CHAPTER 6

Performance Appraisal
 Learning objectives

• Understand the main purposes of performance appraisal

• Recognize the process and methods to evaluate employees
• Develop skills for performance appraisal
 REFERENCES

1. Dessler G., Tan C.H., Human Resource Management - An Asian perspective, 2nd edition,
Pearson, 2009.

2. John MI, Human Resource Management, 11th edition, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2010.

3. Dr. Tran Kim Dung, Human Resource management, Statistic Publishing House., 2009.
 What is performance appraisal?
means evaluating an employee’s current and/or past performance
relative to his/her performance standards.

(1) Setting work

(2) Assessing the employee’s

relative to those standards

(3) Providing to the employee with the

aim of helping him/her to eliminate performance
deficiencies or to continue to perform above par.
Performance appraisal process
 Motivation

Development Communications

Legal compliance
Purposes (promotion, transfer, reward, discharge)
Human resource and
employment planning for
appraisal
 Why should managers conduct performance appraisal?

Performance appraisals are conducted for several reasons:

• Eliminate performance deficiencies/ to continue performance above the bar.

• Assisting decision making in employees’ salary adjustments, merit raises, and

incentive rewards.

• Assisting decision making in the promotions, demotions, transfers,

terminations, and even layoffs of employees.

• Identify employees’ training and development needs, and performance gap.

 Step 1: Define the job and its standards

Jobdescrp
ito
in
SMARTGoals

S.M.A.R.T. goals are:

– Specific, and clearly state the desired results.
– Measurable in answering ― “how much”.
– Attainable, and not too tough or too easy.
– Relevant to what’s to be achieved.
– Timely in reflecting deadlines and milestones.
 Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

• Peer appraisals: appraisals by one’s peers—are popular.

• Rating committee: the employee’s immediate supervisor and three or four other
supervisors.
• Some employers obtain Employees’ self-ratings: along with supervisors’ ratings.
• Many employers have Subordinates rate their managers, usually for developmental
rather than for pay purposes.
• 360-degree feedback: the employer collects performance information all around an
employee—from supervisors, subordinates, peers, and internal or external customers
—generally for developmental rather than pay purposes.
• Crowd Appraisals
 Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

Popular appraisal methods

Graphicratingscale

Management Alternationran
by king
objectives meth
od

Forceddistribut
ion Pairedcomparis
APPRAISAL on
metho
d METHODS method

Criticalincide
nt Behaviorallyanchore
meth drating
od scale(BA
R
S
)
 Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

• A scale that lists a number of traits and a

range of performance for each that is
used to identify the score that best
describes an employee’s level of
performance for each trait.
 Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

Discretescale
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Good Average Below expectations

Unsatisfactory Questionable Satisfactory Outstanding

1 2 3 4

Continuousscale
Poor — — — — — — — — Excellent
Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards
 Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

1 9,5
Ranking employees from best to worst on a particular trait, 2 9,3
2 9,3
choosing highest, then lowest, until all are ranked. 2 9,3
5 9,2
6 9,1
6 9,1
8 9,0
9 8,8
10 8,7
10 8,7
12 8,5
Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

Ranking employees by making a chart of all

possible pairs of the employees for each trait
and indicating which is the better employee of
the pair.
Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards
Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards
 Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

Assesses the employee’s past performance and required areas of

improvement. The narrative assessment helps the employee understand
where his or her performance was good or bad, and how to improve that
performance.
 Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

is an appraisal tool that anchors a numerical rating scale with specific

illustrative examples of good or poor performance. Developing a BARS
typically involves 5 steps:
1. Write critical incidents;
2. Develop performance dimensions;
3. Reallocate incidents;
4. Scale the incidents;
5. Develop a final instrument.
 Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

Ask the job’s jobholders and/or supervisors to write specific illustrations (critical
incidents) of effective and ineffective performance on the job

Have these people cluster the incidents into 5 – 10 performance dimensions, such
as “salesmanship skills.”

To verify these groupings, have another team who also knows the job reallocate
the original critical incidents to the cluster they think it fits best.

This second group then rates the behavior described by the incident as to how
effectively or ineffectively it represents performance on the dimension.

