5 Performance Appraisal

Performance Appraisal

Job Analysis

Performance Standards: Criteria


Job Performance Criteria
Objective Production dataSales volumesTenure or turnoverAbsenteeismAccidentsTheftSubjective (Judgmental data)
Problems?

Unreliability

Focus on outcome of behavior Modification of performance by situational characteristics

Correlations between objective and subjective performance measures (Bommer et al, 1995) .39 (These two are NOT interchangeable)

Our objective in performance appraisal is to judge an individuals performance, not factors beyond his or her control.

Performance Appraisal subjective data
Graphic rating scalesEmployee-comparison methodsRank orderPaired comparisonForced distributionBehavioural checklist and scalesBehaviourally-anchored rating scale (BARS)Behavioural-observation scale (BOS)

Examples of graphic rating scale

High

Low

Job Knowledge

5 4 3 2 1

Superior Above Average Below Unacceptable

Average Average

Quality of work

Rate this employees dependability by assigning a score according to the following scale: ______

1 to 5 (poor) gives up quickly

6 to 10 (Average) does the routine work

11 to 15 (good) rarely gives up

Dependability

Practical judgment

5 4 3 2 1

Graphic Rating Scale
AdvantageSimple!!!!!!!!Easy to develop DisadvantageLack of clarity and definition
what do you mean by quality of work? What do you mean by poor or Average
No control over central tendency

Employee comparison methods
RankingPaired comparisonForced distribution
5% = very poor; 25% = poor; 40% = average; 25% = good; 5%= very good)
Advantage
Avoid central tendency

Helpful in making employment decisions
Disadvantage Hard to compare employees across different departments

Behavioural checklist and scales
To overcome problems of GRS and hence to provide more accurate and valid performance ratingsBased on CITTypes of Behavioural scales
BARS

BOS

An example of BARS

Very high

Very low

USE of KNOWLEDGE [definition should follow]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

A customer wanted to deposit a large amount of money. The teller explained to the customer that he could earn more interest on a money market account than with a savings account

A customer applied for a new auto loan and had an E/I too high for approval. This employee suggested a lower-priced auto with a lower payment to reduce his E/I

When a customer called, this employee accurately answered her question about finance charges

When a customer came to the bank for a loan, this employee had to search for instructions and kept the customer waiting

A customer wanted to cash a large check. The teller said that it could not be cashed but did not realized it was all right as long as the customer had that amount in her account

An example of BOS

Performance dimension: Review previous work performance
Communicate mistakes in job activities to subordinates
Almost Never 12345 Almost always

2 Praises subordinates for good worker behavior


3. Discuses hindrances in completing projects


11. Inspects quality of output materials


12. Reviews inventory of necessary parts and equipment


Behavioural scales vs. GRS
The scale formats have little (or no) impacts on the quality of ratings (Landy & Farr, 1980)No one format is consistently better than the othersWHY BOTHER THEN!!!HOWEVER,Increased feelings of justice and fairnessFavorable reactions from ratersUseful for developmental purposesLearning effectLegally more defensible (maybe)
Therefore, still worth using Behavioural scales

Who should rate?
Supervisors a primary sourceMost employees preferenceMaybe too result-orientedLimited opportunities to observe interpersonal aspectsSubordinatesLittle info about task performance, but good opportunities to observe interpersonal behavioursuncomfortable?

Who should rate?
SelfUnlikely to be used as the sole method of evaluationBut this source are well-informedMore lenient than supervisor ratings (whos wrong?)Self-ratings move closer to supervisors when extensive performance feedback is given (Steel & Ovalle, 1984) Self-ratings are less lenient if raters knows that the ratings will be checked against some objective criterion

Who should rate?
PeersGood opportunities to observe both task and interpersonal behaviorsCan observe uncensored behaviours Multiple ratings are usually availableFriendship/rivalry effectRange restriction (unwillingness to differentiate their peers)Uncomfortable in the role of rater

Why ratings differ ? (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988)
Correlations between ratings sourcesSelf-supervisor: .36Self-peer:.35Supervisor-peer: .62Potential explanationsEgocentric biasDifferences in organizational levelDifferences in rating meansSelf-supervisor: d = .70Self-peer: d = .28

360 degree feedback
Information from self, supervisors, peers and subordinates is used as a source of developmental feedbackIssuesDisagreement among sources
Harris & Schaubroek (1988)

r btw self and super/peer = .30s

R btw super and peer = .60s

Not necessarily a bad thing
Negative reactions to peer or upward feedback?Developmental purposes only? Or administrative decision purposes as well?

Bettenhausen & Fedor (1997)
Expectations that peer and upward appraisals would generate positive outcomes?

Other issues in performance appraisal
Rater error & accuracyHaloLeniency/SeverityCentral tendency (Range restriction)Improving Rating accuracy

Rater Error & Accuracy
LeniencyShift of mean rating away from scale midpointSkewness of rating distributionCentral tendency or range restrictionSD across ratees within dimensionsHalo: The raters tendency to let global evaluation color ratings on specific dimensions or The raters unwillingness to discriminate among separate aspects of a ratees performance Inter-correlation among dimension ratings SD of ratings across dimensions Size of the first unrotated factor

Supervisor As ratings
8 9 9 8 8 8
9 9 9

Supervisor Bs ratings

SD=0.5

SD=3.59
Dim 1Dim 2Dim 3Ratee 1Ratee 2Ratee 3Ratee 4Dim 1Dim 2Dim 3Ratee 1978Ratee 2243Ratee 3572Ratee 4112

Supervisor As ratings

Supervisor Bs ratings

SD=3.06

SD=0.58
Dim 1Dim 2Dim 3Ratee 1937Ratee 2515Ratee 3493Ratee 4279Dim 1Dim 2Dim 3Ratee 1778Ratee 2121Ratee 3243Ratee 4987

Do these error measures correlate negatively with accuracy measure?
(Murphy & Balzer, 1989)
Not reallyThe use of rater error measures as indirect indication of accuracy is not recommended.

Then what is a direct measure of accuracy?We should have true scoreTrue score: represents the rating that would be expected from an unbiased, careful rater who completed the rating task under optimal conditions

Cronbachs accuracy components

Rater As ratings

True ratings
Dim 1Dim 2Dim jmeanRatee1x11x12Mean XiRatee 2Mean XiRatee 3Mean XiRatee ixijMean XimeanMean XjMean XjMean XjGrandXDim 1Dim 2Dim jMeant11t12Mean tiMean tiMean titijMean tiMean tjMean tjMean tjGrand T

Cronbachs accuracy components

Accuracy in discriminating among ratees

Accuracy in diagnosing strengths and weaknesses of work groups

Accuracy in diagnosing strengths and weaknesses of individuals

Improving rating accuracy

Rater training (Woehr & Huffcuff, 1994)
Rater error trainingPerformance dimension trainingGet raters familiar with the dimensions on which performance is rated prior to the observation of performance Involves reviewing rating scales, get them participated in the development of the rating scaleFrame-of-reference trainingTraining raters with respect to performance standards as well as performance dimensionalityProviding the definition of dimension, and sample of behavioural incidents for each dimensionE.I., train raters to share and use common conceptualization of performanceBehavioral observation training note taking diary keeping


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

peer upward

administrative

developmental

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

RETPDTFORBOT

rating accuracy

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

RETPDTFORBOT

observational

accuracy

)

(

)

[(

1

)]

(

)

[(

1

)]

(

)

[(

1

)

(

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

t

t

t

t

x

x

x

x

kn

DA

t

t

x

x

k

SA

t

t

x

x

n

DE

t

x

E

i

j

ij

i

j

ij

j

j

i

i

+

-

-

-

+

-

-

SS

=

-

-

-

S

=

-

-

-

S

=

-

=

Documents

5 Performance Appraisal