Municipal health service are facing many new challenges, including a growing number of elderly patients, the emergence of complex diseases, time pressure at work and an increased use of technology in the workplace. As a means of coping with these challenges municipalities may require their health professionals possess expertise in these particular areas, and performance appraisal (PA) may uses to assess their employees' skills.
The aim of this study is to use different models (PA carried out in group and individual conversations) to examine the effects of professional learning through PA.
Methods:
Group and individual PAs were conducted in one municipality. Questionnaires were distributed to a representative sample of 60 employees (test-group: 10 groups X3 employees; control-group: 30 employees), most of them were nurses and auxiliary nurses, at three different points in time (pre-test, post-test1 and post-test2).
Findings:
Respondents involved in the group-PA experienced more professional learning through the PA than those involved in the individual-PA. This finding was correlated with greater levels of employee participation, effort and personal exchanges in the PA, as well as better working conditions. However, employees involved in the individual-PA were more satisfied with the PA per se.
Conclusions:
Health personnel in municipal health services experience more professional learning through group-PA than individual-PA.
SchraederM. and SimpsonJ., How Similarity and Liking Affect performance Appraisals. The Journal for Quality & Participation, 2006. (29): 34–44.
3.
MurphyK.R. and ClevelandJ.N., Understanding Performance appraisal. Social, Organizational and goal setting, ed. S. Publications. 1995, London. Thousand Oakes: Sage Publications.
4.
EnglishA.GriffithR.L., and SteelamnL.. 2007. Small Group Research. http://sgr.sagepub.com, 633–665.
5.
LondonM., Performance Appraisal for Groups: Models and Methods for Assessing Group Prosesses and Outcomes for Development and Evaluation. Psychology Journal, 2007. 59(3): 175–188.
6.
LeviD., Group Dynamics for Teams, 2007, Los Angeles. ed. S. Publications.
7.
EdwardsM. and SproullR., Making Performance Appraisla perform: The use of Team Evaluation. American Management association's HR focus New YorkThe association, 1985. 62(3): 28–32.
8.
White paper no 20. 2006–2007. National Strategy for equalize social differences, D.k.h.o.s.-. Department, Editor. Oslo.
9.
White paper no 25. 2005–2006. Competence, Opportunities and Meaning, T.r.h.c. ministry, Editor., Government Stoltenberg. Oslo.
10.
IlgenD.R. and FeldmanJ.M., Performance Appraisal: A process focus. Reseach in Organizational behaviour, 1983. (5): 141–197.
11.
AbrahamsenB., Hvorfor utdanne to pleiere for å få en?, ed. P. forlag. 2002, Oslo.
12.
GuzzoR.A. and SheaG.P., Group performance and intergroup relations in organization, ed. H.o.i.a.o. psychology. Palo Alto. 1992 (3): 269–313.
13.
MaurerT.J.RajuN.S., and CollinsW.C., Peer and Subordinate Performance Appraisal Measurement Equivalence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998. 83(5): 693–702.
14.
United, S., Office, of Personnel, Management, Performance Appraisal for Teams, in Performance Management Practitioner Series.1998.
15.
SorensenR.SeverinsonE., and IedamaR., Beyond Profession: Nursing leadership in contemporary healthcare. Journal Nursing Management, 2008. (16): 535–544.
16.
ThylerG., Dare to be Different: Transformational Leadership may hold the Kay to Reducing the Nursing Shortage. Journal of Nursing Management, 2003. (11): 73–79.
17.
BarrickM., Relating Member Ability and Personality to Work-Team Processes and Team Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998. 83(3): 377–391.
18.
ErautM., Transfer of knowledge between education and workplace setting. Workplace learning in context, ed. A.F.A.M. Rainhart. 2004, London. 201–221.
19.
TourishD., The Appraisal Interview Reappraised. The Handbook of Communication Skills. 2006, London: Routledge.
20.
CardyR. and DobbinsG., Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives.Cincinnati, Oh.1994., ed. S.W. Publishing.
21.
KavanaghP.BensonJ., and BrownM., Understanding Performance Appraisal Fairness. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 2007. 2(45): 132–150.
22.
DemingW.E., Out of the Crisis, ed. Cambridge. 1986: MIT Institute for Advanced Engineering Study.
23.
RønnestadM.H. and SkovholdtT.M., A model for the Professional Development and Stagnation of Therapists and Counselors. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologiforening, 1991. (20): 555–567.
24.