Choose about 6 – 7 of the incidents as the performance dimension’s behavioral

anchors.
Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards
 Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

The supervisor keeps a log of positive and negative examples (critical incidents) of a
subordinate’s work-related behavior and then reviews it with the employee at
predetermined times.

Negative examples
Positive examples

Critical Incidents
Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards
 Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

• Similar to grading on a curve;

predetermined percentages of
ratees are placed in various
performance categories.
• Example:
15% high performers
20% high-average performers
30% average performers
20% low-average performers
15% low performers
 Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

- : the top % ratees are “1’s,” the middle % are “2’s,” and the bottom % are
“3’s” and the “first to go.”
- : top %, middle %, and bottom % for its managers, and most of the bottom %
lost their jobs. (GE no longer strictly adheres to its 20/70/10 split).

- Preventing supervisors from simply rating all or most employees “satisfactory” or “high.”

- Increase the risk of discriminatory adverse impact. One survey found that 77% of employers
were at least “somewhat satisfied” with forced ranking, while the remaining 23% were
dissatisfied
- The biggest complaint: 44% said it damages morale.
 Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

MBO requires the manager to set specific measurable, organizationally

relevant goals with each employee, and then periodically discuss the
latter’s progress toward these goals.

- Sundar Pichai
Google’s CEO
 Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

1 2 3
• S et the • Set • Discuss
organ departmental ization’s goals departmental
g oals goals

4 5 6
Provide feedback
• Define expected • Conduct
results (set performance
individual goals) reviews
Step 2: Measure employees’ performance against these standards

Problems with MBO:

1. Unclear objectives
2. Time consuming
3. Different expectations
 Step 3: Provide feedback to the employees
so that they can improve their performance

The appraisal interview

• An interview in which the supervisors and subordinate review the appraisal

and make plans to remedy deficiencies and reinforce strengths.

How to conduct the appraisal interview

• Talk in terms of objective work data

• Don’t get personal
• Encourage the person to talk
• Don’t tiptoe around
 Step 3: Provide feedback to the employees
so that they can improve their performance

Choose
time and
Prepare place
the
employee
Prepare for
the
interview
 Step 3: Provide feedback to the employees
so that they can improve their performance

Problems:
• Unclear standards
• Halo effect
• Central tendency
• Leniency or strictness
• Recency effects
• Bias
 Step 3: Provide feedback to the employees
so that they can improve their performance

An appraisal that is too open to interpretation.

Occurs when a supervisor’s rating of a subordinate on one trait biases the

rating of that person on other traits.

A tendency to rate all employees the same way, such as rating them all average.

The problem that occurs when a supervisor has a tendency to rate all
subordinates either high or low.

The tendency to allow individual differences such as age, race, and gender
to affect the appraisal ratings.
Step 3: Provide feedback to the employees
so that they can improve their performance
 Activity 1

• Read the case study and answer question

• Write down your group’s answers and submit them to your lecturer
 : The Performance Appraisal
After spending several weeks on the job, Jennifer was surprised to discover that her father had not
formally evaluated any employee’s performance for all the years that he had owned the business. Jack’s
position was that he had “a hundred higher-priority things to attend to,” such as boosting sales and lowering
costs, and, in any case, many employees didn’t stick around long enough to be appraisable anyway.
Furthermore, contended Jack, manual workers such as those doing the pressing and the cleaning did
periodically get positive feedback in terms of praise from Jack for a job well done, or criticism, also from
Jack, if things did not look right during one of his swings through the stores. Similarly, Jack was never shy
about telling his managers about store problems so that they, too, got some feedback on where they
stood.

This informal feedback notwithstanding, Jennifer believes that a more formal appraisal approach is
required. She believes that there are criteria such as quality, quantity, attendance, and punctuality that
should be evaluated periodically even if a worker is paid on piece rate. Furthermore, she feels quite strongly
that the managers need to have a list of quality standards for matters such as store cleanliness, efficiency,
safety, and adherence to budget on which they know they are to be formally evaluated.

