Social Work Now, Issue 33, pages 16-20.
In some work areas machinery and technology contribute to productivity and the attainment of organisational objectives, but in human service organisations staff are indisputably the most important asset. Currently there is competition amongst employers to attract and retain skilled and talented staff. Due to factors such as an aging workforce, reduced numbers of graduates, international demand, and the impact of the Social Workers Registration Act 2003, this competition is amplified in the social services area (Jenkins, 2004). Research has demonstrated that human resource systems and practices can influence both productivity and employee motivation (Robbins and Coulter, 2005). One important component of the human resource management process is employee performance appraisal.
As a human resources tool, the widespread use of performance appraisals began in the American military and public service in the late nineteenth century (Wiese and Buckley, 1998). The growth in the use of such practices coincided with the rise of the large modern corporation and managements’ desire to use rational and objective methods to measure and evaluate staff members’ behaviour and achievements (Thomas, 2003). It is not clear when the use of performance appraisal became widespread in New Zealand, but their introduction probably began some time around the late 1930s as the first Labour Government built up the public service (Shaw, 1999). A recent inquiry on remuneration systems in the New Zealand public service revealed that at least 38 systems are presently utilised (State Services Commission, 2005). It is unclear why there are so many, although part of the explanation lies in the fact that individual departments and ministries can choose and implement any system they wish. This contrasts with the pre-1990 period when the public service was expected to use human resource and financial systems that were set by the Treasury and the State Services Commission (Scott and Gorringe, 1989).