Skip to main content
Log in

The function of performance appraisal in UK universities

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study mapped the development of performance appraisal in UK universities and assessed the initial impact of appraisal in four case study institutions. University staff felt that appraisal has had little impact on their motivation, efficiency and performance. One reason for this may be the ambiguity surrounding the intentions of staff appraisal in universities: it is neither a management tool, nor is it wholly focused on staff development. If appraisal is primarily concerned with assessment, it must be linked to promotion and merit pay awards. The current arrangement of using agreed summaries from the appraisal interviews in promotion procedures is not entirely satisfactory and requires further consideration. If, on the other hand, appraisal is intended for the purposes of staff development, this aim should be explicity stated and backed up with adequate resources and effective procedures designed to ensure that identified training needs are met.

While universities have responded to the need to develop appraisal schemes there is very little sense in which appraisal has been given a coherent function in relation to other aspects of management. If appraisal is to promote change in universities, it must be incorporated in university and departmental planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Buss, A.R. (1975). Systems Theory: Generation Theory and the university: some predictions’,Higher Education 4, 429–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A.M., and Birt, L.M. (1982). ‘Evaluative reviews in universities: the influence of public policies’,Higher Education 11, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, C., Bryman, A., and Webb, A. (1992). ‘The introduction of university staff appraisal’,Public Money and Management 12, 57–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarratt — Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principlas (1985).Report of the Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in Universities (The Jarratt Report). CVCP.

  • Meyer, H.H., Kay E., and French, J.R.P. (1965). ‘Split roles in performance appraisal’,Harvard Business Review 43, 123–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, B.R., Mohrman, A.M. Jr., and Milliman, J. (1991). ‘Interpersonal relations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviews on performance and satisfaction: a longitudinal study’,Academy of Management Journal 2, 352–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shattock, M.L. (1982). ‘How should universities plan for the future?’,Higher Education 11, 193–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sizer, J. (1987). ‘The impacts of financial reductions on British Universities: 1981–84’,Higher Education 16, 557–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townley, B. (1989). ‘Selection and appraisal: reconstituting “social relations”?’, in Storey, J. (ed.),New Perspectives in Human Resource Management. Routledge.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haslam, C., Bryman, A. & Webb, A.L. The function of performance appraisal in UK universities. High Educ 25, 473–486 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383848

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383848

Keywords

Navigation