Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unit 4-Performance & Potential Appraisal
Unit 4-Performance & Potential Appraisal
Employee Assessment the assessment of an employee's effectiveness, usually as undertaken at regular intervals Performance appraisal may be defined as a structured formal interaction between a subordinate and supervisor in which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and discussed
with a view to identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities for improvement and skills development
Individual
Recognition of past effort Developmental requirements can be uncovered Alignment of effort with objectives Motivation of team members Development of staff Achievement of key objectives Best and focused utilization of human resources
Team
Organization
Objectives
Compensation decisions Promotion decisions Training and development programmes Feedback to the employee Personal growth and development
Job-related criteria Performance expectations Standardization Trained appraisers Continuous open communication Performance reviews
360-Degree Feedback
Performance information is collected from supervisors, subordinates, peers, and internal/external customers Generally done for development rather than for pay raises
360-degree Feedback
Upward and peer feedback can have positive effects on behavior These effects are sustainable over time Introducing a 360-degree system into a culture not prepared for it can have disastrous effects
360-degree Feedback
Multiple perspectives of a persons performance Raters base evaluations on contact and observation Feedback is provided from multiple directions above, below, peer Anonymous upward feedback, which results in full participation Learning about weaknesses and strengths is motivational
360-degree Feedback
Feedback from all sources can be overwhelming Rater can hide in a group of raters and provide harsh evaluations Conflicting ratings can be confusing and frustrating Providing feedback that is constructive requires a plan and well-trained raters
In a multiple-person evaluation, the supervisor directly and intentionally compares the performance of one employee to that of others
The rater is presented with a set of traits The employee is rated on the traits Ratings are assigned points, which are then computed Raters are often asked to explain each rating with a sentence or two
Forced choice:
Was developed because graphic rating scales allowed supervisors to rate everyone high The rater must choose from a set of descriptive statements about employee Supervisors check the statements that describe the employee, or they rank the statements from most to least descriptive Forced choice can be used by superiors, peers, subordinates, or a combination of these
Essay Evaluation
The rater is asked to describe the strong and weak aspects of the employees behavior It can be used by superiors, peers, or subordinates Essay evaluations are flexible; an evaluator can specifically address the ratees skill in any area Comparing essays is difficult
Raters maintain a log of behavioral incidents that represent effective and ineffective performance for each employee Two factors determine the success of this technique: The supervisor must have enough time to observe subordinates during the evaluation period The supervisor must record incidents as they are seen Logs can help avoid common rating errors and facilitate discussions about performance improvement
Smith and Kendall developed the behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS), or the behavioral expectation scale (BES) The BARS approach uses critical incidents to anchor statements on a scale The rater reads the anchors and places an X at some point on the scale for the ratee
Six to 10 performance dimensions identified and defined by raters and ratees The dimensions are anchored with positive and negative critical incidents Each ratee is then rated on the dimensions Ratings are fed back using the terms on the form
It takes two to four days to construct a BARS that is jargon free and closely related to the requirements of the job
Uses specific descriptions of actual behaviors to rate various levels of actual performance
Ranking
It is easier to rank the best and worst employees than average ones Pick the top employee first, then the bottom one The second best is chosen, then the second worst Follow this process until everyone has been ranked
Paired Comparison
The supervisor reviews a series of cards; each contains two subordinates names The higher performer in each pair is chosen Final ranking is made by counting how many times a given employee was chosen as the better performer A major limitation is the number of paired comparisons that must be made
Forced Distribution
Employees are rated on a pre-existing distribution of pre-determined categories The predetermined distribution must be followed, regardless of how well the employees performed A supervisor with all exceptional subordinates will be forced to rate some poorly
At Sun Microsystems managers appraise employees in groups of about 30. There is a top 10%, a middle 70%, and a bottom 10%. The bottom 10% can either take a quick exit package or embark on a 90-day performance improvement action plan.
An MBO program follows a systematic process: Superior/subordinates define tasks and set objectives The superior, consulting with subordinates, sets criteria for assessing objective accomplishment Dates to review progress are agreed upon and used Superior and subordinates make any required modifications in the original objectives A final evaluation by the superior is made The superior meets with the subordinate in a counseling, encouraging session
Opposition to Evaluation
Most employees are wary of performance evaluation Subjective bias and favoritism are real problems
Opponents of formal evaluation argue that: They focus too much symptoms of poor performance rather than finding the underlying causes Managers and employees dislike the process Raters have trouble deciding performance levels Employees who are not placed in the top performance category experience a reverse motivation effect
Performance evaluation systems break down because they are poorly designed
If the criteria focus solely on results, or on personality traits rather than performance, the evaluation may not be well received Some techniques take a long time to carry out or require extensive written analysis, both of which managers resist Some systems are not fully online
Rater Problems
Even if a system is well designed, problems can arise if raters are not cooperative and well trained Supervisors may not be comfortable playing God Inadequate training can lead to: Problems with standards of evaluation Halo effect Leniency or harshness Central tendency error Recency of events error Contracts effects Personal bias (stereotyping, similar to me)
Standards of Evaluation
Problems with evaluation standards arise because of perceptual differences in the meaning of words
Good, adequate, satisfactory, and excellent mean different things to different evaluators
This arises most often in graphic rating scales It may also appear with essays, critical incidents, and checklists
Potential appraisal
The objective of potential appraisal is to identify the
potential of a given employee to occupy higher positions in the organizational hierarchy and undertake higher responsibilities. It is required to: Inform employees about their future prospects Help the organization chalk out a suitable succession plan Update training efforts from time to time Advise employees about what they must do to improve their career prospects.
P O T E N T I A L
Problem Children
Stars
Planned separation
Solid citizens
PERFORMANCE