# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, peer evaluation is more effective is because of its ability to offer a more comprehensive view of employee performance. Supervisors often manage multiple employees and may not have the opportunity to observe the day-to-day interactions and teamwork of each individual. Peers, on the other hand, work closely with one another and are better positioned to assess interpersonal skills, reliability, collaboration, and work ethic.

Furthermore, peer evaluation supports employee development and growth. Feedback from colleagues often focuses on soft skills, such as communication, empathy, and collaboration skills that are increasingly important in modern work settings. This kind of continuous, constructive feedback can be more meaningful and actionable than the periodic reviews typically conducted by supervisors.

In conclusion, peer evaluation is more valuable than supervisor-only assessment in many modern organizations because it offers richer insights, fosters accountability, mitigates bias, and enhances professional growth. As the nature of work continues to evolve, organizations that embrace peer feedback will be better equipped to recognize talent, improve teamwork, and drive collective success.

# data[].attributes.body
From my opinion,Peer evaluation has become increasingly valuable compared to supervisor only assessments. This is large due to the rise of team based work, where peers often have more direct and frequent interactions with one another than supervisors do. As a result, they can provide more accurate insights into collaboration, communication, and day-to-day performance that supervisors may overlook.

Peer evaluations also help build a culture of accountability and continuous improvement. When employees know their peers are part of the evaluation process, they may be more motivated to contribute positively to the team. However, peer assessments can sometimes be influenced by personal bias or lack of training, making them less objective if not properly structured.

In conclusion, while peer evaluation offers clear advantages, especially in team-oriented environments, it should not fully replace supervisor assessments. A combination of both such as in 360 degree feedback that offers a more complete and balanced view of employee performance.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion in modern organizations, performance evaluation is crucial for identifying strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement among employees. Traditionally, assessments have been carried out solely by supervisors or managers. While this method offers a structured and top-down perspective, it may not fully capture an employee’s day-to-day contributions, especially in collaborative environments. As workplaces become more team-oriented, peer evaluation has emerged as a valuable alternative or complement to supervisor-only assessment.

Peer evaluation offers several benefits. Colleagues often observe behaviors and contributions that supervisors might miss, such as teamwork, communication, and problem-solving. This makes peer feedback more holistic and grounded in real-time experiences. When used effectively, peer evaluations can encourage accountability, mutual respect, and a stronger sense of ownership among team members. It also promotes a culture of continuous improvement, as employees receive more frequent and diverse feedback.

However, peer evaluation is not without its challenges. Bias, favoritism, or personal conflicts can skew the feedback. Some employees might hesitate to give honest evaluations due to fear of damaging relationships or workplace harmony. To counter this, organizations must train employees on how to provide constructive and objective feedback and ensure anonymity and fairness in the process. Structured evaluation criteria and proper moderation are key to making peer reviews reliable.

Supervisor-only assessments still have their place, especially when it comes to evaluating goal achievement, strategic alignment, and long-term performance. Supervisors typically have a broader understanding of organizational expectations and can align employee performance with business goals. However, without peer input, some nuanced aspects of an employee’s performance may be overlooked.

In conclusion, while supervisor-only assessment remains important, peer evaluation adds significant value in modern, collaborative work environments. The best approach is often a hybrid model that combines both methods. This allows organizations to capture a more complete and accurate picture of employee performance, promote fairness, and encourage professional growth from multiple perspectives.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, peer evaluation can be more valuable than supervisor-only assessment in modern organizations.

It because of coworker works closely together almost every day. So, they can see how each person communicates, handle the task and helps in the team. Supervisor might seem miss some details because they do not always see what happen day to day work. So, it makes sense if feedback from peers can give completer and more honest of how someone is really doing.

Not only that, peer evaluation also will reduce the bias. If only one supervisor gives feedback, their opinion might be unfair or based on observation only. So, when many people share their view or feedback, the evaluation might become more balanced and fairer.

But supervisor feedback also important. It because of, their more understand about organization goals and can judge if employee's work did not support those goals. And they also can handle more serious issues that peer cannot deal with.

Noor Baqrisyah Binti Bustamam

AM2311014748

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, peer evaluation is generally more valuable than supervisor-only assessment in modern organizations. It provides more well-rounded and accurate feedback, especially in collaborative work environments. Peers observe daily behaviors, teamwork, and effort more closely than supervisors, making their input crucial for assessing soft skills and contributions that may go unnoticed by managers. Additionally, peer feedback encourages accountability and engagement within teams. However, for best results, peer evaluation should be structured and fair.

Tavoletti, E., Stephens, R. D., & Dong, L. (2019). The impact of peer evaluation on team effort, productivity, motivation and performance in global virtual teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 25(5/6), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1108/tpm-03-2019-0025

‌

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, peer evaluation is a valuable addition but not a replacement for supervisor-only assessments in modern organizations.

Peers often work closely together and can provide insights into daily behaviors, teamwork, and interpersonal skills that managers might overlook. When done correctly, this can lead to more balanced and fair feedback. For example, the Human smart article highlights how companies like Buffer and Cisco have successfully implemented peer reviews to improve transparency and engagement. I believe this shows that peer feedback can positively impact both performance and workplace culture.

However, I also think peer evaluation has limitations. It can be influenced by personal bias, friendships, or even competition among colleagues. Without proper structure such as clear guidelines, training, and confidentiality the feedback might not be accurate or helpful.

That’s why I believe the most effective approach is a combination, like a 360° feedback system. This method integrates input from peers, supervisors, and even self-evaluations, offering a more complete and reliable view of an employee’s performance. In today’s collaborative and remote work environments, this kind of balanced evaluation seems more fair and practical than relying on a single source.

https://blogs.humansmart.com.mx/blog-is-peer-evaluation-a-reliable-method-for-performance-assessment-in-the-workplace-54192

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is peer evaluation a reliable method for performance assessment in the workplace?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is peer evaluation a reliable method for performance assessment in the workplace?

# data[].attributes.body
Compared to supervisor reviews, peer evaluation frequently yields accurate, real-time insights because coworkers see everyday behaviors, teamwork, and casual encounters that managers might overlook. Combining input from several peers lessens the possibility of impression management and individual bias, which can distort assessments that are solely based on supervisors. Studies have demonstrated that biases based on country, personal relationships, or strategic behavior can affect the results, particularly in virtual or culturally diverse teams, proving that peer assessments are not infallible. Peer review is therefore beneficial, especially when included into structured 360-degree systems, but it functions best when paired with supervisor input and protected by training, anonymity, and explicit criteria. I will choose supervisor reviews is more better because they already have been trained to be professional when they evaluate the workers.

# data[].attributes.body
I choose Supervisor because ratings are faster and more efficient. There is just one person the manager who prepares, schedules, and gives feedback, thereby conserving time and resources compared to multi-rater processes. This simplicity facilitates decisive, consistent action that is especially valuable when speedy performance decisions are called for. Clear Accountability & Expert Judgment Since supervisors are held directly accountable for team performance, they are likely to have deeper knowledge of each employee's work. With training, they can establish expectations, align feedback with company objectives, and individualize development plans with ease. Supervisor only ratings provide speed and decisiveness but at a price: blind spots, perceived unfairness, and lack of employee engagement. In the modern changing workplaces, a hybrid or calibrated approach combining manager intuition with wider feedback usually offers the best of both worlds. https://work.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-topdown-performance-reviews-2904.html?utm

Nur Jazliana Binti Abdul Jalil (AM2405015601)

# data[].attributes.body
In collaborative work situations, peer evaluations provide distinct insights that supervisor-only assessments may neglect.

A comprehensive almost experimental study encompassing 895 global virtual teams (5,852 participants from 130 countries) revealed that peer evaluations resulted in heightened group effort, yet also indicated diminished average productivity and motivation, with no evident enhancement in overall team performance. These findings indicate that although peer appraisal might enhance accountability and participation, it may also reveal fundamental issues related to motivation and cohesion. Consequently, peer feedback functions as an effective mechanism for uncovering dynamics, fostering personal development and facilitating more sophisticated performance management, nevertheless, it should preferably be integrated with supervisor insights to mitigate any disadvantages.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335544104_The_impact_of_peer_evaluation_on_team_effort_productivity_motivation_and_performance_in_global_virtual_teams

# data[].attributes.body
While both have their value, peer evaluation is typically more effective in modern organizations that place emphasis on collaboration and continuous feedback. Peers are in a better position to comment on teamwork and day-to-day contributions and, hence, offer a more even evaluation than supervisors who may be rarely face-to-face with the people that they intend to evaluate. However, supervisors' view remains essential to ensure that progression toward organizational goals and toward a career is being properly implemented. The best way is the hybrid; feedback from peer reviews, mixed with the supervisors' evaluations, so as to arrive at a fair and legitimate performance management system.(Di Fiore & Souza, 2021) Di Fiore, A., & Souza, M. (2021, January 12). Are peer reviews the future of performance evaluations? Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/01/are-peer-reviews-the-future-of-performance-evaluations

# data[].attributes.body
I think that both peer review and evaluation by a supervisor are important parts of managing performance. When you get comments from your peers, you can see things about teamwork, collaboration, and everyday behaviours that your supervisor might not be able to see. When you work for a boss, you need to give feedback on people's work. This is because it helps you make fair choices about promotions and rewards. Both should be used in the same system for a full and accurate picture.

