Performance Appraisal: a Policy Implementation Analysis
| Author | Robert W. Brown |
| Date | 01 March 1982 |
| Published date | 01 March 1982 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0734371X8200200207 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
69
PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL:
A
POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION
ANALYSIS
Robert
W.
Brown
U. S.
Office
of
Personnel
Management
Abstract
This
article
describes
five
conditions
which
are
conducive
to
effective
implementation
of
public
policies.
These
conditions
are
used
as
a
policy
analysis
model
to
examine
the
new
performance
appraisal
program
under
the
Civil
Service
Reform
Act.
The
analysis
concludes
that successful
im-
plementation
is
guardedly
possible
if
certain
actions
are
taken
by
policy
administrators,
and
favorable
rulings
emerge
from
third-party
institutions
such
as
the
Federal
Labor
Relations
Authority,
Merit
Systems
Protection
Board,
General
Accounting
Office,
and
the
courts.
Among
the
recommended
actions
are
increased
use
of
nonmonetary
incentives,
development
of
legislative
support
and
organized
program
constituents,
melding
of
performance
appraisal
into
the
regular
management
processes,
and
a
vigorous
program
of
research
and
evaluation.
Introduction
Will
the
system
work?
That
is
the
pervasive
question
in
the
minds
of
sup-
porters
and
detractors,
as
well
as
neutral
observers,
regarding
the
federal
govern-
ment’s
new
performance
appraisal
program.
Although
there
have
been
five
previous
performance
appraisal
programs,
beginning
with
the
Efficiency
Rating
Act
of
1912,
the
new
program’s
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements
repre-
sent
a
fundamental
departure
from
all
of
its
predecessors.
All
critical
elements
of
an
employee’s
position
must
be
identified
in
advance;
objective,
job-related
performance
standards
must
be
developed
for
those
elements
and
communicated
in
writing
to
the
employees
at
the
beginning
of
the
performance
period;
employees
must
be
encouraged
to
participate
in
the
development
of
critical
elements
and
performance
standards;
a
reasonable
period
of
time
must
be
pro-
vided
to
perform
under
the
elements
and
standards
before
being
rated;
there
must
be
periodic
progress
reviews;
there
must
be
a
direct
relationship
between
appraisal
of
performance
and
pay,
particularly
regarding
executives
and
merit
managers
and
supervisors;
and
failure
to
perform
at
the
minimally
acceptable
level
on
any one
critical
element
requires
remedial
action,
including
possible
removal.
Often
characterized
as
the
&dquo;cornerstone&dquo;
of
the
Civil
Service
Reform
Act
* The
views
expressed
are
those
of
the
author
and
do
not
necessarily
represent
those
of
the
Office
of
Personnel
Management.
70
of
1978,
the
program
began
for
the
8,000
Senior
Executive
Service
(SES)
ex-
ecutives
in
July
1979, for
the
120,000
merit
pay
managers
and
supervisors
in
October
1980,
and
for
most
of
the
1.7
million
rank
and
file
employees
on
Oc-
tober
1,
1981.
Thus,
by the
end
of
1981
1 all
95
agencies
covered
by the
statute
had
operational
performance
appraisal
systems,
approved
by
the
LJ.
S.
Office
of
Personnel
Management
(OPM).
The
agencies
had
completed
negotiations
of
the
systems
with
most
of
the
approximately
2,400
employee
bargaining
units
Managers
had
been
trained,
and
critical
elements
and
performance
standards
had
been
communicated,
in
writing, to
each
of
the
nearly
two
million
employees
covered
by
the
statutes.
1
This
article
examines
selected
aspects
of
three
years
(197~-~9~1) ®f
implemen-
tation
experience
from a
central
personnel agency
perspective
to
assess
the
likelihood
of
the
appraisal
program
achieving
its
statutory
policy
implementa-
tion
objectives.
Conditions
for
Effective
Policy
Implementation
The
capacity
of
public
policy to
alter
social
behavior
is
very
complex.
Many
studies
of
policy
implementation
have
been
very
pessimistic
about
the
ability
of
statutes
actually
to
achieve
their
objectives.
However,
Mazmanian
and
Sabatier
(1979:
501) have
identified
five
conditions
which
are
conducive
to
ef-
fective
implementation
of
public policy,
and
their
model
is
used
as
a
framework
for
analyzing
the
success
potential
for
the
new
performance
appraisal
program.
A
statute
or
other
basic
policy
decision
will
achieve
its
objectives
if
(1)
it
incorporates a
valid
6‘technlcal~9
theory
linking
target
group
behavior to
those
objectives;
(2) it
contains
unambiguous
policy
directives
and
structures
the
implementation
process
so
as
to
max-
imize
the
probability
of
task
group
compliance;
(3)
the
leaders
of
the
implementation
agencies
are
supportive
of
those
objectives
and
skillful
in
utilizing
available
resources;
(4)
the
program
is
supported
by
active
constituency
groups
and a
few
key
legislators
throughout
the
implementation
process,
with
the
courts
being
neutral
or
sup-
portive ;
and
(5)
the
program
is
not
undermined
by
changing
socioeconomic
conditions.
If
all
of
these
conditions
are
met,
then
the
statute
-
no
matter
how
ambitious
will
be
effectively
implemented.
1.
The
program
must
be
based
upon
a
valid
&dquo;technical&dquo;
which
links
group
behavior
to
the
statutory
objectives.
Most
policy
decisions
are
based
upon
an
underlying
theory
relating
to
the
cause
of
the
condition
to
be
corrected
and
to
the
actions
that
should
lead
to
certain
desired
ends
for
the
target
group’s
behavior.
As
often
as
not,
this
&dquo;technical&dquo;
theory is
implied
rather
than
stated
explicitly.
Ideally,
the
theory
should
be
clearly
articulated
in
the
policy
formulation
process
in
order
to
assess
the
validity of
the
statutory
action
proposed.
Leadership
advocates
for
the
Civil
Service
Reform
Act, and
for
the
performance
appraisal
section
in
particular,
To continue reading
Request your trial