Post on 22-Jan-2015
description
transcript
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Appraising and Improving Performance
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Performance Appraisal Programs
• Performance Appraisal– A process, typically performed annually by a
supervisor for a subordinate, designed to help employees understand their roles, objectives, expectations, and performance success.
• Performance management– The process of creating a work environment in
which people can perform to the best of their abilities.
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Performance Appraisal
Appraisal ProgramsAppraisal Programs
AdministrativeAdministrative DevelopmentalDevelopmental
CompensationCompensation Ind. EvaluationInd. Evaluation
Job EvaluationJob Evaluation
Admin. SupportAdmin. Support
Training Training
Career PlanningCareer Planning
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Figure 8–1 Purposes for Performance Appraisal
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Reasons Appraisal Programs Sometimes Fail
• Lack of top-management information and support
• Unclear performance standards• Rater bias• Too many forms to complete• Use of the appraisal program for
conflicting (political) purposes.
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Managerial Issues Concerning Appraisals
1. There is little face-to-face discussion between the manager and the employee being appraised.
2. The relationship between the employee’s job description and the criteria on the appraisal form isn’t clear.
3. Managers feel that little or no benefit will be derived from the time and energy spent in the process, or they are concerned only with bad performances.
4. Managers dislike the face-to-face confrontation of appraisal interviews.
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Managerial Issues Concerning Appraisals (cont’d)
5. Managers are not sufficiently adept at rating employees or providing them with appraisal feedback.
6. The judgmental role of appraisal conflicts with the helping role of developing employees.
7. The appraisal is just a once-a-year event, and there is little follow-up afterward.
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Figure 8–3 Establishing Performance Standards
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Strategic Relevance
Strategic Relevance
Individual standards directly relate to strategic goals.
Individual standards directly relate to strategic goals.
Criterion Deficiency
Criterion Deficiency
Standards capture all of an individual’s contributions.
Standards capture all of an individual’s contributions.
Criterion Contamination
Criterion Contamination
Performance capability is not reduced by external factors.
Performance capability is not reduced by external factors.
Reliability(Consistency)
Reliability(Consistency)
Standards are quantifiable, measurable, and stable.
Standards are quantifiable, measurable, and stable.
Performance Standards Characteristics
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Figure 8–4 Alternative Sources of Appraisal
Source: From The Wall Street Journal—permission, Cartoon Features Syndicate.
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Sources of Performance Appraisal
• Manager and/or Supervisor– Appraisal done by an employee’s manager and reviewed
by a manager one level higher.• Self-Appraisal
– Appraisal done by the employee being evaluated, generally on an appraisal form completed by the employee prior to the performance interview.
• Subordinate Appraisal– Appraisal of a superior by an employee, which is more
appropriate for developmental than for administrative purposes.
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Sources of Performance Appraisal
• Peer Appraisal– Appraisal by fellow employees, compiled into a
single profile for use in an interview conducted by the employee’s manager.
– Why peer appraisals are used more often:1. Peer ratings are simply a popularity contest.2. Managers are reluctant to give up control over the
appraisal process.3. Those receiving low ratings might retaliate against their
peers.4. Peers rely on stereotypes in ratings.
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Sources of Performance Appraisal
• Team Appraisal– based on TQM concepts, that recognizes team
accomplishment rather than individual performance
• Customer Appraisal– A performance appraisal that, like team appraisal,
is based on TQM concepts and seeks evaluation from both external and internal customers
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Figure 8–5 Pros and Cons of 360-Degree Appraisal
Sources: Compiled from David A. Waldman, Leanne E. Atwater, and David Antonioni, “Has 360-Degree Feedback Gone Amok?” Academy of Management Executive 12, no. 2 (May 1998): 86–94; Bruce Pfau, Ira Kay, Kenneth Nowak, and Jai Ghorpade, “Does 360-Degree Feedback Negatively Affect Company Performance?” HRMagazine 47, no. 6 (June 2002): 54–59; Maury Peiperl, “Getting 360-Degree Feedback Right,” Harvard Business Review 79, no. 1 (January 2001): 142–47; Joyce E. Bono and Amy E. Colbert, Understanding Responses to Multi-Source Feedback: The Role of Core Self-Evaluations,” Personnel Psychology 58, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 171–205.
