Day 13- Performance Management Flashcards
Performance Appraisal vs. Performance Management
Performance Appraisal
A process, typically performed annually by a supervisor for a subordinate, designed to help employees understand their roles, objectives, expectations, and performance success.
Performance Management
The process of creating a work environment in which people can perform to the best of their abilities.
Performance Appraisal
A process, typically performed annually by a supervisor for a subordinate, designed to help employees understand their roles, objectives, expectations, and performance success.
Performance Management
The process of creating a work environment in which people can perform to the best of their abilities.
Performance Management Process
- Planning
-What the employee is supposed to accomplish (goals, objectives, special projects)
clarity of expectations - Managing
- On-going, happening constantly
- feedback
- helping them improve
- monitoring and coaching performance - Review
- appraisal and measurement of performance
Performance Appraisal and Other HRM Functions
Recruitment
-Performance appraisals judges effectiveness of recruitment efforts
Selection
-Performance appraisal validates selection function
Training and Development
-Performance appraisal determines training needs
Compensation Managment
-Performance appraisal is a factor in determining pay
Labour Relations
-Performance appraisal justifies personnel actions
Purpose of Performance Appraisal
Administrative
- compensation
- promotion
- layoffs
Developmental
- Feedback
- training
- career planning
Characteristics for Effectiveness
Validity Reliability Input into development Acceptable standards Acceptable goals Control of standards Frequency of feedback Rater training (ppl doing evaluations) Ratee training (give better understanding on what the standard are) Input into interview process Appraisal consequences Different sources (raters)
Guidelines for Appraisals
Performance ratings must be job-related.
Employees must be given a written copy of their job standards in advance of appraisals.
**Managers who conduct the appraisal must be able to observe the behaviour they are rating.
Supervisors must be trained to use the appraisal form correctly.
Appraisals should be discussed openly with employees and counseling or corrective guidance offered.
**An appeals procedure should be established to enable employees to express disagreement with the appraisal.
Past performance: Non comparative
Non-directly comparing employees to each other, just to an overall standard.
Rating Scales & Critical Incidents:
Oldest and most widely used method
Subjective i.e. based on the rater’s opinion
Responses may be given numerical values
BARS & BOS
Descriptions of effective/ineffective performance—examples placed along a scale
Job-related, practical, and standardized
Productivity
May include paper-and-pencil tests or an actual demonstration of skills
360-Degree
Multiple sources of ratings e.g. self, peer, supervisor, subordinate, customer
Noncomparative:
Critical Incidents
Critical Incident Method
Critical incident:
An unusual event that denotes superior or inferior employee performance in some part of the job.
The manager keeps a log or diary for each employee throughout the appraisal period and notes specific critical incidents related to how well they perform.
Noncomparative:
Ratings
Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS)
Consists of a series of vertical scales, one for each dimension of job performance; typically developed by a committee that includes both subordinates and managers
Behaviour Observation Scale (BOS)
A performance appraisal that measures the frequency of observed behavior (critical incidents)
Preferred over BARS for maintaining objectivity, distinguishing good performers from poor performers, providing feedback, and identifying training needs.
Note: BOS is better, little less judgment involved.
Noncomparative: Productivity
Productivity Measures:
Appraisals based on quantitative measures (e.g., sales volume) that directly link what employees accomplish to results beneficial to the organization.
-Criterion contamination
(measure is contaminated with measures that do not relate to someone performance)
-Criterion deficiency
(measure does not actually measure everything that is important) (Ex: can have huge sales, but might not be ethical)
-Focus on short-term results
Noncomparative: 360-Degree Feedback
Ratings provided by a number of people
Noncomparative: 360-Degree Feedback
Pros
The system is more comprehensive in that responses are gathered from multiple perspectives.
Quality of information is better. (Quality of respondents is more important than quantity.)
It complements TQM initiatives by emphasizing internal/external customers and teams.
It may lessen bias/prejudice since feedback comes from more people, not one individual.
Feedback from peers and others may increase employee self-development.
Noncomparative: 360-Degree Feedback
Cons
The system is complex in combining all the responses.
Feedback can be intimidating and cause resentment if employee feels the respondents have “ganged up.”
There may be conflicting opinions, though they may all be accurate from the respective standpoints.
The system requires training to work effectively.
Employees may collude or “game” the system by giving invalid evaluations to one another.
Appraisers may not be accountable if their evaluations are anonymous.