However, if I had to pick just one way for modern businesses, I would say without a doubt that peer evaluation is superior. Today's workplace depends on people working together, being flexible, and fixing problems as a group. When people work together, they see each other's real contributions, skills, and areas where they need to improve more clearly than their managers do. Peer feedback does more than just make the boss happy, it also creates a culture of real growth and responsibility among everyone. Yes, input from peers isn't perfect. It's okay to worry about social bias or people holding back.

But these problems can be solved with well-thought-out systems, like ones that let people give feedback anonymously and with clear rating scales and training for raters. It's often harder to get around the problems that come with depending only on supervisors, like favouritism, lack of visibility, or being spread too thin. So, while supervisors are still important for making some important choices, peer evaluation gives us the more useful, relevant, and growth-focused information we need to improve performance and growth in today's collaborative workplace. Peer evaluation is the better way to achieve real growth and improve team dynamics.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, peer evaluation is more valuable than just relying on a supervisor’s assessment, especially in today’s work environment. Peers work with us closely every day, so they often have a better understanding of our efforts, teamwork, and how we handle challenges. Feedback from peers feels more real and balanced because it comes from those who actually see our daily work. I also think it helps build trust and encourages everyone to improve together. Of course, peer feedback isn’t always perfect sometimes people might be too nice or a bit biased. But overall, I believe combining both peer and supervisor evaluations gives a more complete and fair picture of someone’s performance.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, peer evaluation can offer richer, more comprehensive feedback than supervisor-only assessments in modern organizations. Because peers often work closely together on a daily basis, they can observe behaviors, collaboration, and performance details that supervisors might overlook. This type of evaluation can also promote accountability and improve team performance, as employees know their contributions are visible to their colleagues. Research shows that employees are often more receptive to feedback from peers because it feels more immediate and relevant, which can lead to meaningful changes in behavior and productivity.

However, peer evaluation also comes with challenges. It may be influenced by personal relationships, favoritism, or social dynamics within the team, which can lead to biased assessments. Some employees may also hesitate to give honest feedback for fear of damaging relationships. For this reason, many experts recommend a blended approach, combining peer feedback with supervisor assessments to get a more balanced and accurate picture of performance. This “360-degree” method leverages the strengths of both sources and helps organizations make fairer, more informed decisions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A performance appraisal, also referred to as a performance review, performance evaluation, (career) development discussion, or employee appraisal, sometimes shortened to " PA", is a periodic and systematic process whereby the job performance of an employee is documented and evaluated. This is done after employees are trained about work and settle into their jobs. Performance appraisals are a part of career development and consist of regular reviews of employee performance within organizations.

Performance appraisals are most often conducted by an employee's immediate manager or line manager. While extensively practiced, annual performance reviews have also been criticized as providing feedback too infrequently to be useful, and some critics argue that performance reviews in general do more harm than good. It is an element of the principal-agent framework, that describes the relationship of information between the employer and employee, and in this case the direct effect and response received when a performance review is conducted.

A performance appraisal is a systematic, general and periodic process that assesses an individual employee's job performance and productivity in relation to certain pre-established criteria and organizational objectives. Other aspects of individual employees are considered as well, such as organizational citizenship behavior, accomplishments, potential for future improvement, strengths and weaknesses, etc.

To collect PA data, there are three main methods: objective production, personnel, and judgmental evaluation. Judgmental evaluations are the most commonly used with a large variety of evaluation methods. Historically, PA has been conducted annually (long-cycle appraisals); however, many companies are moving towards shorter cycles (every six months, every quarter), and some have been moving into short-cycle (weekly, bi-weekly) PA. The interview could function as "providing feedback to employees, counseling and developing employees, and conveying and discussing compensation, job status, or disciplinary decisions". PA is often included in performance management systems. PA helps the subordinate answer two key questions: first, "What are your expectations of me?" second, "How am I doing to meet your expectations?"

Performance appraisals (PAs) have wide-ranging uses in organizations across sectors and are intended to serve various purposes including:

Performance improvement

Informing employment decisions

PAs are used to inform employment decisions such as promotion, termination, and transfer of employees. Transparent and objective PAs can help ensure fairness in these employment decisions as well as help identify high-potential employees from groups that may be more traditionally excluded, thus, contributing to career progression and, at the same time, increasing diversity in leadership positions.

From a labor union perspective, PAs should be embedded within fair and culturally sensitive appraisal systems and should not reinforce managerial bias or justify unfair terminations or promotions, particularly for employees of indigenous background, women, and ethnic minorities that are often at greater risk of being unfairly evaluated due to unconscious bias or inequitable standards.

Organizational research, tools and practices

Research shows that effective PAs are reliable indicators of employee competencies and future job performance. In public sector organizations that serve diverse populations, inclusive PAs can contribute to better hiring practices and employee development programs. Labor unions emphasize that these systems should reflect collective efforts rather than focusing solely on individual accomplishments, as collaboration is key in creating an inclusive public workforce.

Communication

PAs are used as mechanisms for feedback, to clarify job expectations and organizational goals, and to prevent misunderstandings that may arise, including those stemming from cultural differences. Transparent appraisal systems also reduce the risk of surprise negative evaluations, a concern especially pertinent for socially excluded groups that may already face systemic bias in the workplace.

Development and training

Cognitive biases such as the anchoring effect and halo effect can impact the accuracy of appraisals used to identify training and professional development needs by relying too heavily on initial information (anchor) when making judgments; or a rater's overall positive impression of an individual, both of which can influence the assessment of performance, leading to biased judgments that influence evaluations.

Documenting performance

Labor unions advocate that such documentation should be accessible to employees and their representatives, ensuring that vulnerable employees are protected from biased evaluations.

Reward systems

Job evaluation and selection

Motivation

PAs serve as critical tools for motivating employees. In the public sector, where intrinsic motivators such as public service motivation often drive performance, PAs can enhance motivation by recognizing the contributions of employees and providing them with growth opportunities. Public sector unions emphasize the importance of non-monetary rewards, such as career development or increased responsibility, which can be particularly meaningful for employees from groups that more traditionally suffer from social exclusion, as these provide pathways to leadership and broader representation.

Other potential benefits include:

Facilitation of communication: communication in organizations is considered an essential function of worker motivation. It has been proposed that feedback from PAs aid in minimizing employees' perceptions of uncertainty. Fundamentally, feedback and management-employee communication can serve as a guide in job performance.

Enhancement of employee focus through promoting trust: behaviors, thoughts, or other issues may distract employees from their work, and trust issues may be among these distracting factors. Such factors that consume psychological energy can lower job performance and cause workers to lose sight of organizational goals. Properly constructed and utilized PAs have the ability to lower distracting factors and encourage trust within the organization.

Goal setting and desired performance reinforcement: organizations find it efficient to match individual worker's goals and performance with organizational goals. PAs provide room for discussion in the collaboration of these individual and organizational goals. Collaboration can also be advantageous by resulting in employee acceptance and satisfaction of appraisal results.

Performance improvement: well constructed PAs can be valuable tools for communication with employees as pertaining to how their job performance stands with organizational expectations. "At the organizational level, numerous studies have reported positive relationships between human resource management (HRM) practices" and performance improvement at both the individual and organizational levels.

Determination of training needs: "Employee training and development are crucial components in helping an organization achieve strategic initiatives". It has been argued that for PAs to truly be effective, post-appraisal opportunities for training and development in problem areas, as determined by the appraisal, must be offered. PAs can be especially instrumental for identifying training needs of new employees. Finally, PAs can help in the establishment and supervision of employees' career goals.

Despite all the potential advantages of formal performance appraisals (PAs), there are also potential drawbacks. It has been noted that determining the relationship between individual job performance and organizational performance can be a difficult task. The ones conducting performance appraisals, such as line managers also often face complexities. Generally, there are two overarching problems from which several complications spawn. One of the problems with formal PAs is there can be detrimental effects to the organization(s) involved if the appraisals are not used appropriately. The second problem with formal PAs is they can be ineffective if the PA system does not correspond with the organizational culture and system.

