Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
In brief: This chapter gives a good coverage of the performance appraisal process and the different tools and methods available. Interesting issues: Despite lots of attention, money and effort, performance appraisals remain an area with which few managers or employees are satisfied. This may be worth discussing. Is it just that we don't have a good enough system yet, is there an intrinsic problem with performance appraisals, or is it just human nature to dislike them?
Lecture Outline
I. The Appraisal Process
. #. The !upervisor's "ole in ppraisal !teps in ppraising $erformance %. '. (. *. Define the &ob ppraise $erformance $rovide )eedback $erformance ppraisal $roblems a. b. c. +. Didn't Define the &ob Didn't ppraise $erformance Didn't $rovide )eedback
II.
Appraisal Methods
. #. -. D. 0. ). 2. 2raphic "ating !cale 3ethod lternation "anking 3ethod $aired -omparison 3ethod )orced Distribution 3ethod -ritical Incident 3ethod 4arrative )orms #ehaviorally nchored "ating !cales 5# "!6 %. )ive !teps to Develop
78
dvantages a. b. c. d. e. more accurate gauge clearer standards feedback independent dimensions consistency
,.
The 3anagement by 9bjectives 53#96 3ethod %. !i1 3ain !teps a. b. c. d. e. f. '. set the organi:ation's goals set departmental goals discuss departmental goals define e1pected results performance reviews provide feedback
$roblems To void a. b. c. setting unclear, unmeasurable objectives time consuming tug of war
I. &.
3i1ing the 3ethods Information Technology and ,"; -omputeri:ed $erformance ppraisals and 0lectronic $erformance 3onitoring. pages ((<=((7 of the te1t; see Discussion #o1es solutions at end of this chapter
III.
7@
?egal and 0thical Issues in $erformance ppraisal .ho !hould Do the ppraising? %. '. (. *. +. <. 7. 8. ppraisal b the Immediate !upervisor >sing $eer ppraisals "ating -ommittees !elf="atings ppraisal by !ubordinates "esearch Insight; 0ffectiveness of >pward )eedback (<B=degree )eedback The ,igh=$erformance 9rgani:ation; The (<B=Degree $erformance 3anagement !ystem. page (*< of the te1t; see Discussion #o1es solutions at end of this chapter
I .
8B
,ow to -onduct the Interview %. '. (. *. #e Direct and !pecific Don't 2et $ersonal 0ncourage the $erson to Talk Don't Tiptoe round
D. 0. ). 2.
,ow to ,andle a Defensive !ubordinate ,ow to -ritici:e a !ubordinate ,ow to 0nsure That the ppraisal Interview ?eads to Improved $erformance ,ow to ,andle a )ormal .ritten .arning
. I.
$iscussion %o&es
Information Technolog' and (#: Computeri)ed Performance Appraisals and *lectronic Performance Monitoring
5pages ((<=((76 This bo1 describes new software programs that help the supervisor create the performance appraisal. The programs allow the supervisor to record critical incidents throughout the year, and then use them again as they develop the appraisal.
8%
Aey Terms
graphic rating scale scale that lists a number of traits and a range of performance for each. The employee is then rated by identifying the score that best describes his or her performance for each trait. 5page ('(6 "anking employees from best to worst on a particular trait. 5page ('+6 "anking 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. 5page ('76 !imilar to grading on a curveE predetermined percentages of ratees are placed in various categories. 5page ('76 Aeeping a record of uncommonly good or undesirable e1amples of an employee's work=related behavior and reviewing it with the employee at predetermined times. 5page ('@6 n appraisal method that aims at combining the benefits of narrative and Fuantified ratings by anchoring a Fuantified scale with specific narrative e1amples of good and poor performance. 5page ((%6 Involves setting specific measurable goals with each employee and then periodically reviewing the progress made. 5page (((6 n appraisal scale that is too open to interpretationE instead, include descriptive phrases that define each trait and what is meant by standards like GgoodG or Gunsatisfactory.G 5page ((76 In performance appraisal, the problem that occurs when a supervisor's rating of a subordinate on one trait biases the rating of that person on other traits. 5page ((86 tendency to rate all employees the same way, avoiding the high and the low ratings. 5page ((86 The problem that occurs when a supervisor has a tendency to rate all subordinates either high or low. 5page ((86 The tendency to allow individual differences such as age, race, and se1 to affect the appraisal rates these employees receive. 5page ((@6
alternation ran/ing method paired comparison method forced distribution method critical incident method
8'
$iscussion 4uestions:
