Framework for Performance Appraisal of Teaching Faculty in Medical Institutions

INTRODUCTION

Performance appraisal of teaching faculty in medical institutions is an important and indispensable activity.¹ This must be carried out periodically to ascertain the quality of output produced by faculty members under different domains and the kind of help/support which they might need to strengthen the ongoing activities.^2,3 Different strategies and frameworks have been adopted for performance appraisal and the purpose of this article is to explore some of these frameworks in the area of medical education.^1–4

TECHNIQUES FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

A number of techniques have been employed in different settings for performance appraisal, depending on the local requirements, available resources, and other logistics support. However, we must remember that each of these techniques has its own pros and cons, and thus we should make a careful and well-thought choice.⁵ Broadly, these techniques for performance appraisal have been categorized as Traditional Methods (viz. Ranking Methods, Graphic Rating Scale, Critical Incident Methods, and Narrative Essay), and Modern Methods (such as Management by Objectives, 360 Degrees, and 720 Degrees).^5–7 Further, it is also useful to employ a combination of methods for carrying out performance appraisal, provided it helps the managers to perform a thorough appraisal.

360-DEGREE FEEDBACK

As the name suggests, this technique of performance appraisal enhances the overall credibility by obtaining feedback from different stakeholders. The basic idea is to obtain responses about the performance of the faculty from different individuals (viz. department colleagues, students, information technology department, library, and patients), who are in contact with the faculty while they discharge their various roles. It is also encouraged that faculty members perform their own self-appraisal as well. Further, it is encouraged that the entire process remains anonymous, and the involvement of more people in the appraisal minimizes the possibility of bias. However, it is a time-consuming and expensive task, as we have to obtain inputs from multiple stakeholders, and will also require a structured format.^1,3,6,7

STRENGTHS-BASED PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

The performance appraisal systems that have been earlier designed and put into use tend to give more emphasis on the existing shortcomings of the faculty members, and thereby how to improve these concerns.⁸ In accordance with the principles of appreciative inquiry, some of the institutions have gone ahead with developing a strengths-based performance appraisal system, wherein the supervisors/managers primarily give emphasis on recognizing and appreciating the strengths which a faculty member brings to the organization, and subsequently, all actions are planned to strengthen the strengths of the faculty member for their as well as organization growth in the future.^8,9 This approach for carrying out performance appraisal is a much more effective one, as it will give faculty members a feeling that their managers are supporting them and it will do a lot of good to their psychological needs.^8,9

As the supervisor sees the employee in a similar way as an employee themselves, we can be extremely positive about having a good relationship between the supervisor and the employees.⁹ This becomes a crucial factor for enhancing productivity and for the future of the organization (especially because everyone works as a contributing member of the team and thus remains satisfied).⁸ Moreover, as each faculty member will be working in their area of interest, it will obviously produce better results, and they will also be quite motivated to work with complete dedication. This kind of intrinsic motivation will also play a defining role in making faculty members look for challenging circumstances, and accordingly, they will raise their level to not only deliver better results but in the process learn things and grow professionally.^8,9

OTHER FRAMEWORKS

Radiation Therapy Performance Appraisal Framework (RT-PAF) for evaluation of planning and simulation among radiation therapists.¹⁰ A specific framework for performance evaluation of registered nurses based on five core competencies.¹¹ On a similar note, another framework was developed to assess the competencies of public health nursing staff.¹² A framework for performance appraisal of junior faculty from the Department of Internal Medicine.¹³ Another new conceptual framework has also been designed for the performance appraisal of doctors working in the intensive care units.¹⁴

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the task of performance appraisal carries immense significance in medical institutions. However, considering the availability of multiple such frameworks, it is essential that each institution should consider the pros and cons of different frameworks and then take a well-informed decision.

REFERENCES

1. Gesme DH, Wiseman M. Performance appraisal: a tool for practice improvement. J Oncol Pract 2011;7:131–134. DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2010.000214.

2. Gillani A, Jarvi K, De Angelis A. Fostering a culture of accountability through a performance appraisal system. Healthc Manage Forum 2005;18:35–38. DOI: 10.1016/S0840-4704(10)60304-3.

3. Peretz H, Fried Y. National cultures, performance appraisal practices, and organizational absenteeism and turnover: a study across 21 countries. J Appl Psychol 2012;97:448–459. DOI: 10.1037/a0026011.

4. Grote RC. The performance appraisal question and answer book: A survival guide for managers. New York: American Management Association, 2002.

5. Aggarwal A, Thakur GSM. Techniques of performance appraisal- A review. Int J Engineering Adv Technol 2013;2:617–621.

6. Dupee JM, Ernst NP, Caslin KE. Does multisource feedback influence performance appraisal satisfaction? Nurs Manage 2011;42:12–16. DOI: 10.1097/01.NUMA.0000394060.41121.ce.

7. Castanelli D, Kitto S. Perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs of staff anaesthetists related to multi-source feedback used for their performance appraisal. Br J Anaesth 2011;107:372–377. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aer152.

8. Aguinis H, Gottfredson RK, Joo H. Delivering effective performance feedback: The strengths-based approach. Business Horizons 2012;55:105–111. DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.10.004.

9. van Woerkom M, Kroon B. The effect of strengths-based performance appraisal on perceived supervisor support and the motivation to improve performance. Front Psychol 2020;11:1883. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01883.

10. Becker J, Bridge P, Brown E, Lusk R, Ferrari-Anderson J. Evaluation of a performance appraisal framework for radiation therapists in planning and simulation. J Med Radiat Sci 2015;62:114–121. DOI: 10.1002/jmrs.106.

11. Schoessler MT, Aneshansley P, Baffaro C, Castellano T, Goins L, Largaespada E, et al. The performance appraisal as a developmental tool. J Nurses Staff Dev 2008;24:E12–E18. DOI: 10.1097/01.NND.0000320654.87802.16.

12. Kalb KB, Cherry NM, Kauzloric J, Brender A, Green K, Miyagawa L, et al. A competency-based approach to public health nursing performance appraisal. Public Health Nurs 2006;23:115–138. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2006.230204.x.

13. Kiely SC. Junior faculty performance appraisal in general internal medicine. Acad Med 2002;77:458–459.

14. Rotondi AJ, Sirio CA, Angus DC, Pinsky MR. A new conceptual framework for ICU performance appraisal and improvement. J Crit Care 2002;17:16–28. DOI: 10.1053/jcrc.2002.33033.