Potential complications that may arise:

Detrimental impact to performance improvement: It has been proposed that the use of PA systems in organizations adversely affects organizations' pursuits of quality performance. It is believed by some scholars and practitioners that the use of PAs is unnecessary if there is total quality management.

Subjective evaluations: Subjectivity is related to judgement based on a supervisor's subjective impressions and opinions, which can be expressed through the use of subjective performance measures, ex post flexibility in the weighting of objective performance measures, or ex post discretional adjustment, all of which are based on factors other than performance measures specified ex ante. Traditional performance appraisals are often based upon a manager's or supervisor's perceptions of an employee's performance and employees are evaluated subjectively rather than objectively. Therefore, the review may be influenced by many non-performance factors such as employee 'likeability', personal prejudices, ease of management, and previous mistakes or successes. Reviews should instead be based on data-supported, measurable behaviors and results within the performers control.

Negative perceptions: "Quite often, individuals have negative perceptions of PAs". Receiving, or the anticipation of receiving, a PA can be uncomfortable and distressful and potentially cause "tension between supervisors and subordinates". If the person being appraised does not trust their employer, appraiser or believe that they will benefit from the process it may become a "tick box" exercise.

Central tendency: This is where the evaluator fails to make extreme ratings to either direction-low or high but remains at the intermediate. The evaluator fails to use extremes of the scale and uses the central points e.g. rating all employees as average.

Inflationary pressure: This is where there is low differentiation with the upper range of the rating choices defining outstanding performance as 90 or above good as 90 or above, average or above 70 or above and inadequate performance as anything below 70 leaves one wonder for a promotion.

Errors: Performance appraisals should provide accurate and relevant ratings of an employee's performance as compared to pre-established criteria/goals (i.e. organizational expectations). Nevertheless, supervisors will sometimes rate employees more favorably than that of their true performance in order to please the employees and avoid conflict. "Inflated ratings are a common malady associated with formal" PA.

Legal issues: When PAs are not carried out appropriately, legal issues could result that place the organization at risk. PAs are used in organizational disciplinary programs as well as for promotional decisions within the organization. The improper application and utilization of PAs can affect employees negatively and lead to legal action against the organization.

Performance goals: Performance goals and PA systems are often used in association. Negative outcomes concerning the organizations can result when goals are overly challenging or overemphasized to the extent of affecting ethics, legal requirements, or quality. Moreover, challenging performance goals can impede an employee's abilities to acquire necessary knowledge and skills. Especially in the early stages of training, it would be more beneficial to instruct employees on outcome goals than on performance goals.

Derail merit pay or performance-based pay: Some researchers contend that the deficit in merit pay and performance-based pay is linked to the fundamental issues stemming from PA systems.

Although performance appraisals can be biased, there are certain steps that can be taken to improve the evaluations and reduce the margin of errors through the following:

Training - Bringing awareness to the potential for bias by training the Evaluators to be aware of the difference of skills and abilities between employees and how to subjectively consider these traits.

Providing feedback to raters - Trained raters provide managers who evaluated their subordinates with feedback, including information on ratings from other managers. This has the potential to reduce leniency errors.

Subordinate participation - By allowing employee participation in the evaluation process, there is employee-supervisor reciprocity in the discussion for any discrepancies between self ratings and supervisor ratings, thus, increasing job satisfaction and motivation.

Use multiple raters to avoid the likely bias with using only one rater.

Conduct post appraisal interviews. interview employees after appraisal to get their comments, views and opinions on the whole exercise and general performance.

Use selective rating. Use people as raters on areas where they have job knowledge since no single person is knowledgeable in all areas.

Reward accurate appraisers. It is good practice to reward performance and hence it means those who appraise accurately have performed and should be rewarded.

Frequent discussions with employees are better than annual reviews

Talking about future goals is more productive than past performance, especially with clear targets, deadlines, and the participation of the employee

Negative feedback can cause defensiveness and worsen productivity

Positive feedback does little to improve productivity, though does improve the interpersonal relationship with the person giving the feedback

Neither managers nor employees like performance reviews

Higher-level employees receive performance reviews less frequently

Annual reviews are often justified on the grounds they are needed for salary changes, but they are not actually necessary, and empirically they would make little difference for most employees

Labor union contracts often include seniority provisions, specifying that promotions, layoffs, and benefits are determined based on the length of service rather than performance. Historically, these provisions aimed to prevent favoritism, cronyism, and corruption, promoting a sense of solidarity among workers. Seniority serves as job security, protecting long-serving employees from arbitrary layoffs or demotions. It is commonly seen in sectors like manufacturing, education, and public services, offering employees a predictable path to career advancement and rewards.

The Last-In, First-Out (LIFO) Rule

While seniority offers job security and a sense of fairness, it also presents challenges in modern workplaces. To address this, many labor contracts have adopted flexible seniority systems, where an employee's abilities, skills, and job performance are also considered alongside their tenure. For example, companies might use performance reviews to guide decisions related to promotions, salary increases, and even layoffs. This approach allows employers to respect seniority while ensuring that productivity and contributions to the organization are fairly acknowledged.

In recent years, some organizations have increasingly questioned traditional seniority-based approaches, arguing that they can stifle innovation and adaptability, especially in fast-paced markets like technology and healthcare. This has led to a push for more performance-oriented contracts that still incorporate elements of seniority to ensure a balanced approach. Mixed evaluation systems, combining seniority with performance metrics, human resource metrics, skills assessments, and peer feedback, are becoming more popular. These systems aim to balance the stability provided by seniority with the need for a dynamic, merit-based workforce. The ongoing debate reflects the complexities of modern labor relations and the need for adaptive strategies that can meet diverse business needs.

The government and public sector organizations continue to use PA worldwide. In the 2005 Merit Performance Survey (MPS) conducted by the United States (U.S.) Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), 16.41% of federal supervisors reported that they had rated their employees' PAs either higher or lower than the employees should have received. Among nine potential problems identified in the 2005 MPS on structure and operation of the U.S. federal government appraisal system; inflated ratings, flawed standards, and lack of support were ranked as the top three problems, respectively.

Occurs when employees receive higher-than-expected performance ratings due to systematic bias by raters when conducting PA. This consequently affect the effectiveness of PA evaluations due to the impact of halo effect and anchoring effect on PA rating. Research shows that managers tend to give better ratings to subordinates they favor, influenced by both direct bias and indirect bias. Inflated ratings are more common when PAs are conducted for judgmental and administrative purposes, such as promotions, pay increases, or job retention, rather than for developmental reasons.

Recent HRM studies also suggest raters' experiences cognitive bias influenced by contextual factors, such as institutional, political, and cultural influences, as well as environmental factors. For instance, an environmental, such as, a national crisis can impair raters to rely on heuristic thinking rather than making an objective and cognitive evaluation of subordinates PA, as described by dual-process theory.

Flawed performance standards or measures are attributed to the use of subjective criteria or ambiguous measures by raters during PAs. One cause of this issue is the difficulty in defining objective performance standards due to the complexity of job tasks or outcomes. This challenge may be influenced by how organizations structure their employees' duties. Factors such as job autonomy, teamwork, and job rotation affect the setting of performance standards, and in some cases, subjective criteria may be necessary due to the nature of the job. For example, empirical findings suggest that subordinates with a high degree of job autonomy may have a positive relationship with the inclusion of subjective measures in their PA, due to the variation of day-to-day job tasks need to meet performance targets and provided there is frequent level monitoring by their line managers.

Lack of support from higher management can undermine raters' confidence and their ability to conduct employee PA effectively, which can compromise the independence and integrity of PA decision-making. Employees often rely on higher management to validate the organization's decisions. When higher management emphasizes the importance of PAs by providing endorsements, resources, training, and time for participation, it can motivate raters to be more accountable and thorough in conducting accurate appraisals. However, political and institutional factors, such as, political ideologies, norms, and organizational culture can influence the effective implementation of PA outcomes.

Human resource management (HRM) conducts performance management. Performance management systems consist of the activities and processes embraced by an organization in anticipation of improving employee performance, and therefore, organizational performance. Consequently, performance management is conducted at the organizational level and the individual level. At the organizational level, performance management oversees organizational performance and compares present performance with organizational performance goals. The achievement of these organizational performance goals depends on the performance of the individual organizational members. Therefore, measuring individual employee performance can prove to be a valuable performance management process for the purposes of HRM and for the organization. Many researchers would argue that "performance appraisal is one of the most important processes in Human Resource Management".

