Final answer:
Peer evaluations can contribute to a more accurate appraisal process by providing different perspectives, although their reliability can be questioned. The potential for increased learning through the discussion of differing viewpoints justifies their use, alongside supervisor appraisals, in a 360-degree performance appraisal context.
Step-by-step explanation:
By supplementing supervisory appraisals with peer evaluations, a supervisor can make the appraisal process more accurate. Peer evaluations can add a different perspective, thereby enhancing the overall understanding of employee performance. According to Atkins and Wood (2002), self and peer ratings can be unreliable, and supervisors may underrate employees who underrate themselves. Yet Tornow (1993b) argues the discrepancies in ratings can lead to greater learning as employees discuss the reasons for these differences with their supervisors. This is in line with the 360-degree performance appraisal system which is meant to provide multiple perspectives to both the employee and supervisor, potentially leading to improved job performance through self-effort or training.
Performance appraisals, as documented in job analyses and goal settings, are a critical part of employee feedback and organizational documentation, both for reinforcing good performance and addressing poor performance. Despite this, DeNisi & Kluger (2000) and Fletcher (2001) highlight that performance appraisals are often not well-received and may not always accomplish their intended purposes, particularly if the systems in place are not aligned with the organization's culture.