How does a business measure and improve how well its people perform, and how can appraisal go wrong?
Explain the purposes and methods of performance management and appraisal, and evaluate their effectiveness in improving performance and motivation
A focused answer to the H2 Management of Business outcome on performance management. The purposes of appraisal, methods including objective-setting and 360-degree feedback, the link to pay and motivation, and how appraisal can succeed or fail.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
SEAB wants you to explain how firms measure and improve employee performance through performance management and appraisal, and to evaluate how effective these are at lifting performance and motivation. The key tensions are between appraisal's developmental purpose (feedback and growth) and its judgemental purpose (rating, pay, promotion), and how linking appraisal to pay can backfire.
The answer
What performance management is
Performance management is the ongoing process of setting expectations, monitoring performance, giving feedback and developing staff so their work supports the firm's objectives. Appraisal is a formal, usually periodic, review of an individual's performance within that process. The purposes:
- Set and review objectives, aligning individual work with firm goals.
- Give feedback so staff know how they are doing and how to improve.
- Identify development needs (feeding into training).
- Inform decisions on pay, promotion and, where necessary, performance management of underperformers.
- Motivate through recognition and clear goals.
Methods of appraisal
- Objective-setting (management by objectives). Agree specific, measurable targets, then review achievement. Clear and aligned to goals, but can narrow focus to what is measured.
- Manager appraisal. The line manager reviews the employee - simple but a single, possibly biased, viewpoint.
- 360-degree appraisal. Feedback from manager, peers, subordinates and sometimes customers - a rounded view, but time-consuming and open to bias and trust issues.
- Self-appraisal and peer appraisal. The employee or colleagues assess performance, encouraging reflection and ownership but risking leniency or rivalry.
Linking appraisal to pay: the central tension
Firms often link appraisal to performance-related pay (PRP). This can sharpen focus and reward top performers, but it has serious risks: per Herzberg, pay is largely a hygiene factor with limited lasting motivational effect; tying pay to ratings can distort behaviour (staff chase measured targets, neglect quality and teamwork, or game the system); and it can turn a developmental conversation into a defensive negotiation, undermining honest feedback. So coupling pay tightly to appraisal often weakens appraisal's developmental value.
Evaluating effectiveness
Appraisal is effective when it is fair, regular, two-way and developmental - genuinely helping staff improve and feel valued - and ineffective when it is a tick-box annual ritual, biased, or dominated by pay so honest feedback dies. Whether to link it to pay depends on how measurable and individual the work is: PRP suits clearly measurable individual roles (sales) but distorts collaborative, hard-to-measure work. The exam rewards distinguishing the developmental and judgemental purposes and recognising the tension between them.
Examples in context
Example 1. Tech firms moving to continuous feedback. Several large technology companies scrapped the traditional annual rating in favour of frequent, lightweight check-ins and continuous feedback, after finding annual appraisals demotivating and stale. The shift reflects the view that appraisal's developmental value is undermined when it is a once-a-year, rating-and-pay-dominated event, and that ongoing two-way feedback better supports performance and motivation.
Example 2. Sales teams and performance-related pay. Commission and bonus structures for sales staff link reward directly to measurable individual output, where PRP works well because performance is clear and individual. But firms applying the same logic to collaborative roles (research, customer support) often find it distorts behaviour and harms teamwork - illustrating that the appraisal-pay link succeeds or fails depending on how measurable and individual the work really is.
Try this
Q1. State two purposes of staff appraisal. [2 marks]
- Cue. Any two of: setting and reviewing objectives; giving feedback so staff know how to improve; identifying training and development needs; informing pay and promotion decisions; motivating through recognition and clear goals.
Q2. Explain why linking appraisal to pay might reduce the honesty of feedback. [4 marks]
- Cue. When pay depends on the appraisal rating, the conversation becomes a negotiation: the employee defends their rating to protect their pay rather than openly discussing weaknesses, and managers may inflate or soften feedback to avoid conflict over money. The developmental purpose - candid feedback to improve - is crowded out by the pay stakes, so honesty falls.