The objective production method consists of direct, but limited, measures such as sales figures, production numbers, the electronic performance monitoring of data entry workers, etc. The measures used to appraise performance would depend on the job and its duties. Although these measures deal with unambiguous criteria, they are usually incomplete because of criterion contamination and criterion deficiency. Criterion contamination refers to the part of the actual criteria that is unrelated to the conceptual criteria. In other words, the variability in performance can be due to factors outside of the employee's control. Criterion deficiency refers to the part of the conceptual criteria that is not measured by the actual criteria. In other words, the quantity of production does not necessarily indicate the quality of the products. Both types of criterion inadequacies result in reduced validity of the measure. Regardless of the fact that objective production data is not a complete reflection upon job performance, such data is relevant to job performance.

The happy-productive worker hypothesis states that the happiest workers are the most productive performers, and the most productive performers are the happiest workers. Yet, after decades of research, the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance produces only a weak positive correlation. Published in 2001 by Psychological Bulletin, a meta-analysis of 312 research studies produced an uncorrected correlation of 0.18. This correlation is much weaker than what the happy-productive worker hypothesis would predict.

The personnel method is the recording of withdrawal behaviors (i.e. absenteeism, accidents). Most organizations consider unexcused absences to be indicators of poor job performance, even with all other factors being equal; however, this is subject to criterion deficiency. The quantity of an employee's absences does not reflect how dedicated that employee may be to the job and its duties. Especially for blue-collar jobs, accidents can often be a useful indicator of poor job performance, but this is also subject to criterion contamination because situational factors also contribute to accidents. Once again, both types of criterion inadequacies result in reduced validity of the measure. Although excessive absenteeism or accidents often indicate poor job performance rather than good performance, such personnel data is not a comprehensive reflection of an employee's performance.

An employee filling in an evaluation form

Judgmental evaluation appears to be a collection of methods, and as such, could be considered a methodology. A common approach to obtaining PAs is by means of raters. Because the raters are human, some error will always be present in the data. The most common types of error are leniency errors, central tendency errors, and errors resulting from the halo effect. Halo effect is characterized by the tendency to rate a person who is exceptionally strong in one area higher than deserved in other areas. It is the opposite of the Horns effect, where a person is rated as lower than deserved in other areas due to an extreme deficiency in a single discipline. These errors arise predominantly from social cognition and the theory in that how we judge and evaluate other individuals in various contexts is associated with how we "acquire, process, and categorize information".

Graphic rating scale: graphic rating scales are the most commonly used system in PA. On several different factors, subordinates are judged on 'how much' of that factor or trait they possess. Typically, the raters use a 5- or 7-point scale; however, there are as many as 20-point scales.

Employee-comparison methods: rather than subordinates being judged against pre-established criteria, they are compared with one another. This method eliminates central tendency and leniency errors but still allows for halo effect errors to occur. The rank-order method has raters ranking subordinates from "best" to "worst", but how truly good or bad one is on a performance dimension would be unknown. The paired-comparison method requires the rater to select the two "best" subordinates out of a group on each dimension then rank individuals according to the number of times each subordinate was selected as one of the "best". The forced-distribution method is good for large groups of ratees. The raters evaluate each subordinate on one or more dimensions and then place (or "force-fit") each subordinate in a 5 to 7 category normal distribution. The method of top-grading can be applied to the forced distribution method. This method identifies the 10% lowest performing subordinates, as according to the forced distribution, and dismisses them leaving the 90% higher performing subordinates.

Behavioral checklists and scales: behaviors are more definite than traits. The critical incidents method (or critical incident technique) concerns "specific behaviors indicative of good or bad job performance". Supervisors record behaviors of what they judge to be job performance relevant, and they keep a running tally of good and bad behaviors. A discussion on performance may then follow. The behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) combine the critical incidents method with rating scale methods by rating performance on a scale but with the scale points being anchored by behavioral incidents. Note that BARS are job specific. In the behavioral observation scale (BOS) approach to performance appraisal, employees are also evaluated in the terms of critical incidents. In that respect, it is similar to BARS. However, the BOS appraisal rate subordinates on the frequency of the critical incidents as they are observed to occur over a given period. The ratings are assigned on a five-point scale. The behavioral incidents for the rating scale are developed in the same way as for BARS through identification by supervisors or other subject matter experts. Similarly, BOS techniques meet equal employment opportunity because they are related to actual behavior required for successful job performance.

The frequency of an evaluation, and policies concerning them, varies widely from workplace to workplace. Sometimes, an evaluation will be given to a new employee after a probationary period lapses, after which they may be conducted on a regular basis (such as every year). According to the 2014 Performance Management survey, 96% of employers perform annual performance evaluations and 44% of employers perform a 90-day performance review for new employees.

For assessment to be successful and effective it must be conducted as a managed process. The process must be given sufficient time and space and be supported by appropriately trained and purposed personnel. Key activities to support the appraisal process are identified as:

A suitable model of assessment (for example: narrative self-assessment, goal-based assessment, SWOT analysis or rating scales)

appropriately credentialed staff to manage the process

A supported approach to the assessment (employees understand the process, are given time to engage with it and are motivated to)

Improvement actions are identified and acknowledged where achieved, further planning is undertaken where new or unresolved improvement actions are identified.

The improvement cycle has a 'closed loop' structure, allowing employees to reset prior to progressing to new goals.

Employees can see how their development relates to the wider organisational plan.

While performance appraisal is typically performed along reporting relationships (usually top-down), assessment can include both peer and self-assessment.

Self-assessment incorporates a "wide variety of mechanisms and techniques through which students describe (i.e., assess) and possibly assign merit or worth to (i.e., evaluate) the qualities of their own learning processes and products" (p. 804)

Potential benefits of peer assessment are:

Decreased "social loafing" (mitigates the tendency to be less productive when part of a team).

Improved performance.

An environment that better reflects the culture of the team.

Individuals take greater of each other and their relationships.

In negotiated performance appraisal the appraisal follows the typical format, but a facilitator is present who may mediate perceived risks of defensiveness, bias or conflict and can prevent the tendency of appraisers to leave areas of under-performance unaddressed. This approach has little presence in the literature around performance appraisal but may be of benefit in supporting face to face peer performance conversations.[citation needed ]

In general, optimal PA process involves a combination of multiple assessment modalities. One common recommendation is that assessment flows from self-assessment, to peer-assessment, to management assessment - in that order. Starting with self-assessment facilitates avoidance of conflict. Peer feedback ensures peer accountability, which may yield better results than accountability to management. Management assessment comes last for need of recognition by authority and avoidance of conflict in case of disagreements. It is generally recommended that PA is done in shorter cycles to avoid high-stakes discussions, as is usually the case in long-cycle appraisals.[citation needed ]

Principal-agent framework

Incentive pay leads to the increase of agents awareness of their own actions and seek to maximize their pay by considering the best possible actions that can be taken for the success of the firm and actively explore several options to minimize opportunity costs. The issue with this form of resolution is the firm must compensate the agents for bearing a risk premium and inequitable pay.[citation needed ]

Also referred to as contextual behavior, prosocial behavior, and extra-role behavior, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) consists of employee behavior that contributes to the welfare of the organization but is beyond the scope of the employee's job duties. These extra-role behaviors may help or hinder the attainment of organizational goals. Research supports five dimensions of OCB: altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. Researchers have found that the OCB dimensions of altruism and civic virtue can have just as much of an impact on manager's subjective evaluations of employees' performances as employees' objective productivity levels. The degree to which OCB can influence judgments of job performance is relatively high. Controversy exists as to whether OCB should be formally considered as a part of performance appraisal (PA).

Numerous researchers have reported that many employees are not satisfied with their performance appraisal (PA) systems. Studies have shown that subjectivity as well as appraiser bias is often a problem perceived by as many as half of employees. Appraiser bias, however, appears to be perceived as more of a problem in government and public sector organizations. Also, according to some studies, employees wished to see changes in the PA system by making "the system more objective, improving the feedback process, and increasing the frequency of review." In light of traditional PA operation defects, "organizations are now increasingly incorporating practices that may improve the system. These changes are particularly concerned with areas such as elimination of subjectivity and bias, training of appraisers, improvement of the feedback process and the performance review discussion."

Researchers suggest that the study of employees' reactions to PA is important because of two main reasons: employee reactions symbolizes a criterion of interest to practitioners of PAs and employee reactions have been associated through theory to determinants of appraisal acceptance and success. Researchers translate these reasons into the context of the scientist-practitioner gap or the "lack of alignment between research and practice."