Questions:
1. Is Jennifer right about the need to evaluate the workers and the managers formally? Why or why not?
2. Develop a performance appraisal method for the workers and the managers?
 Appraising the Secretaries at Sweetwater U
Rob Winchester, newly appointed vice president for administrative affairs at Sweetwater State University, faced a
tough problem shortly after his university career began. Three weeks after he came on board in September, Sweetwater’s
president, Rob’s boss, told Rob that one of his first tasks was to improve the appraisal system used to evaluate secretarial and
clerical performance at Sweetwater U. The main difficulty was that the performance appraisal was traditionally tied directly to
salary increases given at the end of the year. Therefore, most administrators were less than accurate when they used the
graphic rating forms that were the basis of the clerical staff evaluation. In fact, what usually happened was that each
administrator simply rated his or her clerk or secretary as “excellent.” This cleared the way for them to receive a maximum pay
raise every year.
But the current university budget simply did not include enough money to fund another “maximum” annual raise for
every staffer. Furthermore, Sweetwater’s president felt that the custom of providing invalid feedback to each secretary on his or
her year’s performance was not productive, so he had asked the new vice president to revise the system. In October, Rob sent a
memo to all administrators, telling them that in the future no more than half the secretaries reporting to any particular
administrator could be appraised as “excellent.” This move, in effect, forced each supervisor to begin ranking his or her
secretaries for quality of performance. The vice president’s memo met widespread resistance immediately—from
administrators, who were afraid that many of their secretaries would begin leaving for more lucrative jobs, and from
secretaries, who felt that the new system was unfair and reduced each secretary’s chance of receiving a maximum salary
increase. A handful of secretaries had begun picketing outside the president’s home on the university campus. The picketing,
caustic remarks by disgruntled administrators, and rumors of an impending slowdown by the secretaries (there were about 250
on campus) made Rob Winchester wonder whether he had made the right decision by setting up forced ranking. He knew,
however, that there were a few performance appraisal experts in the School of Business, so he decided to set up an
appointment with them to discuss the matter.
 He met with them the next morning. He explained the situation as he had found it: The current appraisal system had
been set up when the university first opened 10 years earlier. A committee of secretaries had developed it. Under that system,
Sweetwater’s administrators filled out forms similar to the one shown in Table 9-2. This once-a-year appraisal (in March) had run
into problems almost immediately because it was apparent from the start that administrators varied widely in their
interpretations of job standards, as well as in how conscientiously they filled out the forms and supervised their secretaries.
Moreover, at the end of the first year it became obvious to everyone that each secretary’s salary increase was tied directly to the
March appraisal. For example, those rated “excellent” received the maximum increases, those rated “good” received smaller
increases, and those given neither rating received only the standard across-the-board cost-of-living increase. Because universities
in general—and Sweetwater, in particular—have paid secretaries somewhat lower salaries than those prevailing in private
industry, some secretaries left in a huff that first year. From that time on, most administrators simply rated all secretaries excellent
in order to reduce staff turnover, thus ensuring each a maximum increase. In the process, they also avoided the hard feelings
aroused by the significant performance differences otherwise highlighted by administrators.
Two Sweetwater experts agreed to consider the problem, and in 2 weeks they came back to the vice president with the
following recommendations. First, the form used to rate the secretaries was grossly insufficient. It was unclear what “excellent”
or “quality of work” meant, for example. They recommended instead a form like that in Figure 9-2. In addition, they
recommended that the vice president rescind his earlier memo and no longer attempt to force university administrators to
arbitrarily rate at least half their secretaries as something less than excellent. The two consultants pointed out that this was
unfair, since it was quite possible that any particular administrator might have staffers who were all or virtually all excellent—or
conceivably, although less likely, all below standard. The experts said that the way to get all the administrators to take the
appraisal process more seriously was to stop tying it to salary increases. In other words, they recommended that every
administrator fill out a form as in Figure 9-2 for each secretary at least once a year and then use this form as the basis of a
counseling session. Salary increases would have to be made on some basis other than the performance appraisal, so that
administrators would no longer hesitate to fill out the rating forms honestly.
 Rob thanked the two experts and went back to his office to ponder their recommendations. Some of the
recommendations (such as substituting the new rating form for the old) seemed to make sense. Nevertheless, he still had
serious doubts as to the efficacy of any graphic rating form, particularly compared with his original, preferred forced
ranking approach. The experts’ second recommendation—to stop tying the appraisals to automatic salary increases—
made sense but raised at least one very practical problem: If salary increases were not to be based on performance
appraisals, on what were they to be based? He began wondering whether the experts’ recommendations weren’t simply
based on ivory tower theorizing.
Questions
1. Do you think that the experts’ recommendations will be sufficient to get most of the administrators to fill out the
rating forms properly? Why or why not? What additional actions (if any) do you think will be necessary?
2. Do you think that Vice President Winchester would be better off dropping graphic rating forms, substituting
instead one of the other techniques we discussed in this chapter, such as a ranking method? Why or why not?
3. What performance appraisal system would you develop for the secretaries if you were Rob Winchester?
Defend your answer.
 Activity 2