5. $iscuss the pros and cons of at least four performance appraisal tools. The te1t lists eight different performance appraisal tools. !tudents might discuss the pros and cons of any four of these eight. The tools are described on pages ('( = ((*. 5 n e1ample of some of the pros and cons is; 2raphic "ating !cale method is easy to use, simple, and does not take much time to administer. ,owever, different supervisors may interpret a numerical rating differently and the traits rated may or may not relate to performance.6 6. *&plain ho" 'ou "ould use the alternation ran/ing method7 the paired comparison method7 and the forced distribution method. The alternation method would be used by listing all employees to be rated, deciding who is the best in a trait to be rated, and which is the worst. Then decide who is the second best, and the second worst ... the third best and the third worst ... and so on until all the employees have been ranked for that trait. Then do the same with the ne1t trait to be rated. .ith the paired comparison, for each trait to be rated, the supervisor would have a sheet with employee names in pairs ... every employee name is paired with every other name. )or each pair, the supervisor would circle the one of the two that is better in that trait. )orced Distribution gives the supervisor a set rating scale 5such as % through +6. The supervisor is limited to giving a pre=determined percentage of his or her employees' rating. )or e1ample; %+H can get a %, 'BH can get a ', (B H can get a ( ... and so forth. 5pages ('+='(86 ,. *&plain in 'our o"n "ords ho" 'ou "ould go about de!eloping a beha!iorall' anchored rating scale. 0ach student should e1press the five steps in his or her own words. Those five steps are; %6 generate critical incidentsE '6 develop performance dimensionsE (6 reallocate incidentsE *6 scale the incidentsE and +6 develop final instrument. 5pages ((%=(((6 8. *&plain the problems to be a!oided in appraising performance. The five main rating scale problems listed in the te1t are; %6 unclear standardsE '6 halo effectE (6 central tendencyE *6 leniency or strictnessE and +6 bias. 5pages ((7=((@6 9. $iscuss the pros and cons of using different potential raters to appraise a person:s performance. The advantages of using several raters 5either a rating committee, or a combination of peer, supervisor, and subordinate ratings6 is that the ratings tend to be more valid than those of one individual rater. The negatives might include the time and cost involved as well as problems with the amount of daily contact that some raters may not have with the employee being rated. -. *&plain the four t'pes of appraisal inter!ie" ob2ecti!es and ho" the' affect the "a' 'ou manage the inter!ie". 4ote; There are only three types outlined in the te1tI 0ach interview objective is tied to the type of appraisal being given. .hen the performance is satisfactory and the employee is promotable, the objective is to make development plans. This is the easiest interview to manage. /ou will discuss the person's career plans and develop a specific action plan for the educational and professional development the person
8(
8*
%. $o 'ou thin/ that the e&perts: recommendations "ill be sufficient to get most of the administrators to fill out the rating forms properl'? Ah' or Ah' not? Ahat additional actions 0if an'1 do 'ou thin/ "ill be necessar'? .hile controversial, the recommendations would, in fact, encourage administrators to fill the forms out correctly. >sing the more detailed form and not tying the performance ratings to salary increases would allow the managers to feel more free about rating the secretaries accurately. There would, however, need to be some strong training sessions 5both for administrators and secretaries6 to help them understand the new system. !ince all secretaries have traditionally received the same salary increases, and have been pleased with that, it would be advisable to consider lowering the ma1imum increase to an amount that could be given to all secretaries while staying within budget. Then all secretaries with a satisfactory rating or better would receive that increase. '. $o 'ou thin/ that ice President Ainchester "ould be better off dropping graphic rating forms7 substituting instead one of the other techni=ues "e discussed in this chapter such as a ran/ing method? -ertainly other methods could be used. ,e has already had a taste of what would result if he went to a forced distribution or other ranking method. # "! system might be best, but it could be costly to develop if the clerical staff have positions that are significantly different. (. Ahat performance appraisal s'stem "ould 'ou de!elop for the secretaries if 'ou "ere #ob Ainchester? $efend 'our ans"er. If the development costs are not too great, the # "! system would give the strongest solution to the current situation. The behavioral anchors would make it more difficult to just rate everyone at the top. It would also help to eliminate the different interpretations of what the rating scales mean.
8<