There are federal laws addressing fair employment practices, and this also concerns performance appraisal (PA). Discrimination can occur within predictions of performance and evaluations of job behaviors. The revision of many court cases has revealed the involvement of alleged discrimination which was often linked to the assessment of the employee's job performance. Some of the laws which protect individuals against discrimination are "the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)." Lawsuits may also results from charges of an employer's negligence, defamation, or misrepresentation. A few appraisal criteria to keep in mind for a legally sound PA is to keep the content of the appraisal objective, job-related, behavior-based, within the control of the ratee, and related to specific functions rather than a global assessment. Some appraisal procedure suggestions for a legally sound PA is to standardize operations, communicate formally with employees, provide information of performance deficits and give opportunities to employees to correct those deficits, give employees access to appraisal results, provide written instructions for the training of raters, and use multiple, diverse and unbiased raters. These are valuable but not exhaustive lists of recommendations for PAs.

Performance appraisal (PA) systems, and the premises of which they were based, that have been formed and regarded as effective in the United States may not have the transferability for effectual utilization in other countries or cultures, and vice versa. Performance "appraisal is thought to be deeply rooted in the norms, values, and beliefs of a society". "Appraisal reflects attitudes towards motivation and performance (self) and relationships (e.g. peers, subordinates, supervisors, organization), all of which vary from one country to the next". Therefore, appraisal should be in conjunction with cultural norms, values, and beliefs in order to be operative. The deep-seated norms, values and beliefs in different cultures affect employee motivation and perception of organizational equity and justice. In effect, a PA system created and considered effectual in one country may not be an appropriate assessment in another cultural region.

Varying standards

Problem: When a manager appraises (evaluates) his or her employees and the manager uses different standards and expectations for employees who are performing similar jobs.

Example: A professor does not grade the exams of all students in the same standards, sometimes it depends on the affection that the professor has towards others. This affection will make professor give students higher or lower grades.

Solution: The rater must use the same standards and weights for every employee. The manager should be able to show coherent arguments in order to explain the difference. Therefore, it would be easier to know if it is done, because the employee has provided a good performance, or if it because the manager perception is distorted.

Recency effects

Primacy effects

Central tendency

Problem: When the manager evaluates every employee within a narrow range, as the average because he or she is dismissing the differences in the performance that employees have done.

Example: When a professor because the average of the class tends to grade harder. Therefore, if the performance of the class average is quite high, the professor will evaluate them more highly. On the contrary, if the average of the class is lower, he or she would appraise lower.

Leniency

Problem: Rating of all employees are at the high end of the scale.

Example: When the professor tends to grade harder, because the average of the class.

Strictness

Rater bias

Problem: Rater's when the manager rates according to their values and prejudices which at the same time distort the rating. Those differentiations can be made due to the ethnic group, gender, age, religion, sexuality or appearance of the employee.

Example: Sometimes happen that a manager treats someone different, because they think that the employee is homosexual.

Solution: If then, the examination is done by higher-level managers, this kind of appraising can be corrected, because they are supposed to be more impartial.

Halo effect

Horn effect

Contrast

Similar-to-me / Different-from-me

Sampling

It is difficult to minimize rater errors, since humans are not objective. Moreover, sometimes, managers are not aware of having preferences towards people, but there are tools to have more objective information, such as using available technology to track performances and record it.

Consultant Marcus Buckingham and executive Ashley Goodall, reporting on a large-scale Deloitte performance management survey on Harvard Business Review, said, contrary to the assumptions underlying performance rating, the rating mainly measured the unique rating tendencies of the rater and thus reveals more about the rater than about the person who is rated. They referred to this as the idiosyncratic rater effect. In view of this effect, they advocate a radically different approach to performance management. In their scenario, 360-degree feedback and similar time-intensive exercises are replaced by team leaders' "performance snapshots" that focus on what they would do with each team member rather than what they think of that individual, and yearly appraisals of past performance are replaced by weekly check-ins among team leader and team member, preferably initiated by the team member, that focus on current and upcoming work.

1. ^ "Conducting the Development Discussion - Manager's Tips" (PDF). MIT Human Resources. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 March 2010.

2. ^ Cappelli, Peter; Tavis, Anna (2016). "The performance management revolution". Harvard Business Review. 94 (10): 58-67.

3. ^ Sudarsan, A (2009). "Performance appraisal systems: A survey of organizational views". The Icfai University Journal of Organizational Behavior. 3 (1): 54-69.

4. ^ Biron, Michal; Farndale, Elaine; Paauwe, Jaap (2011). "Performance management effectiveness: Lessons from world-leading firms". The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 22 (6): 1294-1311. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.559100.

5. ^ Barbieri, D., Gorbatai, A., & Kazman, R. (2021). "The Performance of Performance Appraisal Systems: A Theoretical Framework for Public Organizations". Review of Public Personnel Administration.

6. Boyne, G. A. (2010). "Public and private management: What's the difference?". Journal of Management Studies: 39(1), 97-122.

7. ^ Benson, J. "Performance management systems and employee relations: A critical perspective". Labour Studies Journal: 46(2), 155-173.

8. ^ Barbieri, D., Gorbatai, A., & Kazman, R. "The Performance of Performance Appraisal Systems: A Theoretical Framework for Public Organizations". Review of Public Personnel Administration.

9. ^ Perry, J. L. (2018). Managing human behavior in public and nonprofit organizations. CQ Press.

10. ^ García-Chas, R., Neira-Fontela, E., & Varela-Neira, C. (2016). High-performance work systems and job satisfaction: A mediating role of trust and labour unions. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(2), 238-254. "High-performance work systems and job satisfaction: A mediating role of trust and labour unions". Human Resource Management Journal: 26(2), 238-254.

11. ^ Daniels, Aubrey C. Designing a Compensation Program That Motivates and Produces a Profit-Driven Workplace (Report).

12. ^ "What Is Inflation Rating Performance Appraisal?". QuestionAnswer.io. 12 July 2022. Archived from the original on 5 October 2022.

13. ^ "What Solid Research Actually Says About Performance Appraisals". . Archived from the original on 7 May 2023.

14. ^ Böckerman, Petri; Skedinger, Per; Uusitalo, Roope (April 2018). "Seniority rules, worker mobility and wages: Evidence from multi-country linked employer-employee data". Labour Economics. 51: 48-62. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2017.11.006. hdl:10419/129663.

15. ^ Aumayr-Pintar, Christine; Bechter, Barbara (17 April 2019). Seniority-based entitlements: Extent, policy debates and research. Eurofound (Report).

16. ^ DeNisi, Angelo S (2000). "Performance appraisal and performance management: A multilevel analysis". In Klein, Katherine J.; Kozlowski, Steve W. J. (eds.). Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. Wiley. pp. 121-156. ISBN 978-0-7879-5228-0. OCLC 880333902.

17. ^ Milgram, L. (1999). "Management by Objectives (MBO)-Setting SMART Goals". Managing Smart. p. 17. doi:10.1016/b978-0-88415-752-6.50018-7. ISBN 978-0-88415-752-6.

18. ^ Yi, Ran (January 2023). "Self-Knowledge and Learner Engagement in Hybrid Classrooms". CALR Linguistics Journal (13). doi:10.60149/wtrx5743.

19. ^ Sepahvand, Faribah; Mohammadipour, Fatemeh; Parvizy, Soroor; Zagheri Tafreshi, Mansoureh; Skerrett, Victoria; Atashzadeh-Shoorideh, Foroozan (April 2020). "Improving nurses' organizational commitment by participating in their performance appraisal process". Journal of Nursing Management. 28 (3): 595-605. doi:10.1111/jonm.12961. PMID 31958192.

20. ^ Panadero, Ernesto; Brown, Gavin T. L.; Strijbos, Jan-Willem (December 2016). "The Future of Student Self-Assessment: a Review of Known Unknowns and Potential Directions". Educational Psychology Review. 28 (4): 803-830. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2. hdl:10486/679161.

21. Yang, Anita; Brown, Anna; Gilmore, Rachel; Persky, Adam M. (October 2022). "A Practical Review for Implementing Peer Assessments Within Teams". American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 86 (7): 8795. doi:10.5688/ajpe8795. PMC . PMID 34697020.

22. ^ Ibarra-Sáiz, María Soledad; Rodríguez-Gómez, Gregorio; Boud, David (July 2020). "Developing student competence through peer assessment: the role of feedback, self-regulation and evaluative judgement". Higher Education. 80 (1): 137-156. doi:10.1007/s10734-019-00469-2. hdl:10536/DRO/DU:30134272.

23. Iriani, Tuti; Anisah; Luthfiana, Yusrina (2023). "Peer Assessment Analysis of Performance Appraisal Using Analytical Rubrics to Improve Critical Thinking Skills". Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Education and Technology (ICETECH 2022). Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. Vol. 745. pp. 216-224. doi:10.2991/978-2-38476-056-5_24. ISBN 978-2-38476-055-8.

