to inspection and discipline through its second-by-second tracking of a
person’s behavior. Finally, the fact that employee performance data is collected and
stored leads to fact-based performance appraisals. Nevertheless, a review of the
literature revealed that the use of EPM usually results in an increase in job-related
stress, which can lead to illness, which in turn leads to absenteeism, job dissatis-
faction, and employee turnover (Zweig 2005 ). Two studies by Zweig and Webster
( 2002 ) explain why. EPM violates the basic psychological boundary between the
employer and employee—one that is predicated on privacy, autonomy, and
respect. ‘It appears that a technology that removes control over the type and
scope of information we share with others, changes the fundamental nature of
personal relationships, and drives people to question their own and others’ behav-
iors will trigger strong negative reactions’ (Zweig and Webster 2002 : 627 ). In
addition, EPM narrows the performance domain to only those behaviors that
can be tracked by a computer (Sulsky and Keown 1998 ).
Alder and Ambrose ( 2005 ) suggested that adverse employee reactions to EPM
stem from ways in which the technology is implemented, rather than from the
technology itself. EPM might be acceptable to employees if it is not used as the
basis for the subsequent goals that are set; rather, EPM is used solely to assist
a coach and an employee to track goal progress, and revise goals when necessary. In
370 g a r y l a t h a m e t a l.