Notes on Assessing Performance at Work

Assessing Performance at Work

Defining Work Performance

• Competencies and Performance Measurement: Competencies serve as the foundation for performance assessment. They encompass:

  • Knowledge: Understanding of specific information and facts relevant to a job.

  • Skills: Practical abilities and proficiencies in performing tasks.

  • Abilities: The natural or developed capacities to perform certain functions.

  • Attitudes: Established ways of thinking that influence behavior in the workplace.

  • Behaviours: Actions that reflect attitudes and competencies.

  • Other Qualities: Additional personal attributes that contribute to performance.

• Context-Specific Knowledge:

  • Refers to skills tailored for particular roles, distinguishing between various professions, such as a pilot versus a lecturer.

  • Context-specific knowledge is crucial for conducting Job Analysis (JA), which informs the development of measurement strategies.

  • It is advisable to gather multiple sources of JA data to ensure comprehensive assessment.

• Work Performance as a Generic Concept:

  • Work performance affects nearly all job roles, indicating its universal relevance across various professions.

Bartram's Great 8 Competencies

• This framework identifies critical competencies categorized into eight domains relevant to workplace performance:

  1. Leading and Deciding: Reflects the need for power and control.

  2. Supporting and Cooperating: Associated with extraversion.

  3. Interacting and Presenting: Also linked to extraversion, emphasizing social interaction.

  4. Analysing and Interpreting: Involves general mental ability across tasks.

  5. Creating and Conceptualizing: Relies on openness to new experiences and general mental ability.

  6. Organising and Executing: Tied to conscientiousness and general mental ability.

  7. Adapting and Coping: Linked to emotional stability.

  8. Profiler and Performing: Focuses on need for achievement and negative agreeableness.

• These titles draw from the SHL Universal Competency Framework, which provides a structured approach to assessing various competencies in the workplace.

In-role and Extra-role Performance

• In-role Performance: This pertains to the essential duties required to fulfill a job efficiently, focusing on core tasks that employees must complete.

• Extra-role Performance: Refers to voluntary behaviors that contribute to a supportive and productive organizational environment. This includes:

  • Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB):

  • Individual-Level Behaviors: Examples include:

    • Helping colleagues.

    • Exhibiting courtesy, which entails being polite, respectful, and considerate.

    • Active listening.

  • Organisational-Level Behaviors: Encompasses:

    • Effective attendance management.

    • Judicious break-taking to maintain productivity.

    • Avoiding personal distractions during work hours.

Biases When Rating Employees

• Judgment Biases: Performance ratings can be skewed by personal biases including:

  • Halo Effect: A favorable impression in one area influences ratings in others.

  • Horns Effect: A negative impression affects evaluations in unrelated areas.

  • Similarity Bias: Favorable perceptions of individuals who resemble the evaluator.

  • Overconfidence Bias: The belief that one possesses superior judgment capabilities.

  • Unexplained Affinities: Subconscious likes towards individuals without a clear understanding of why.

Key Properties of Performance Measures

To assess performance effectively, measures must be characterized by the following:

• Reliability: Consistency over repeated measurements and minimal errors.

• Validity: The measure should accurately reflect what it purports to measure, ensuring the relevance of outcomes.

• Fairness: Avoidance of bias so that all employees are evaluated equitably.

• Sensitivity: The ability to detect changes in individual performance over time.

• Acceptability: The extent to which the measure is recognized as relevant and is practically actionable by stakeholders.

Improving the Assessment Process

Enhancements in the performance assessment process can be achieved through:

1. Standardisation and Structure: Implement standardized methods for evaluations.

2. Job-Relatedness: Ensure that assessments are grounded in job-specific competencies.

3. Evidence-Based Approaches: Use empirical data to inform assessment strategies.

4. Trained Assessors: Utilize well-trained individuals for consistent and accurate evaluations.

Performance Appraisal

Performance appraisal is an essential process within organizations for multiple purposes:

• Promotion Decisions: Influencing upward mobility within the organization.

• Salary Administration: Impacts increases, bonuses, or changes in compensation.

• Career Development: Guiding paths for employee growth and progression.

• Training Needs Analysis: Identifying skills gaps and requirements.

• Validation of Selection Procedures: Ensuring hiring processes are effective.

• Motivating Staff: Can encourage performance but has potential downsides if negatively received.

Sources of Manager Ratings

Assessments may be derived from various sources, including:

• Direct Observation: Managers’ first-hand evaluations of employee behavior.

• Performance Data: Quantitative metrics such as sales volume or output metrics.

• Self-Assessments: Employees evaluating their own performance.

• Collaboration and Team Feedback: Insights from colleagues and team members.

Sources of Bias in Performance Appraisal

Common biases impacting performance ratings include:

• Limited Observation Opportunities: When managers don’t interact with employees frequently.

• Halo and Horns Effects: Positive and negative biases based on overall impressions.

• Similar-to-Me Bias: Favoring employees who resemble oneself.

• Deliberate Manipulation: Managers may bias ratings to aid an employee or protect their reputation.

Reducing Bias & Manipulation

Strategies to mitigate biases in performance ratings include:

• Awareness Training: Educating raters about potential biases.

• Utilization of Anchored Scales: Implementing defined rating points for clarity (e.g., BARS - Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales).

• Accountability in Rating: Ensuring that raters are responsible for their evaluations.

• Increasing Observation Opportunities: Allowing more frequent interactions between managers and staff.

Training Ratters

Training enhances the accuracy and effectiveness of assessments through:

• Rater Error Training (RET): Instruction on recognizing and avoiding common rating errors.

• Frame of Reference (FoR) Training: Ensures consistency in evaluations by providing a common criterion.

Despite training, some errors may persist; thus, it’s recommended to utilize diverse assessment techniques including:

• Multi-Source Feedback (MSF): A comprehensive approach reflecting various perspectives.

• Enterprise Performance Management (EPM): Evaluating performance through structured organizational frameworks.

Multi-Source Feedback (MSF)

MSF has gained popularity due to:

• The need for feedback from diverse stakeholders ensuring a wide-ranging perspective.

• Its ability to enhance employee engagement in performance enhancement initiatives.

• Facilitating comparative analysis of feedback ratings from different evaluators.

360-Degree Feedback

This assessment tool involves feedback obtained from multiple sources:

• Self: Personal evaluation by the employee.

• Manager: Superiors' assessments.

• Subordinates: Insights from direct reports.

• Peers: Feedback from colleagues at the same level.

• Customers: Input from clients or customers serviced by the employee.

Core Work Activities and Statistical Analysis

360-degree feedback emphasizes core work activities, employing statistical analysis to better understand performance data.

Key Questions in 360-Degree Feedback

When implementing 360-degree feedback, important considerations include:

• Do different raters utilize information from distinct sources?

• How valid and accurate are the ratings offered by various raters?

• Are certain raters considered more credible than others due to their role?

• How does self-awareness impact ratings?

• Are there discrepancies in individual self-presentation?

• What are the implications of these findings for performance enhancement?

Electronic Performance Monitoring (EPM)

EPM utilizes objective metrics that do not rely on subjective judgments, such as:

• Metrics drawn from electronic tracking of activities, like:

  • Number of sales made.

  • Speed of customer response.

• Performance data is sourced from various electronic monitoring systems, including:

  • Video surveillance.

  • Computer and in-app monitoring.

  • GPS tracking systems.

Big Data Utilization

The employment of big data aids in identifying and analyzing patterns within employee behavior, enhancing the understanding of performance metrics.