Performance appraisal

Review:

Criteria: evaluative standards for measuring success or quality

• the most important criterion is job performance

• point out: relevance, contamination, deficiency

  • ultimate: missing, theoretical - not covered in actual (deficient of actual)

  • overlap: relevance

  • actual criterion: contamination (bias)

Review:

there are 3 main performance dimensions:

• task performance: behaviors that contribute to technical core of organization (i.e. in-role job performance)

• Contextual performance: behaviors that contribute to social context (i.e organizational citizenship behaviors; OCBs)

• Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs): behaviors that harm or detract from the organization (eg theft, sabotage, abuse)

Review: Measuring performance criteria

performance dimensions can be rated objectively or subjectively

• objective criteria: non-judgemental measures taken from organizational records; ‘hard data’

  • includes productivity, accidents, absence, lateness, turnover, grievance

• Subjective criteria: based on judgements and evaluation of others'; “soft data”

  • includes performance ratings

  • human judgment

  • today is for subjective criteria

Perfomance Appraisal

• systematic evaluation of job performance, and provision of feedback

  • uses:

    • personnel decisions (promoting, firing, etc)

    • employee development (coaching, training)

    • Documentation (defense against litigation)

Performance appraisal

• ineffective appraisal systems have disastrous consequences:

  • wrong people are promoted and fired

  • employees feel unfairly treated and act accordingly

    • low motivation and satisfaction, high turnover

  • potential for legal problems

Research on Performance Appraisal

• Earlier research focused on accuracy of subjective ratings

  • rating format

  • rate errors

  • rater training

• more recent research on social context of performance appraisal

  • rater and ratee reactions

  • multi-source feedback

  • participation and fairness

Rating formats

• overall premise: good ratings forms will improve rater accruacy and precious

  • 4 rating formats

    • checklist

    • employee comparisons

    • graphic rating scales

    • behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS)

Rating Formats

• Checklists

  • rater checks off each behavior that employees exhibit

    • eg “arrives on time”, “smiles at customer” “works hard”

  • checked items are summed for overall score

    • items can be weighted differently (if desired)

Rating Formats

• Employee comparisons: rater rank-orders employee (from best to worst)

  • eg if ranking fast-food options: Culver’s; Chipotle; Panda Express; McDonalds

• Can be done using:

  • paired comaprions

    • compare everyone to everyone, then sum whoever ‘wins’ most

    • forced distribution

      • eg 1/3rd poor. 1/3rd ok, 1/3rd exceptional

Rating Formats

• Graphic rating scales (most common)

  • numerical scale with verbal anchors

  • most common format

• • fast food examples

Rating Format

• Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS)

  • graphic rating scale + behavioral examples as scale anchors (key behaviors)

  • behaviors are ‘critical incidents’

    • example for class participation

Summary: Rating Formats - Pros and cons

Rater Errors

• Rating errors can be intentional or unintentional

  • may occur at various steps of rating process:

    • observing employees

    • storing info in memory or retrieving it

    • translating info into rating

Rater Errors

Common Rater Errors

• Halo error: give high rating for all dimensions, despite different performance

  • “Lizzie brings up great points in meetings, so she must be great all-around”

• Recency effect: Overly relying on most recent info

  • what do i remember most recently - performed good 10 months, last month not so hot

• Primary effect: First impression bias (opposite of above)

  • employee starts out good, now not so great - remember the beginning

• Similar-to-me bias: Higher rating to similar others

Rater Errors

Common distributional errors

• problem: cant discriminate between in/effective employees

  • Leniency errors: everyone gets very high ratings

    • can happen when raters like ratees (or want to keep the peace)

  • Severity errors: everyone gets very low ratings

    • can happen when raters are overly strict, or have misguided motivational strategies

  • Central tendency errors: everyone rated as average

    • can happen due to poor rater training, unfamiliarity with ratees

Review from job analysis

(importance of rater training)

1. provide definitions of rating dimensions

2. define scale anchors

3. describe behavuors for each dimension

4. allow raters to practice

5. provide feedback on practice

Current trends: worker surveillance

worker surveillance: monitoring employees behavuir during work hours (often via computer software)

• sometimes used for remote workers, who can’t otherwise be observed

Giving performance feedback effectively

• performance appraisal occurs within a social, organizational, and legal context

• effective appraisals re nto only accurate, but they asl elicit positive employee reactions

  • to the extent possible (Sometimes, hard conversations are necessary)

Giving performance feedback effectively

• important considerations:

  • feedback environment: org. culture related to performance feedback includes:

    • organizational politics: people are often motivated to protect self-interests

    • trust in the appraisal system: affects raters and ratees (acceptance)

  • Feedback orientation: each employees level of receptivity towards feedback

  • Reaction criteria: outcomes that reflect how employees respond to appraisals - measuring reactions to feedback

    • includes satisfaction with rating system, perceived utility, and fairness

Giving performance feedback effectively

A few more considerations

• Participation: more employee participation (eg, self-ratings, time to talk) associated with better reactions

• Multi-source feedback (eg 360 degree)

  • use ratings from multiple perspectives

  • popular for developmental purposes (more participation )

Legal Issues in Performance Appraisal

• performance appraisals can be legally challenged

  • organizations lose - 40% of cases

• Practice that minimize legal challenges

  1. use job analysis to define performance dimensions

  2. develop rating form to assess dimensions

  3. train raters and review ratings before giving feedback

  4. allow employees to appeal

  5. document performance records

  6. help employees with unsatisfactory performance

EXAM REVIEW