LanzaP., Team Appraisal. Personnel journal, 1985: 47–51.
25.
LandyF.J.BarnesJ., and MurphyK.R., Correlates of perveived fairness and accuracy in performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978. (63): 751–754.
26.
GloverR.B., Why are we ignoring performance appraisal research. Powered by BNET:COM, 2004: 1–4.
27.
SpenceD.G. and WoodE.E., Registered Nurse Participation in Performance Appraisal Interview. Journal of Professional Nursing, 2007. 23(1): 55–59.
28.
WestM. A. and HirstG., Cooperation and Teamwork for Innovation. International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working, ed. TjosvoldA.W.M.D., and SmithK. G.. 2003: John Wiley and Sons.
29.
WangW., Evaluation of 2 + 2 alternative teacher performance appraisal program in Shanxi, people's Republic of China. ScienceDirect, 2006: 1–19.
30.
MooreM., Why Do Performance Appraisals Include Effort, Loyalty and Dependability, 2010, London, eHOW. Contributor.
31.
CardyR. L. and KorodiC., Nurse Appraisal system: Characteristics and Effectiveness. Social Science & Medicine, 1991. 32(5): 553–558.
32.
MikkelsenA., Medarbeidersamtalen i det nye arbeidslivet. 2005, Oslo: Cappelen Akademiske forlag.
33.
WatsonS., Use Performance Appraisals to Clarify Expectations and Build Trust. in 2003.2003, TechRepublic.
34.
AbbotA., The System of Professions. 1988, Chicago / London.
35.
BennerP., From Novice to Expert. 1984, San Francisco: University of California.
36.
DreyfusS.E. and DreyfusH., A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in direct skill a question, 1980: California. U.i.C. Supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Editor.
37.
BarnettR.A.BecherR.A., and CorkN.M., Models of Processional Preparation: Pharmacy, Nursing and Teacher-education. Studies in Higer Education, 1987. (12): 51–63.
38.
IllerisK., Læring — aktuelle læringsteorier i spenningsfeltet mellom Piaget, Freud og Marx. 2000, Oslo, ed. G.A. forlag.
39.
KeenA., ed. Small group learning: Greater than the sum of its parts?2007: Oxford. Strategies for Healthcare Education, ed. WoodhouseJ..
40.
O'ConnorM. and LeeS., Authentic performance appraisal: When home is the workplace. International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 2007. 13(12): 606–609.
41.
HargreavesP. and JarvisP., Human Resource Development Handbook. 2000, London ed. K. Page.
42.
SreedharU, Making Appraisal Systems Work. 2006, Strength Based Strategies: 192–196.
43.
KirkmanB. L. P.TeslukE., and RosenB., Assessing the Incremental validity of Team Consensus Rating over Aggregation of individual-level Data in Predicting Team Effectiveness. Personnel psychology. 2001. 54(3): 645–667.
44.
LevinsonH., Appraisal of What Performance. 1976. USA. Harward Business Review.
45.
GraenG. B. and Uhl-BienM, Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development and leader-member-exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 1995. 6(2): 219–247.
46.
LordR.G. and BrownD.J., Leadership Processes and Following Self-identity2004, London. ed. L.E.A. Publishers.
47.
SkogstadA. and EinarsenS, Ledelse på godt og vondt. 2002, Oslo. ed. Fagbokforlaget.
48.
DavisW.D. and GardnerW.L., Perceptions of politics and organizational cynicism: An attributional and leader-member exchange perspective. The Leadership Quarterly. 2004. 15(4): 439–465.
49.
ElickerJ.D.LevyP.E., and HallR.J., The Role of Leader-Member Exchange in the Performance Appraisal process. Journal of Management. 2006. 32(4): 531–551.
50.
MaslynJ.M. and Uhl-BienM.Leader-member exchange and Its Dimensions: Effects of Self-Effort and Other's Effect on Relationship Quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001. 86(4.):697–708.
ElkinsT and KellerR.T.. Leadership in research and development organizational: A literature review and conceptual framework. The leadership Quarterly. 2003. 14(4–5): 87–606.
53.
FordL.R. and SeersA, Relational leadership and team climates: Pitting differentiation versus agreement. The leadership Quarterly. 2006. 17(3): 258–270.
CronbachL.J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika. 16(3): 297–336.
56.
KuvaasB. (2006). Different Relationships between Perceptions of Developmental Performance Appraisal and Work Performance. Personnel Review. 36 (3): 378–397.