24. ^ González-Gil, M.T.; Parro-Moreno, A.I.; Oter-Quintana, C.; González-Blázquez, C.; Martínez-Marcos, M.; Casillas-Santana, M.; Arlandis-Casanova, A.; Canalejas-Pérez, C. (December 2020). "360-Degree evaluation: Towards a comprehensive, integrated assessment of performance on clinical placement in nursing degrees: A descriptive observational study". Nurse Education Today. 95: 104594. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104594. PMID 32979748.

25. Meghdad, Rahati; Nayereh, Rohollahi; Zahra, Sakeni; Houriye, Zahed; Reza, Nanakar (January 2020). "Assessment of the performance of nurses based on the 360-degree model and fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method (FMCDM) and selecting qualified nurses". Heliyon. 6 (1): e03257. Bibcode:2020Heliy...603257M. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03257. PMC . PMID 32042978.

26. ^ Eva, Nathan; Meacham, Hannah; Schwarz, Gary (August 2018). "Is Co-Worker Feedback More Important than Supervisor Feedback for Increasing Extra-Role Behaviors?". Academy of Management Proceedings. 2018 (1): 11942. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2018.11942abstract.

27. ^ Miller, Gary J. (2005). "Solutions to Principal-Agent Problems in Firms". Handbook of New Institutional Economics. pp. 349-370. doi:10.1007/0-387-25092-1_15. ISBN 978-1-4020-2687-4.

28. ^ LePine, Jeffrey A.; Erez, Amir; Johnson, Diane E. (2002). "The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis". Journal of Applied Psychology. 87 (1): 52-65. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52. PMID 11916216. ProQuest 614385222.

29. ^ Sulsky, Lorne M.; Keown, Janine L. (February 1998). "Performance appraisal in the changing world of work: Implications for the meaning and measurement of work performance". Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne. 39 (1-2): 52-59. doi:10.1037/h0086794. ProQuest 614336993.

30. ^ Lotich, Patricia (21 April 2020). "6 Errors Managers Make on Performance Appraisals". Smart Church Management.

31. ^ Buckingham, Marcus; Goodall, Ashley (2015). "Reinventing performance management". Harvard Business Review. 93 (4): 15.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A performance appraisal, also referred to as a performance review, performance evaluation, (career) development discussion, or employee appraisal, sometimes shortened to " PA", is a periodic and systematic process whereby the job performance of an employee is documented and evaluated. This is done after employees are trained about work and settle into their jobs.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, Peer evaluation is increasingly recognized as more valuable than supervisor-only assessment in modern organizations, especially when implemented thoughtfully. One major advantage is that peer evaluations offer broader and more accurate feedback. Peers often observe each other’s day-to-day behaviour and teamwork more closely than supervisors do, enabling them to assess skills like communication, collaboration, and reliability with greater nuance. Additionally, companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Adobe have reported significant improvements in employee engagement, performance, and retention when peer evaluations are included in performance management systems. In team-based environments, peer evaluations also encourage accountability and improve outcomes, as seen in educational settings where peer-rated contributions enhance team performance and professionalism.

However, peer evaluations are not without challenges. Biases such as friendships, personal conflicts, or strategic rating to manipulate outcomes can reduce the reliability of feedback. For instance, peers might give overly generous or harsh evaluations depending on their relationships or competitiveness. Without proper structure, transparency in peer reviews may lead to less honest feedback due to fear of retaliation or favouritism. Moreover, both peer and supervisor assessments are susceptible to halo effects or groupthink, especially if not managed with oversight.

To make peer evaluations effective, organizations should integrate them with supervisor assessments as part of a 360-degree feedback system. This approach combines the depth of peer insight with the broader oversight of managerial evaluations. Best practices include ensuring anonymity, setting clear and consistent criteria, training employees to give constructive feedback, and using peer input mainly for developmental purposes rather than solely for promotions or compensation decisions. With these safeguards in place, peer evaluation can become a powerful tool for enhancing individual growth and organizational performance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Peer Evaluations: Evaluating and Being Evaluated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Klapper H., Piezunka H., Dahlander L. (2024). Peer Evaluations: Evaluating and Being Evaluated. Organization Science, 35(4), pp1363-1387.

# data[].attributes.body
First and foremost, supervisor evaluations are more objective and aligned with organizational goals. Supervisors are responsible for overseeing employees' work in relation to the broader organizational objectives. They evaluate an individual's performance based on clear criteria, including productivity, innovation, and strategic contribution to the company's success. Unlike peers, who might have limited perspectives or biases based on personal interactions, supervisors can assess performance impartially. This objectivity is essential when making decisions about promotions, raises, or other career advancements.

Secondly, supervisors bring greater expertise and experience to the evaluation process. As individuals in leadership roles, supervisors typically have more experience in the industry and a deeper understanding of the technical and strategic aspects of the job. This expertise allows them to provide more valuable feedback on both the quality of the work and the potential for growth. While peers might evaluate based on daily interactions or collaboration within specific projects, supervisors have a broader view of how an employee’s performance contributes to the larger goals of the organization.

Lastly, supervisor evaluations play a key role in guiding long-term career development. Supervisors are in a unique position to offer career advice, mentorship, and opportunities for growth within the organization. Their assessments are typically used to make decisions about promotions, training, and leadership development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your Ray ID for this request is 94cd047ced3fc598

# data[].attributes.body
I strongly believe that peer rating is better than supervisor rating in today's organizations. Peers work with each other on a daily basis and are able to observe attitudes, teamwork and work habits the supervisors do not have access to. Peer evaluation provides a fairer and more balanced view since feedback comes from multiple people, reducing the chances of bias and favoritism. It also fosters a supportive workplace culture where staff members are motivated to help one another and work well together.

In addition, peer evaluation promotes personal and professional growth. When they get authentic and true feedback from their peers, they are better informed of what they can and cannot do. This pushes them towards further personal development and improved work relationships. Since modern organizations often rely on teamwork and flexible work styles, peer evaluation offers a more comprehensive and accurate picture of an employee’s performance, making it a superior method compared to supervisor-only assessments.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472811721000872?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Nurain Wardina Binti Md Zulkifli

AM2412017668

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, peer evaluation is increasingly considered more valuable than supervisor-only assessment in modern organizations due to its ability to provide a more holistic and accurate picture of employee performance. While supervisors may evaluate based on limited interactions and observable outcomes, peers interact more frequently and can offer insights into teamwork, communication, and daily contributions. This broader perspective leads to more well-rounded feedback, enhances employee engagement, and fosters a culture of accountability and mutual respect. Moreover, organizations that incorporate peer evaluations often report improved collaboration and performance outcomes. However, peer evaluations must be structured carefully to avoid bias and ensure fairness. When used alongside supervisor assessments, peer reviews can significantly enhance the effectiveness of performance management systems.

NUR IMAN SYAFIQA BINTI MOHD HAIRIS

AM2311014697

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn more about peer appraisal, explore its various methods, and find out how HR can effectively implement them in the workplace.

# data[].attributes.body
In my personal view, I do not agree with the statement that peer evaluation is more valuable than supervisor-only assessment in modern organizations. Whether this statement holds true or produces quality results for an organization is debatable and requires deeper analysis. While it is clear that both peer evaluations and supervisor assessments have their own pros and cons, the key focus should be on identifying which system is more effective when implemented in an organizational context.

To be precise, I believe that supervisor evaluations offer stronger advantages, as they tend to be more systematic, objective, and less prone to bias. This is because supervisors typically possess greater experience, broader organizational knowledge, and more advanced skills qualities that make them more qualified to assess employee performance fairly and accurately.

In contrast, peer-to-peer evaluations often suffer from certain flaws. For instance, personal relationships among peers can influence ratings, leading to biased or dishonest assessments. Supervisors, on the other hand, are expected to maintain professional boundaries, which makes their evaluations more consistent and impartial.

Moreover, with this system, supervisors have the authority to make important decisions regarding promotions, salary adjustments, and professional development opportunities. Supervisor evaluations directly influence these critical HR decisions, ensuring that high-performing employees are recognized and rewarded appropriately.

The Importance of Supervisor Performance Evaluations | Candor

By: Muhammad Amir Asyraf Bin Mafreen (AM2412018120)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Importance of Supervisor Performance Evaluations | Candor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover the significance of supervisor performance evaluations and how they contribute to employee development and organizational success.

# data[].attributes.body
for me i choose peer evaluation because peer evaluation is more effective than supervisor-only assessment, especially in modern organizations where teamwork is very important. After reading the article “The 5 Benefits of Peer Evaluation” from Intedashboard, I believe that getting feedback from peers is more accurate, fair, and helpful for personal growth. One reason I prefer peer evaluation is that our teammates work closely with us every day. They know how much effort we put into group tasks, and they can give honest feedback. This helps make the evaluation more fair compared to just one supervisor who might not see everything we do.

