In the past we have discussed using performance data to:
1) Profile top performers in the organization identifying key knowledge, skills and abilities, producing an A-Player profile used on the front end during the recruiting process to enhance quality hires on the first try.
2) Using performance data along with employee engagement and turnover data to predict those high performers that you are "at risk" of losing
3) Calculating Quality of Hire using 90 day performance rating along with other data to determine success rate of recruiting function.
In the three examples above it is critical that you are using reliable and valid performance data. For reliability, you want to make sure the instrument you use is reliable over time and managers understand how to rate. Validity means that you are measuring what you are supposed to be measuring. So for performance appraisals, this means making sure you have analyzed the behaviors and critical success factors for your job groups. I believe that one performance appraisal does not fit all. I also believe in the KISS principle, so you don't need a separate performance appraisal for every single job in the organization. But, it does take a competency modeling exercise to group the jobs that have "like" success factors.
I know that performance appraisals get a bad rap for a myriad of reasons but with so many HR metrics using this data for analysis, doesn't it make since to make sure your appraisals are top notch?
What grade do your performance appraisals get?