【正文】 ls to providethat feedback to people being appraised. This has been defined as the “Bradford Approach” which places a high priority on appraisal skills development (Randell, 1994). This approach is outlined in Fig. whichidentifies the linkages 13 betweeninvolving,developing, rewarding and valuing people at work.. Historical Development of Appraisal The historical development of performance feedback has developed from a range of observation of individual work performance was reported in Robert Owens’s Scottish factory inNew Lanarkin the early 1800s (Cole, 1925). Owen hung over machines a piece of coloured wood over machines to indicate the Super intendent’s assessment of the previous day’s conduct (white forexcellent, yellow, blue and then black for poor performance).The twentieth centuryled to . Taylor and his measured performance and the scientific management movement (Taylor, 1964). The 1930sTraits Approaches identified personality and performance and used feedback using graphic rating scales, a mixed standard of performance scales noting behaviour in likert scale was used to recruit and identify management potential in the field of selection. Later developments to prevent a middle scale from 5 scales then developed into a forcedchoice scale which forced the judgement to avoid central evaluation also included narrative statements and ments to support the ratings (Mair, 1958). In the 1940s Behavioural Methods were developed. These included Behavioural Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)。Townley, 1993). It argues that tighter management control over employee behaviour can be achieved by the extension of appraisal to manual workers, professional as means to control. This develops the literature of Foucault using power and surveillance. This literature uses cases in examples of public service control on professionals such a teachers (Healy, 1997) and University professionals(Townley, 1990). This evidence argues the increased control of public services using appraisal as a method of control and that the oute of managerial objectives ignores the developmental role of appraisal and ratings are awarded for people who accept and embrace the culture and anizational values . However, this literature ignores the employee resistance and the use of professional unions to challenge the attempts to exert control over professionals and staff in the appraisal process (Bach, 2021:306). One of the different issues of removing bias was the use of the test metaphor 16 (Folgeretal.,1992).This was based on the assumption that appraisal ratings were a technical question of assessing “true” performance and there needed to be increased reliability and validity of appraisal as an instrument to develop motivation and performance. The sources of rater bias and errors can be resolved by improved anisational justice and increasing reliability of appraiser’s judgement. However there were problems such as an assumption that you can state job requirements clearly and the anization is “rational” with objectives that reflect values and that the judgment by appraisers’ are value free from political agendas and personal objectives. Secondly there is the second issue of subjectivity if appraisal ratings where decisions on appraisal are rated by a “political metaphor”(Hartle, 1995). This “political view” argues that a appraisal is often done badly because there is a lack of training for appraisers and appraisers may see the appraisal as a waste of time. This bees a process which managers have to perform and not as a potential to improve employee performance .Organisations in this context are “political” and the appraisers seek to maintain performance from subordinates and view appraises as internal customers to satisfy. This means managers use appraisal to avoid interpersonal conflict and develop strategies for their own personal advancement and seek a quiet life by avoiding censure from higher managers. This perception means managers also see appraisee seeks good rating and genuine feedback and career development by seeking evidence of bining employee promotion and pay means appraisal ratings bee political judgements and seek to avoid interpersonal conflicts. The approaches of the “test” and “political” metaphors of appraisal are inaccurate and lack objectivity and judgement of employee performance is inaccurate and accuracy is issue is how can anisations resolve this lack of objectivity? Solutions to Lack of Objectivity of Appraisal Grint(1993)argues that the solutions to objectivity lies in part with McGregor’s (1957) classic critique by retraining and removal of “top down” ratings by managers and replacement with multiple rater evaluation which removes bias and the objectivity by upward performance appraisal. The validity of upward appraisal means there moval of subjective appraisal approach is also suggested to remove gender bias in appraisal ratings against women in appraisals (Fletcher, 1999). The solution of multiple reporting(internal colleagues, customers and recipients of services) will reduce subjectivity and inequity of appraisal ratings. This argument develops further by the rise in the need to evaluate project teams and increasing levels of teamwork to include peer assessment. The solutions also in theory mean increased closer contact with individual manager and appraises and increasing services linked to customer facing evaluations. However, negative feedback still demotivates and plenty of feedback and explanation 17 by manager who collates feedback rather than judges performance andfail to summarise are however still problems with accuracy of appraisal objectivity asWalker and Smither (1999)5year studyof 252 managers over 5 year period still identified issues with subjective ratings in 360 degree are still issues on the subjectivity of a