• PROS The system is more comprehensive in that responses are gathered
from multiple perspectives.
Quality of information is better. (Quality of respondents is more important than quantity.)
It complements TQM initiatives by emphasizing internal/external customers and teams.
It may lessen bias/prejudice since feedback comes from more people, not one individual.
Feedback from peers and others may increase employee self-development.
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Figure 8–5 Pros and Cons of 360-Degree Appraisal (cont’d)
Sources: Compiled from David A. Waldman, Leanne E. Atwater, and David Antonioni, “Has 360-Degree Feedback Gone Amok?” Academy of Management Executive 12, no. 2 (May 1998): 86–94; Bruce Pfau, Ira Kay, Kenneth Nowak, and Jai Ghorpade, “Does 360-Degree Feedback Negatively Affect Company Performance?” HRMagazine 47, no. 6 (June 2002): 54–59; Maury Peiperl, “Getting 360-Degree Feedback Right,” Harvard Business Review 79, no. 1 (January 2001): 142–47; Joyce E. Bono and Amy E. Colbert, Understanding Responses to Multi-Source Feedback: The Role of Core Self-Evaluations,” Personnel Psychology 58, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 171–205.
• CONS The system is complex in combining all the responses.
Feedback can be intimidating and cause resentment if employee feels the respondents have “ganged up.”
There may be conflicting opinions, though they may all be accurate from the respective standpoints.
The system requires training to work effectively.
Employees may collude or “game” the system by giving invalid evaluations to one another.
Appraisers may not be accountable if their evaluations are anonymous.
By- Prof Sachin Batra
360-Degree Performance Appraisal System Integrity Safeguards
• Assure anonymity. • Make respondents accountable.• Prevent “gaming” of the system. • Use statistical procedures. • Identify and quantify biases.
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Training Performance Appraisers
Recency errorsRecency errors
Leniency or strictness errorsLeniency or strictness errors
Common rater-related errorsCommon rater-related errors
Error of central tendencyError of central tendency
Similar-to-me errorsSimilar-to-me errors
Contrast and halo errorsContrast and halo errors
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Rater Errors
• Error of Central Tendency– A rating error in which all employees are rated about
average.• Leniency or Strictness Error
– A rating error in which the appraiser tends to give all employees either unusually high or unusually low ratings.
• Recency Error– A rating error in which appraisal is based largely on an
employee’s most recent behavior rather than on behavior throughout the appraisal period.
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Rater Errors
• Contrast Error– A rating error in which an employee’s evaluation is
biased either upward or downward because of comparison with another employee just previously evaluated.
• Similar-to-Me Error– An error in which an appraiser inflates the
evaluation of an employee because of a mutual personal connection.
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Rater Errors: Training and Feedback
• Rating Error Training– Observe other managers making errors– Actively participate in discovering their own errors– Practice job-related tasks to reduce the errors they
tend to make• Feedback Skills Training
– Communicating effectively– Diagnosing the root causes of performance problems– Setting goals and objectives
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Performance Appraisal Methods
Trait Methods
Trait Methods
Graphic Rating Scale
Graphic Rating Scale
Mixed Standard Scale
Mixed Standard Scale
Forced-ChoiceForced-Choice
EssayEssay
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Trait Methods
• Graphic Rating-Scale Method– A trait approach to performance appraisal
whereby each employee is rated according to a scale of individual characteristics.
• Mixed-Standard Scale Method– An approach to performance appraisal similar to
other scale methods but based on comparison with (better than, equal to, or worse than) a standard.
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Highlights in HRM 2
Graphic Rating Scale with Provision for Comments
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Highlights in HRM 3
Example of a Mixed-Standard Scale
By- Prof Sachin Batra
Trait Methods
• Forced-Choice Method– Requires the rater to choose from statements
designed to distinguish between successful and unsuccessful performance.
– 1. ______ a) Works hard _____ b) Works quickly– 2. ______ a) Shows initiative _____ b) Is responsive to
customers– 3. ______ a) Produces poor quality _____ b) Lacks good work
habits
• Essay Method– Requires the rater to compose a statement
describing employee behavior.