I also think peer evaluation motivates people to do better. When I know my peers will evaluate me, I try to contribute more and be a better team player. It also reduces the chance of someone doing less work in a group because everyone is responsible to each other. Another reason is that peer feedback helps me grow. When others give me suggestions, I learn what I can improve, and I can also reflect on my own strengths and weaknesses. This helps me become more self-aware and a better team member. Overall, I believe peer evaluation is more useful than just supervisor feedback. It creates a sense of fairness, improves teamwork, and helps us grow both personally and professionally.

NUR EZA SYAFINI BT FAUZI AM2311014699

# data[].attributes.body
On the flip side, I also see the immense value in supervisor-only assessment. My supervisor has a broader view of the organizational goals and how my role fits into the bigger picture. Their assessments are usually more structured, often tying directly to the company's strategic objectives and my long-term career path.

My supervisor's feedback is essential for growing my knowledge in a targeted way. They can identify specific skill gaps that are crucial for my advancement within the company and provide me with the resources or training opportunities to address them. This top-down guidance is vital for ensuring my individual development aligns with the organization's needs and for helping me map out a clear path for professional growth. They help me understand not just what I'm doing, but why it matters to the overall success of the business.

https://chronus.com/blog/employee-development-plan

Afiqah Maisarah Binti Janisauri

AM2311014716

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Employee Development Plans: Importance and Examples | Chronus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn the importance of employee development plans for both employees and your organization and get ideas on how to create a successful one.

# data[].attributes.body
I've seen firsthand how peer evaluation can be incredibly beneficial. When my colleagues give me feedback, it often feels more immediate and relatable. They're in the trenches with me, so their insights into how I collaborate, communicate, and handle day-to-day challenges are incredibly valuable. This kind of feedback can genuinely boost my confidence because it comes from people who truly understand the nuances of my work. Knowing that my contributions are seen and appreciated by my teammates is a huge motivator.

Beyond confidence, peer evaluation is a fantastic source of new ideas. My teammates often have different perspectives or approaches to problems that I might not have considered. When we evaluate each other, we're essentially pooling our collective intelligence, which can lead to innovative solutions and better ways of working. It fosters a really collaborative environment where we're constantly learning from each other.

https://www.hifives.in/peer-feedback-a-significant-input-for-effective-performance-management/

Afiqah Maisarah binti Janisauri

AM2311014716

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Employee Rewards, Recognition & Engagement Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Peer Feedback for Effective Performance Management

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Organizations are increasingly considering peer feedback for effective performance management, across all levels

# data[].attributes.body
Supervisor assessment because it offers a more objective, systematic, and goal-oriented evaluation. Supervisors have a comprehensive understanding of employees’ tasks, long-term achievements, and the strategic performance required. They are also trained to use key performance indicators (KPIs) and formal criteria aligned with the company’s mission. While peer evaluations may offer additional insights, they are often prone to bias, personal conflicts, or a lack of professional evaluation skills. Biases such as favoritism, personal conflicts, or lack of objectivity. These biases can distort the accuracy of assessments, leading to unfair evaluations that may not reflect an employee's true performance. For example, a study published in Organization Science discusses how peer evaluations can be influenced by strategic considerations, where individuals may evaluate others in ways that benefit their own standing within the organization.

https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2021.15302

# data[].attributes.body
I think peer evaluation is more valuable than supervisor-only assessment, since peers operate collaboratively and observe one another's real efforts and behavior which things supervisors frequently overlook.

Peer feedback more precisely reflects daily behaviors, making it more reliable indicators of future achievement. By including many viewpoints, it also lessens bias and promotes a more transparent, team-oriented workplace culture which two things that are crucial in today's working settings.

Peer Evaluations: Evaluating and Being Evaluated | Organization Science

Nurul Atikah binti Azizul

AM2307013831

# data[].attributes.body
Peer evaluation is more valuable than supervisor evaluation in modern organizations because it can be a valuable tool for assessing employee performance within the organization. This can be seen when peers often work more closely in a team compared to the supervisor. Employee can share their opinion and give feedback on other employees' performance, that create a supportive environment within the organization. Peer evaluation helps the employee to improve their skills in a supportive teamwork.

However, peer evaluation may have limitations and be subject to bias or personal relationship. Peer evaluation can be influenced by personal bias among the employee within the organization which can lead to conflict that affect employee performance.

By combining peer evaluations with other measurement tools like self-assessment and supervisor feedback, organization can create a more robust and balance evaluation system that reflect employee performance.

Ain Nadhirah binti Mohamed Azhan

AM2311014717

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are peer evaluations a reliable measure of employee performance?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are peer evaluations a reliable measure of employee performance?

# data[].attributes.body
I also agree with supervisor assessment because managers understand the company’s goals and can judge how well employees are doing overall. They have more experience and can give clear direction. However, they might not see the small things that happen every day between team members.

Supervisor assessments provide a broader perspective on an employee's alignment with organizational goals and overall performance. Supervisors can offer strategic guidance and evaluate contributions that impact the organization's success. London and Smither (1995) suggest that incorporating multiple feedback sources, including supervisors, can lead to more comprehensive performance evaluations

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01782.x

But, Supervisor-only assessment may miss daily performance, teamwork, and soft skills. Its also can be biased, delayed, and one-sided, giving an incomplete view of how employees truly perform in their roles

# data[].attributes.body
I believe peer evaluation is more effective than supervisor-only assessments in today’s workplaces. Peers work closely with each other and can observe how someone performs their tasks, collaborates in a team, and handles daily responsibilities. Because of this, their feedback often provides a clearer, fairer, and more complete picture of an employee’s true performance. Unlike supervisors who may not see everything, peers witness the day-to-day work and interactions that really matter. This makes peer evaluation a valuable tool for creating a more open, supportive, and accurate performance review process.

According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), incorporating peer evaluations enhances the effectiveness of feedback and strengthens team relationships, making performance appraisal more practical and relevant to everyday work. Therefore, while supervisor assessments remain important, including peer evaluations leads to fairer and more balanced performance reviews that benefit both employees and organizations. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/employee-relations/assess-pros-cons-360-degree-performance-appraisal

Nur Amirah Hani Binti Saiful Amir

AM2412017618

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assess Pros and Cons of 360-Degree Performance Appraisal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
​It sounds like a good idea: Let’s ask customers, colleagues, direct reports and managers to help evaluate the effectiveness of every employee. A 360-degree approach: Who could argue with the…

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with peer evaluation because coworkers see each other’s daily work and behavior. They can give useful feedback about teamwork and how someone helps the group. This makes employees more responsible.

Its offer valuable insights into daily interactions, teamwork, and interpersonal skills that supervisors might not observe closely. Peer evaluations create accountability to teammates and provide an incentive for displaying good interpersonal skills and contributing effort to help the team achieve its goals (Hernandez, 2002; Millis & Cottell, 1998).

https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475302241009

But sometimes, peer reviews can be unfair if people are biased or don’t give proper feedback.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Team Learning in a Marketing Principles Course: Cooperative Structures That Facilitate Active Learning and Higher Level Thinking - Sigfredo A. Hernandez, 2002

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article examines team learning as a comprehensive pedagogy designed to facilitate active learning and higher level thinking. The key features of team learn…

# data[].attributes.body
Supervisor-only evaluations are simple and clear because feedback comes from one experienced person who knows the employee’s work well. This makes it easier to manage and ensures the feedback is fair and matches the company’s goals. It also helps build trust between the manager and employee through direct conversations. Unlike peer reviews, which can sometimes be biased or cause conflicts and lack of training.

https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/you-need-evaluate-employee-performance-how-d0abe#:~:text=it%20is%20used.-,5%20What%20are%20the%20benefits%20of%20a%20supervisor%20evaluation?,agree%20on%20an%20action%20plan.

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/hr/peer-appraisal-meaning-types-advantages-and-disadvantages/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
You need to evaluate employee performance. How do you choose between a 360-degree and supervisor evaluation?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn the advantages and disadvantages of two methods to evaluate employee performance as a systems engineer: 360-degree and supervisor evaluation.