Q3. Analyse why an effective appraisal system should be a two-way, ongoing process rather than a single annual meeting. [6 marks]
- Cue. A single annual meeting gives stale, one-sided feedback long after issues arise, so problems are not fixed promptly and staff find it a demotivating ritual. A two-way, ongoing process lets employees raise concerns and goals, addresses performance in real time, builds trust, and provides the recognition and development that motivate (Herzberg's motivators). It aligns work with objectives continuously rather than once a year, so it is far more likely to improve both performance and motivation - provided managers have the time and skill to do it well.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of SEAB exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
Original8 marksA firm is considering linking the outcome of its annual appraisal directly to performance-related pay. Discuss the likely effects of this on staff performance and motivation.Show worked answer →
Define the link. Performance-related pay (PRP) ties part of an employee's pay to their appraisal rating or measured performance, intending to reward and incentivise high performers.
Argue the case for. PRP can sharpen focus on agreed objectives, reward and retain top performers, and signal that performance matters - potentially lifting effort and aligning staff with goals. Drawing on Taylor, financial reward can motivate, especially where output is measurable.
Argue the case against. Per Herzberg, pay is largely a hygiene factor, so PRP may have limited lasting motivational effect. Worse, linking pay to appraisal can distort behaviour: staff focus only on measured targets (neglecting teamwork or quality), game the system, or become demotivated if ratings feel unfair or the reward is small. It can turn appraisal from a developmental conversation into a defensive negotiation, undermining honest feedback. It may also damage teamwork if it pits colleagues against each other.
Evaluate with a judgement. The effect depends on how measurable and individual the work is and on the fairness and size of the reward. For clearly measurable individual roles (sales) PRP can work; for collaborative, hard-to-measure roles it risks distorting behaviour and harming the developmental purpose of appraisal. A strong answer concludes that linking pay tightly to appraisal is risky, often undermining the feedback role, and is best limited or designed carefully - conditioned on the nature of the work.
Markers reward weighing the incentive case (Taylor, focus, retention) against the distortion and Herzberg arguments, and a judgement conditioned on measurability and fairness.
Original6 marksExplain what 360-degree appraisal is, and analyse one advantage and one limitation of using it.Show worked answer →
Explain the method. 360-degree appraisal gathers feedback on an employee from multiple sources - their manager, peers, subordinates and sometimes customers - rather than from the line manager alone, giving a rounded view of performance and behaviour.
Analyse one advantage. It provides a fuller, more balanced picture than a single manager's view, capturing how the person works with colleagues and others, and can surface strengths and blind spots a manager alone would miss - making feedback richer and arguably fairer.
Analyse one limitation. It is time-consuming to administer, feedback can be biased by personal relationships or used to settle scores, and anonymity issues may make raters reluctant to be honest or recipients defensive. Poorly handled, it can damage trust rather than develop the employee.
Markers reward a clear description of multi-source feedback, a developed advantage (rounded, balanced view) and a developed limitation (time, bias, trust) of 360-degree appraisal.
Related dot points
- Explain the recruitment and selection process, including internal versus external recruitment and selection methods, and evaluate how a firm can recruit effectively
A focused answer to the H2 Management of Business outcome on recruitment and selection. The recruitment process, internal versus external recruitment, selection methods from interviews to assessment centres, the cost of poor selection, and how to recruit effectively.
- Explain the purposes and methods of training and development, including induction, on-the-job and off-the-job training, and evaluate the costs and benefits of investing in training
A focused answer to the H2 Management of Business outcome on training. Induction, on-the-job and off-the-job training, the purposes of development, the cost-benefit and retention dilemma, and how to evaluate whether training pays.
- Explain workforce planning and the use of flexible working, including part-time, temporary and outsourced labour, and evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of a flexible workforce
A focused answer to the H2 Management of Business outcome on workforce planning and flexibility. How firms forecast workforce needs, the flexible workforce (part-time, temporary, outsourcing, the gig economy), the core-periphery model, and evaluating the trade-offs of flexibility.
- Explain employee relations, including communication, representation and the management of conflict, and evaluate how engaging employees affects business performance
A focused answer to the H2 Management of Business outcome on employee relations and engagement. Communication and representation, collective bargaining and trade unions, managing industrial conflict, employee engagement, and how the employment relationship affects performance.
- Explain the main theories of motivation, including Taylor, Maslow, Herzberg and McGregor, and evaluate their application to managing and rewarding staff
A focused answer to the H2 Management of Business outcome on motivation. Taylor's scientific management, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Herzberg's two-factor theory and McGregor's Theory X and Y, plus financial and non-financial methods and how to evaluate their use.