【正文】 of performance criteria to specific issues such as customer service and rated in factors such asexcellent,average or needs to improve or ratings are assigned numerical values and added to a statement or narrative ment by the assessor. It would also lead to identify any potential need for training and more importantly to identify talent for careers in linemanagement supervision and future managerial potential. Post1945 developed into the Resultsoriented approaches and led to the development of management by objectives (MBO). This provided aims and specific targets to be achievedand with in time frames such as pecific sales, profitability,and deadlines with feedback on previous performance (Wherry, 1957). The deadlines may have required alteration and led to specific performance rankings of staff. It also provided a forced distributionof rankingsof parative performance and paired parison ranking of performance and setting and achieving objectives. In the 1960s the developmentof Selfappraisal by discussion led to specific time and opportunity for the appraisee to reflectively evaluate their performance in the discussion and the interview developed into a conversation on a range of topics that the appraise needed to discuss in the interview. Until this period the success of the appraisal was dependent on skill of interviewer. In the 1990s the development of 360degree appraisal developed where information was sought from a wider range of sources and the feedback was no longer dependent on the 14 managersubordinate power relationship but included groups appraising the performance of line managers and peer feedback from peer groups on individual performance (Redman and Snape, 1992). The final development of appraisal interviews developed in the 1990s with the emphasis on the linking performance with financial reward which will be discussed later in the paper. Measures of Performance The dilemma of appraisal has always to develop performance measures and the use of appraisal is the key part of this process. Quantitative measure of performance municated as standards in the business and industry level standards translated to individual performance. The introduction of techniques such as the balanced score card developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992). Performance measures and evaluation included financial, customer evaluation, feedback on internal processes and Learning and Growth. Performance standards also included qualitative measures Which argue that there is an over emphasis on metrics of quantitative approach above the definitions of quality services and total quality terms of performance measures there has been a transformation in literature and a move in the 1990s to the financial rewards linked to the level of debates will be discussed later in the paper. Criticism of Appraisals Critiques of appraisal have continued as appraisal shave increased in use and scope across sectors and occupations. The dominant critique is the management framework using appraisal as an orthodox technique that seeks to remedy the weakness and propose of appraisals as a system to develop performance. This “orthodox” approach argues there are conflicting purposes of appraisal (Strebler et al, 2021). Appraisal can motivate staff by clarifying objectives and setting clear future objectives with provision for training and development needs to establish the performance objective. These conflicts with assessing past performance and distribution of rewards based on past performance (Bach, 2021:301). Employees are reluctant to confide any limitations and concerns on their current performance as this could impact on their merit related reward or promotion opportunities(Newton and Findley, 1996:43).This conflicts with performance as a continuum as appraisers are challenged with differing roles as both monitors and judges of performance but an understanding counsell or which Randell(1994)argues few manager shave not received the raining to Manager’s reluctance to criticise also stems from 15 classic evidence fromMcGregor that managers are reluctant to make an egative judgement on an individual’s performance a sit could be demotivating,leadto accusationsoftheirown supportand contributiontoindividual poor performance and to also avoid interpersonal conflict (McGregor, 1957). One consequence of this avoidance of conflict is to rate all criterion as central and avoid any conflict known as the central a study of senior managers by Long neckeretal.(1987),they found anisational politics influenced ratings of 60 senior findings were that politics involved deliberate attempts by individuals to enhance or protect selfinterests when conflicting courses of action are possible and that ratings and decisions were affected by potential sources of bias or inaccuracy in their appraisal ratings (Longeneckeret al., 1987). There are methods of further bias beyond Longenecker’s evidence. The political judgements and they have been distorted further by overrating some clear petencies in performance rather than being critical across all rated petencies known as the halo effect and if some petencies arelower they may prejudice the judgment acrossthe positive reviews known as the horns effect (ACAS, 1996). Some ratings may only cinclude recent events and these are known as the recency effects. In this case only recent events are noted pared to managers gathering and using data throughout the appraisal period .A particular concern is the equity of appraisal for ratings which may be distorted by gender ,ethnicity and the ratings of appraisers themselves .A range of studies in both the US and UK have highlighted subjectivity in terms of gender (AlimoMetcalf, 1991。 Behavioural Evaluation Scales (BES)。 11 The Dilemma of Performance Apprai