# data[].attributes.body
Supervisors are more valuable in an organization because they have decision-making authority, extensive experience, and a holistic view of an employee's performance. They are also more objective than coworkers, who may be influenced by emotions or personal relationships. These assessments are important for purposes such as promotions, training, and career development.

https://primalogik.com/blog/supervisor-evaluation-complete-guide

By: Nur Wahyuni Binti Zulhisyam (AM2412017419)

# data[].attributes.body
In collaborative workplaces, peer evaluation can offer a more holistic and valuable perspective on an employee's performance compared to supervisor-only assessments. Peer evaluation allows teams, as well as employers, to gain insight into an employee's performance. This makes Peer review an effective method for improving team dynamics by promoting a culture of continuous feedback and mutual respect. It drives personal growth through feedback while aiming to achieve better business results. In today's era of a workplace driven by teamwork and diversity, peer appraisal is a critical means to grant autonomy to employees and foster a better work environment. There are many advantages of peer appraisal in inciting the interests of an employee.

https://factohr.com/hr-glossary/peer-appraisal/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

Most of us will experience a performance review at some point in our careers. From sitting comfortably at our desks to being forced into uncomfortable hot seats, approximately 80% of modern companies still utilize formal peer appraisal processes; most may not like going through them but know it's part of working in 21st-century companies.

Performance reviews don't need to be uninspiring conversations between employees and their bosses (who often don't know them well). Imagine creating a world where relationships between co-workers become the focus, and these innovative methods are superior.

Peer reviews are rapidly becoming the industry standard for performance reviews, decision-making, and driving team growth, not to mention creating an accurate portrait of team members. Some experts even see peer performance reviews as the future of performance evaluation! No more embarrassing reviews!

Let's explore peer review further, including its measurement, benefits, and how you can implement it within your company.

It is a formal feedback mechanism through which employees evaluate their fellow workers' performance, skills, and behaviors. Unlike mainstream assessments that only supervisors can do, peer assessment allows a more holistic view of the person being evaluated by those working closely with the individual.

This approach can uncover strengths, areas for improvement, and the ripple effect an employee is having on the team. The appraisals can be either formal (when implemented using a single organization-wide peer appraisal instrument) or informal, through less structured feedback sessions.

The process of peer appraisal can be customized according to the requirements of an organization. Here are some common types of Peer feedback:

This is a comprehensive approach that uses appraisals from various sources, including peers, supervisors, subordinates, and (if applicable) clients. It provides a comprehensive perspective of an employee's performance but is time-consuming and requires careful management to construct feedback.

Rate measures imply rating an overall quality of care based on predefined criteria. It makes it easy to compare but often misses some very critical aspects of human behavior and contributions.

Where peers respond with written comments to provide insight and explanation, while it provides an in-depth analysis, narrative feedback is subjective. It might need to be outsourced for proper training to ensure feedback meets positive and constructive parameters.

A system of employees grading their peers like standard school grades produced an easily defined class structure with the good, bad, and ugly. It is factual that this could lead you to obtain waged for your personal best do the job while competition creeps in the collaboration and it will push biases.

Prone to test for certain behaviors related to the position. Give Concrete Examples of Strengths and Areas for Improvement but Neglect Broader Performance.

Self and peer assessments are currently receiving a lot of attention, as is evidenced by the following: These are just some of the most obvious benefits of such a change:

Peer reviews are very much genuine. They originate from real people who know the trends of society.

The reviews are quite fair when it comes to evaluating work. They are also far more accurate than the numerical approaches that are derived from the top-down approach.

The appraisals assess peers in a much more holistic manner. Every team in each department is included!

Here are some best practices to get the most from your Peer feedback:

Peer assessment thrives on open, honest feedback. Establish a work culture that makes people feel comfortable in voicing their opinions without facing the consequences.

if a general comment is less useful, then more specific feedback can be helpful. Motivate the peers to give examples and make suggestions. Rather, aim to provide a balance between the two - this would mean that your feedback is both positive and developmental.

Closely held feedback encourages candor and prevents backlash of any kind.

Incorporate feedback from Peer assessments when creating development plans and monitoring progress. Checking in regularly keeps the ball rolling and nips any problems in the bud.

Without peer appraisal, a true account of an employee's overall performance cannot be ascertained from a complete perspective in modern organizations. Peer review solves the narrowing constraints of traditional performance reviews, which tend to gloss over the more intricate details inherent in day-to-day interactions and productivity. There are some advantages of Peer review.

By reducing bias and allowing for a more holistic evaluation, several opinions enhance objectiveness.

It helps in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each team member better and hence working more as a unified group.

The fact that employees are going to have their peers evaluate their performance can be a great motivation for keeping the standards up.

You will have the opportunity to receive powerful feedback from peers, leading you toward your areas of most needed self-improvement and advancement in the skill sets.

Positive feedback from other co-workers can motivate a person and make them strive harder to continue their good work. It acts as one of the most important benefits of Colleague assessments.

A peer review system needs a well-planned strategy to work effectively. Here are the key steps:

Define exactly what you want to accomplish with the assessment as string async. Do you want to improve team dynamics, motivate people on an individual level, or identify training needs?

Design a set of standards that are pertinent to evaluations. The first caveat is that you should be using metrics that coincide with what the organization values and has set as objectives.

Teach workers why Colleague assessment is done, how it will work, and what we expect from them. Be transparent: drive buy-in and alleviate stress.

Ensure employees are trained to effectively give and receive feedback. This involves focusing on the benefits of constructive feedback as well as the value of praise.

Avail of performance management software tools to automate appraisals, simplify data collection, and manage confidentiality.

Assess the feedback system regularly and make modifications as needed. Ask your participants for their feedback to find ways to improve.

Both Peer feedback and 360-degree feedback are used to evaluate a co-worker, but they have different goals and key differences.

When it comes to what is evaluated, peer evaluation is concerned more with the response received from co-workers, whereas 360-degree feedback rests upon an extensive and diverse collection of parties.

360-degree feedback gives a more rounded comprehension of performance, taking into account the numbers of several components from a few angles.

Peer feedback is also easier to implement and demands fewer resources than an entire 360-degree feedback process.

Whereas Peer review is generally used to support team development and collaboration, 360-degree feedback is used for leadership development and a full performance review.

Peer review will undoubtedly continue to dominate in organizations as they evolve. Better and more accurate technology-like AI and machine learning-should improve the precision (and speed) of these appraisals.

Additionally, peer feedback will be vital with remote and hybrid work set to stay a larger share of the norm. It will help keep teams together, engaged, and accountable no matter where they work.

Peer evaluation allows teams, as well as employers, to gain insight into an employee's performance. This makes Peer review an effective method for improving team dynamics by promoting a culture of continuous feedback and mutual respect. It drives personal growth through feedback while aiming to achieve better business results. In today's era of a workplace driven by teamwork and diversity, peer appraisal is a critical means to grant autonomy to employees and foster a better work environment. There are many advantages of peer appraisal in inciting the interests of an employee.

Whether you operate a manufacturing, logistics, or service-based company, factoHR can assist you in managing your staff, attendance, pay, performance, and other criteria. We offer a range of HR services and solutions to support the seamless operation of your business.

Peer appraisals offer complete insight into performance, build responsibility, and inculcate a working culture for continuous development.

Peer appraisals are usually an annual or bi-annual exercise. However, you can conduct these as and how often it suits your organizational goals.

Possible issues involve the risk of bias, fear of feedback sensation, and a call for good instruction in order to make appraisals counterproductive.

This would lead to better teamwork and collaboration as team members will come to know about areas they need improvement in and what their strengths are, all from the peer appraisals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Peer Appraisal: Definition, Meaning & How to Implement It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about peer appraisal, its importance at work, and the different types and guidelines for implementing a sound system.

# data[].attributes.body
In modern organizations, peer evaluations are increasingly recognized as valuable tools for assessing employee performance. Unlike supervisor assessments, peer feedback offers a more comprehensive view of an individual’s contributions, especially in collaborative environments. Plus the benefits highlighted is where it can increase engagement.

Further information: https://blogs.psico-smart.com/blog-the-untapped-potential-of-peer-reviews-in-employee-

By: Nik Nur Hidayah Munadhrah Binti Nik Mulayaddi (AM2412017248)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Untapped Potential of Peer Reviews in Employee Performance Measurement: Are They the Future of KPIs?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Untapped Potential of Peer Reviews in Employee Performance Measurement: Are They the Future of KPIs?

# data[].attributes.body
Peer evaluation can be more valuable than supervisor in modern organizations because it provides a fuller view of an employee’s performance. Peers often see daily behavior, teamwork, and contributions that managers might miss. This helps create fairer and more accurate feedback, encourages collaboration, and supports personal growth. However, it needs to be done carefully to avoid bias and ensure honest, useful input.

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/hr/peer-appraisal-meaning-types-advantages-and-disadvantages/

# data[].attributes.body
By: Noorsyalina Nordin

Supervisors possess a strategic overview of organizational goals and can better align performance assessments with company objectives. Their experienced perspective ensures evaluation consistency and professional development tracking. Further information and supported by some linkedin articles: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/from-peer-supervisor-step-y-step-guide-shift-luis-mora-cme-mba-oivee

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/better-working-relationships-supervisors-subordinates-dickerson