• What are the guidelines that supervisors should follow to

hold effective appraisals and minimize problems like bias and
halo effects?

• How can rating committees improve the fairness of the

appraisal process?
 Multiple choice questions

1. The process of evaluating an employee's current and/or

past performance relative to his or her performance
standards is called .

A) Recruitment
B) Employee selection
C) Performance appraisal
D) Organizational development
2. Which of the following is NOT one of the recommended
guidelines for setting effective employee goals?

A) assigning specific goals

B) assigning measurable goals
C) administering consequences for poor performance
D) encouraging employees to participate in setting goals
3. SMART goals are best described as .

A) specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely

B) strategic, moderate, achievable, relevant, and timely
C) specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and tested
D) straightforward, meaningful, accessible, real, and tested
4. All of the following are reasons for appraising an employee's
performance EXCEPT .

A) assisting with career planning

B) making decisions about promotions
C) creating an organizational strategy map
D) determining appropriate salary and bonuses
5. In most organizations, which of the following is primarily
responsible for appraising an employee's performance?

A) Employee's direct supervisor

B) Human resources manager
C) EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) representative
D) Employee's peers
6. Which of the following is LEAST likely to be used by firms
as an alternative source of performance appraisal
information?
A) Peers
B) Rating committees
C) The employee
D) Outside experts
7. Setting work standards, assessing an employee's
performance against those standards, and providing
employee feedback are the three steps of the .

A) orientation process
B) development analysis
C) ratio analysis method
D) performance appraisal cycle
8. In order to be the most effective, the performance
management process should occur _.

A) Occasionally
B) continuously
C) Periodically
D) annually
9. Which performance appraisal technique lists traits and a
range of performance for each?

A) alternation ranking
B) graphic rating scale
C) paired comparison
D) constant sum rating scale
10. Which performance appraisal method involves
distinguishing between the worst and best employees based on
a trait or traits?

A) alternation ranking
B) graphic rating scale
C) forced distribution
D) constant sum rating scale
11. Suppose you have five employees to rate. You make a
chart of all possible pairs of employees for each trait being
evaluated. Then, you indicate the better employee of the pair
for each pair. Finally, you add up the number of positives for
each employee. In this case, you have used the
method of performance appraisal.

A) graphic ranking scale

B) alternation ranking
C) paired comparison
D) forced distribution
12. Which performance appraisal tool is being used by a
supervisor who places predetermined percentages of rates
into various performance categories?

A) graphic ranking scale

B) alternation ranking
C) forced distribution
D) paired comparison
13. Which of the following is one of the primary complaints
regarding the use of the forced distribution method for
performance appraisals?

A) harm to employee morale

B) high cost of administration
C) standardization of group sizes
D) time consuming to administer
14. Which performance appraisal tool involves a supervisor
maintaining a log of positive and negative examples of a
subordinate's work-related behavior?

A) alternation ranking
B) constant sums rating
C) narrative forms
D) critical incident
15. At M&M Enterprises, subordinates rate supervisor
performances anonymously. Which of the following refers to
the process used at M&M?
A) downward feedback
B) upward feedback
C) paired evaluation
D) peer evaluation
16. Which of the following terms refers to a performance
appraisal based on surveys from peers, supervisors,
subordinates, and customers?
A) committee rating
B) team appraisal
C) upward feedback
D) 360-degree feedback
 GV: Nguyễn Quốc Sĩ
si.nguyenquoc@hoasen.edu.vn