Page 71 - DLIS406_ACADEMIC_LIBRARY_SYSTEM

Academic Library System

Notes and plans can then be suggested as to how individuals could improve. Seeing from the individual’s
point of view of hearing encouragement instead of judgment, the motivation to improve can
be enhanced and job satisfaction can be increased. Appraisal can also be an opportunity to
reflect on their accomplishments and achievements.

7.3.2 Issues of Staff Appraisal in Academic Libraries

Common Problems
Many academic libraries carry out staff performance appraisal annually. Yet in some libraries,
it is not uncommon that staff members do not take staff appraisal seriously enough. Appraisal
sometimes ends up being just another annual task to be finished by the deadline. It is done
because it is necessary, and once done, it will be out of sight, out of mind. Let us now take
a look at the examples of some common problems.

Most academic libraries adopt the centralized appraisal form issued by their universities. As
Prentice (2005) describes, ‘The centrally devised rating form provides a general assessment but
does not address differences in activities or applications from unit to unit.” The job nature of
library staff members is, in fact, different from other academic and administrative units of the
university. Even internally, the nature of work is very different between reader services and
technical services. Clearly, the one-for-all type appraisal form designed to serve a general
purpose will not be able to adequately reflect the specificity of skills and knowledge performed
by the library staff.
Rating scales are commonly found in the appraisal form used in academic libraries. Some are
used in appraising supporting staff only, while some are used for all categories of staff.
However, the quantitative “categoric” forms, such as grades, marks, ranks, percentages and
levels, are always a criticism of appraisals. As Broad foot (1998) points out, “It constitutes a
powerful inhibitory force to the development of the understandings and practices that are
increasingly being called for in the post-modern ‘learning age’ and it has ‘profoundly influenced
learners’ confidence and self-esteem.’” Although Broadfoot’s advocacy is in the education
sector, the call for a change in concepts of “to learn, not to measure” is also applicable in the
library context. Being ranked or to rank a colleague are both embarrassing. The author has the
experience of receiving staff members transferred to her from other departments. These staff
were said to be under-performing and were unwelcome by their supervisors, yet surprisingly
their appraisal reports were much better than what was said about them. This indicates that
not all appraisers give true accounts in the written appraisal report. In order to avoid argument,
appraisers sometimes do not truthfully reflect the weaknesses of an appraisee. Some appraisers
believe that they have no right to stand in judgment and may just give a higher ranking to the
appraisee to keep everybody happy. Some appraisers may want to keep a good relationship
with the appraisee so as to get his/her cooperation in future collaborative activities, as they
may fear that senior management will consider the lack of cooperation as the appraiser’s
inability to deal with problem staff.
A number of common rating errors have been frequently cited. These include leniency, which
refers to the tendency to give appraises higher ranks than they deserve. Severity is opposite
to leniency; it is to give appraises lower ratings than what they should get. Central tendency
is to choose the middle point in any range of scale to play safe, but cannot illustrate effectively
the staff’s actual performance. Halo effect is the tendency to judge the appraisee’s performance
by only one particular aspect. Similarity or contrast error is the tendency to give people who
are more similar to the appraiser a higher ranking or vice versa. Stereotyping is to pre-judge
a person’s performance on the basis of general beliefs about characteristics such as gender, age
and race. Another problem of appraisal is that every appraiser has their own standards of

66 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY