Upload
jackie72
View
774
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D., CFLE2009
The Need for a Results-based Performance Management
System: Employee Appraisal & Development
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Performance Management Parable
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
And God said: “Let there be light”
God separated the light from darkness—calling the light “day” and the darkness “night.”
There was evening and there was morning—the first day.
God assessed His first day’s performance as:
“It is good.”
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Parable cont’d
On the second day, God created water and separated it from the sky.
On the third day, God gathered the water into one place and created land. With the land, he created vegetation, plants, trees, seed-bearing fruit.
God assessed His second and third day’s performance as:
“It is good.”
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Parable cont’d
On days 4 & 5, God created the seasons, the sun, the moon, and the stars. He also created living creatures to live in the sea, on the land, and in the air.
On day 6, God created male and female in his own image. He told them to rule over all that he had created. He also told them to be fruitful and multiply.
God assessed these three day’s of performance as: “It is good.”
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Parable cont’d
Believing that His week’s work had been very productive….
God decided to reward himself with a day off.
This was the 7th day—a day of rest.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Parable, cont’d
On the 8th day —Lucifer, the wicked angel—better known as “Satan”--came to God and asked the following:
“God, this past week, you have worked very hard, you have created amazing things, you have even created humans after your own image---
Why then—have you assessed your own work as.. ― It is GOOD?
Why not something else like:―Great?
―Extraordinary?
―Exceeds Expectations?”
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Parable, cont’d
God simply replied—
“Go to Hell-Satan!”
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Our Workshop Roadmap
Performance Management Introduction
Two Ways Performance Management Adds Value
Why Many Performance Management Systems Fail
A Results-based Performance Management System
Five Steps in Implementing
Addressing the Legal Requirements
Assessing Our Knowledge & Implementation of Performance Management Systems
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Performance Management Intro
“Achilles Heel” ―Highly Personal
―Threatening Process
30% Managers Improves Performance―Reluctant to provide Candid Feedback
―Honest Discussions
40% Employees Clear Goals & Honest Process―Managers Unskilled Discussing Performance
―Ineffective at Coaching & Development
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
How Performance Management Systems Add Value: 2 Ways
Key Decision-Making
&
Employee Development
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Two Purposes of Performance Management
Key Decision-Making Employee Development
Supports Retention & Promotion Positive Growth Oriented Feedback
Goals Established & Measured Motivates Superior Performance
Fairly Distributes Merit & Compensation Counsels & Corrects Poor Performance
Succession Planning Encourages Mentoring & Coaching
Confirms Selection Decisions Training & Development Needs
Legal Defense for Decisions Improve Communication
Revenue Creation Productivity
Cost Containment Force Reductions
Maximize & Realize Employee Potential
Clarify Job Responsibilities & Expectations
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Challenge: Blending Decision-making & Development
Decision-making Approach―Too Lenient Inflated Ratings
―Too Focused on Rewards & Recognition
Development Approach―Too Variable Employee Strengths & Potential
―Too Need-based & Not Performance Focused
“Hard to Blend Healthy Conversations Around Wants & Needs”
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
What are Results-based Performance Management Systems?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
What are “Results?”
“Results”—Performance-oriented achievement.―Actual job outputs―Countable results―Measureable outcomes and accomplishments―Objectives, Targets and/or Goals achieved.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
What are “Behaviors?”
“Behaviors”—how the individual performed/acted―Traits/Attributes/
Characteristics/Proficiencies
―Personal Style/Manner/Approach
―KASH (Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills, Habits)
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
What is “Development”
―Maximizing Ability
―Unleashing Human Expertise
“Development” Maturation of Talent
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Implementing a Results-based Performance Management System
A 5-Phase Model
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Performance Management Model
Key Components
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Performance Management Model
1. Performance PlanningSet “job-based” performance objectives.
Establish and communicateperformance standards.
Key Components
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Performance Management Model
1. Performance PlanningSet “job-based” performance objectives.
Establish and communicateperformance standards.
2. ExecutionPerform AchieveStretch
Key Components
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Performance Management Model
1. Performance PlanningSet “job-based” performance objectives.
Establish and communicateperformance standards.
2. ExecutionPerform AchieveStretch
Key Components
3. Monitor & Develop
On-going FeedbackEncouragementCoach & Mentor
Training
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Performance Management Model
1. Performance PlanningSet “job-based” performance objectives.
Establish and communicateperformance standards.
2. ExecutionPerform AchieveStretch
4. AppraisalFormally rate progress toward previously stated objectives
(Employee & Manager)
Key Components
3. Monitor & Develop
On-going FeedbackEncouragementCoach & Mentor
Training
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Performance Management Model
1. Performance PlanningSet “job-based” performance objectives.
Establish and communicateperformance standards.
2. ExecutionPerform AchieveStretch
4. AppraisalFormally rate progress toward previously stated objectives
(Employee & Manager)
5. Review & Feedback
Set MeetingReview Year
Reinforce: Rewards & Recognition
Key Components
3. Monitor & Develop
On-going FeedbackEncouragementCoach & Mentor
Training
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
5 Stages are better than 7 Stages
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Phase 1: Performance Planning
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Planning Together
“The Dance”--Management and employees are involved in all phases of the process
Key Performance Criteria?
Comprehensive & Fair?
Goal-focused Strength-focused―Individual
―Department
―College
―University
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Dilbert on Goals
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Getting SMART with Goals
Good performance objectives are SMART!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Establishing Clear/Fair Goals
Performance Competencies/Expectations―What is the Employee to Accomplish/Achieve?
―What Behaviors Count?
Conditions―Under what Conditions are they suppose to Achieve?
Ratings Criteria―What Standards Count?
―What Ratings will be used?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Dilbert & Performance Goals
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Teaching (50%)
―Student Assessments (25%)
―Peer Evaluations (25%)
Research (25%)
―Publications (20%)
―Refereed Presentations (5%)
Service (20%)
―Journal Reviews (10%)
―Academy Officer (10%)
Professionalism/Collegiality (5%)
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
UT-Performance Ratings & Clear Definitions
Outstanding (Excellent)
More than Expected (Very Good)
Expected (Good)
Less Than Expected (Fair)
Unsatisfactory (Poor)
Behavior:
Far exceeds expectations
Behavior:
Exceeds expectations
Behavior:
Meets expectations
Behavior:
Falls short of meeting expectations
Behavior:
Falls far short of meeting expectations
Results:
Highest Impact
Results:
High Impact
Results:
Moderate Impact
Results:
Low Impact
Results:
No or Negative Impact
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
UT Merit & Performance-based Salary Adjustments
Exceeds Expectations
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Eligible for significant merit/ performance pay adjustments
Eligible for minimum merit/ performance pay adjustments
Not Eligible for merit/ performance pay adjustments
(Improvement Plan)
Not Eligible for merit/ performance pay adjustments
(Improvement Plan)
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Dilbert & Performance Metrics
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Expected Distributions & Other Forms of Rating
5-10% 20-25% 60-65% 5-10% 0-5%
Outstanding*
Exceptional
Excellent
Extraordinary
More than Expected*
Exceeds Expectations
Above Expectations
Exceeds Objectives
Expected*
Meets Expectations
Expected Performance
Satisfactory
Fully Met Expectations
Less than Expected*
Below Expectations
Marginal
Needs Improvement
Didn’t Fully
Unsatisfactory*
Unacceptable
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Competencies & Weighted Performance Behavior Elements
Teaching Quality
Outstanding
(5)
More Than Expected
(4)
Expected
(3)
Less Than Expected
(2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
Facilitates to Student Learning* (60%)
Classroom Management Skills* (20%)
Exhibits Interpersonal Skills* (20%)
Total Score
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Phase 2: Performance Execution
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Phase 2: Performance Execution
“Git-R-Done”
Employee’s Responsibility―Follow game plan
―Achieve Measurable Results
Supervisor’s Responsibility―Ensure a Culture that Motivates & Enhances Success
―Confront and Remove Obstacles
―Supportive Feedback
―Motivate, Motivate, Motivate
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Dilbert & Motivation
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Determine Root Cause(s)
Ability?
Environment?
Motivation?
Fit?
removeobstacles
train /educate
alignfeedback
transition
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
Is it caused by a problem with…
Breaking Down Performance Problems
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
16 Reasons Faculty Fail to Execute
Don’t Know Why They Should Do It Rewarded for Not Doing It
Don’t Know How Punished For Doing It
Don’t Know They are Supposed To Anticipate Negative Consequences
Think Your Way will not Work No Negative Consequences
Think Their Way is Better Beyond Their Control
Think Something Else is More Important Personal Limitations Prevent Them
No Positive Consequence Personal Private Problems
Actually Think They Are Doing It Nobody Can Do It
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Demotivation…
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Phase 3: Monitor & Develop
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Phase 3: Monitor & Develop
Regularly measure performance.
Timely Feedback (positive and negative)
Coach and mentor
Development plan Opportunities
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Monitoring Performance Goals
Competencies Performance Results
Teaching
Goal #1
Goal #2Research
Goal #1
Goal #2Service
Goal #1
Goal #2Collegiality/Professionalism
Goal #1
Goal #2
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Phase 4: Performance Appraisal
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Definition of “Appraisal”
An effort to determine “worth.”
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Phase 4: Performance Appraisal
Evaluating “how well” the job has been done.
4 Awareness Factors Contributing to Appraisal―Job Analysis, Description, & Assignment
―Job Context
―Job Expectations & Performance Criteria
―Job Holder Issues
Criteria Used: Calibrate, Calibrate, Calibrate!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Common Appraisal Errors
Attractiveness Effect―Assuming attractive people are great performers
Attribution Bias―Blaming failures under the individual’s control externally
Central Tendency―Rate people in the middle of the scale
Initial Impression Error―First impression (positive or negative) that colors or
distorts later information
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Common Appraisal Errors
Halo/Horns Effect―Rate employees the same on every trait
High Potential Error―Confusing future performance with current performance
Negative and/or Positive Skew―Leniency--rank high to avoid conflicts
―Severity--rank low to punish, coerce, threaten
Past Performance Error―Permitting the past to influence the present
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Common Appraisal Errors
Recency Effect―What have you done for me “lately”
Similar-to-Me Effect―Rating candidate favorably because they resemble “me”
Contrast Effect―Rating candidate in comparison to others
Stereotyping―Generalizing across groups and ignoring differences
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Phase 5: Performance Review &
Feedback
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
The Office
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9LLZJFBWdc&feature=related
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Phase 5: Performance Review & Feedback
Discussion and Feedback
Two-step Process―Step 1:
Review year’s performance compared to the development plan
Identify successes and unrealized goals
―Step 2: Set a date to create the plan for next year’s goals, objectives,
and development
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Employee’s & Supervisor’s Role
Employee’s Role Supervisor’s RoleReport Personal Accomplishments Review Original Goals
Compare with Original Goals Preliminary Assessment
Identify Obstacles Solutions Discuss Accomplishments
(2 or 3 Core Messages)Self-Assessment Prepare Final Assessment
Identify Next Cycle’s Goals Consult Administration
Plan Next Cycle’s Goals
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Dilbert’s Self-Appraisal
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Phase 5: The Meeting: “Teeing-it-Up”
Welcome employee
Meeting’s importance
Time frame for the meeting
Starting Place: Tell them where you are beginning
Kick-off statement
Invite employee Share their perceptions
Plans for next planning meeting
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Providing Effective Feedback
Briefly summarize the conversation’s direction Provide immediate positive feedback―Discuss 2-3 strengths to be continued/enhanced
Areas for improvement―Ask employee’s view What could be done differently?
Explore developmental needs―Ask employee What resources do you need?
Congratulate (offer authentic statement of “hope”)
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Simon & Performance Feedback
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DelJrP3P7tA
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Delivering Tough Messages Don’t wait. Define your view of the problem Focus on the Problem, not the Person. Work together Solution
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Effective Development Discussions
Tailor actions for the employee.
Create a vision.
Blend planning and opportunism.
Support a learning and development- oriented ethic in all action planning.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Writing Employee Accomplishments
Describe ―key performance objectives
―expected results
Include Context
Describe critical incidents employee took
Describe the impact of the accomplishment ―Individual-level
―Department-level
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Creating A Developmental Action Plan
Development Areas
Specific Actions Completion Date
Improve student feedback timeline.
Return student written assignments within 2 weeks.
Consult faculty mentor for accountability.
Write due date on calendar.
Next grading cycle
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Addressing the Legal Requirements of Performance Management
Suggested Tips
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Addressing Legal Requirements
Only evaluate relevant factors ―Appointment/Agreement Letters Starting Place
―Nothing More & Nothing Less
―“Specific” is better than “General”
―Calibrate Criteria Application
Employees must be informed of expectations and standards at the beginning of the cycle.
Document positive and negative incidents.
Be timely in discussing performance-related issues.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
More Legal Issues Reviewed by higher-level managers or panel.
Employees need an un-biased appeals process
The appraisal process ―well-documented
―standardized with defined employee and manager roles.
Employee appraisals and subsequent employment decisions must be consistent.―Higher performance ratings Higher merit.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Performance Management Quick Tip Summary
Clear performance expectations and standards.
Continuous measurement and feedback to prevent surprises—no “bowling in the dark.”
Development activities and opportunities.
Performance-based appraisals of job-related results
Accurate attributions of good or poor performance.
Formulation of future plans to promote positive performance.
Be Smart Be Legal
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Small Group Sessions: Possible Topics
Evaluating Peers & Colleagues
Feedback for Probationary Faculty vs Tenured Faculty
New UT Performance Scale―Defining Performance Behavior Elements
―Defining Appropriate Weights
―Calibrating Applications
―Implications for Merit Considerations
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Thank You & Good Luck!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Assessing Your Performance Management System &
Assessing Your Understanding of the Performance Management System
A Quick Check-up
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Assessing Your Performance Management System
Managers are held accountable for doing effective appraisals.
Performance is defined and measured at all levels and effectively communicated.
Individuals know how their performance impacts the performance of their work group and the organization.
High levels of performance are valued, recognized, and rewarded.
The system was designed with input from all levels.
The system measures the right things.
The system measures both results and how they were achieved.
Employees view the system as being fair.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Assessing Your Performance Management System
The system is legally defensible and explainable.
Employees understand how the systems works.
The process is simple and not time consuming.
Managers view it as a valuable management tool.
The system appropriately impacts recognition and rewards.
Ratings are very accurate and reflect actual performance.
Managers are timely in conducting and always do them.
Poor performers are provided with developmental opportunities.
Performance problems are dealt with quickly.
Repeated poor performance results in appropriate consequences.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Assessing Your Performance Management System
Managers treat appraisal as a continuous process rather than a one-time, end of year, event.
Feedback is constructive and employees know what is expected and how they are doing at all times.
Managers are appraised on well they appraise.
Performance standards are consistent across the unit.
Training in performance appraisal is provided to all appraisers.
All managers are skilled in making appraisals.
Developmental feedback is provided to support appraisal ratings.
There is an adequate appeals process in place.
Ratings are strictly based upon performance—not the person.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Your Knowledge of Performance Management (Williams & Levy, 1992)
I understand the performance management system being used.
I agree with the meaning of the criteria used in the performance management system.
I understand the objectives of the present performance management system.
I have a real understanding of how the performance management system works.
I understand how my last performance management rating was determined.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Your Knowledge of Performance Management (Williams & Levy, 1992)
I understand the criteria used by my employer to evaluate performance.
I understand the standards of performance my employer expects.
I can clearly communicate the objectives of the performance management system.
I would benefit from additional training in the process of the performance management system.
Procedures regarding the performance management system are fully understood by our employees.
An attempt should be made to increase employee’s understanding of the performance management system.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Selected References & Suggested Readings
For a detailed description of the following references and readings, please see Pulakos, E.D. (2007). Performance management: A roadmap for developing, implementing, and evaluating a performance management system. Arlington, VA: SHRM Foundation.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Selected References & Suggested Readings
Arvey, R.D., & Murphy, K.R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141-168.
Beatty, R.W., Baird, L.S., Schneier, E.C., & Shaw, D.G. (1995). Performance, Measurement, Management, and Appraisal Sourcebook. Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press.
Borman, W.C. (1991). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 2) (pp. 271-326).
Campbell, D.J., & Lee, C. (1988). Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: Development versus evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 13, 302-314.
Cardy, R.L. (2003). Performance management: Concepts, skills, and exercises. Armony, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Cawley, B.D., Keeping, L.M.,& Levy, P.E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 615-633.
Cedarbloom, D. (1982). The performance appraisal interview: A review, implications, and suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 7, 219-227.
DeNisi, A.S., & Klugger, A.N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14, 129-139.
Engelmann, C.H., & Roesch, R.C. (2001). Managing individual performance: An approach to designing an effective performance management system. Scottsdale, AZ: WorldatWork.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Selected References & Suggested Readings
Fisher, S. G. (1997). The manager’s pocket guide to performance management. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
Fitzwater, T. L. (1998). The manager’s pocket guide to documenting employee performance. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
Ghorpade, J. (2000). Managing the five paradoxes of 360-degree feedback. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 140-150.
Ghorpade, J., & Chen, M. M. (1995). Creating quality-driven performance appraisal systems. Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 32-39.
Gilliland, S. W., & Langdon, J. C. (1998). Creating performance management systems that promote perceptions of fairness. In James W. Smither (Ed.), Performance
Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greguras, G. J., Robie, C., Schleicher, D. J., Goff, M. (2003). A field study of the effects of rating purpose on the quality of multisource ratings. Personnel Psychology, 56, 1-21.
Grote, D. (1996). The complete guide to performance appraisal. New York: American Management Association.
Hillgren, J. S., & Cheatham, D. W. (2000). Understanding performance measures: An approach to linking rewards to the achievement of organizational objectives. Scottsdale, AZ: WorldatWork.
Hough, L. M., Keyes, M. A., & Dunnette, M. D. (1983). An evaluation of three “alternative” selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 36, 261-276.
Kahn, S. C., Brown, B. B., & Lanzarone, M. (1996). Legal guide to human resources. Boston: Warren, Gorham & Lamont.
Lee, J., Havigurst, L. C., & Rassel, G. (2004). Factors related to court references to performance appraisal fairness and validity. Public Personnel Management, 33 (1), 61-78.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Selected References & Suggested Readings
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Longnecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., Jr., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193.
Martin, D. C., Bartol, K.M., & Kehoe, P. E. (2000). The legal ramifications of performance appraisal: The growing significance. Public Personnel Management, 29(3), 379-406.
Mohrman, A. M., Jr., Resnick-West, S. M., & Lawler, E. E. III. (1989). Designing performance appraisal systems: Aligning appraisals and organizational realities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rodgers, R., & Hunter, J. E. (1991). Impact of management by objectives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 322-336.
Rodgers, R., Hunter, J. E., & Rogers, D. L. (1993). Influence of top management commitment on management program success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51-155.
Schippmann, J. S. (1999). Strategic job modeling: Working at the core of integrated human resource systems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Smither, J. W. (Ed.). Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures: Fourth edition. Bowling Green, OH:
Spencer, L., & Spencer, S. (1994). Competence at work. New York: John Wiley.
Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. (1978). Federal register, 43, 38295-38315.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.
Selected References & Suggested Readings
Waldman, D., & Atwater, L. E. (1998). The power of 360-degree feedback: How to leverage performance evaluations for top productivity. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Weatherly, L. A. (2004, March). Performance management: Getting it right from the start. SHRM Research Quarterly, 2, 1-10.
Werner, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (1997). Explaining U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions involving performance appraisal: Accuracy, fairness, and validation. Personnel Psychology, 50 (1), 1-24.
Wexley, K. N. (1986). Appraisal interview. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Performance assessment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 167-185.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009