Canadian Human Resource Management: A Strategic Approach

CHAPTER 8: PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AS PART OF MANAGERIAL STRATEGY
Important element of strategic planning is the assessment of strengths and weaknesses of human resources in organization Performance analyses offer mgt the necessary data to assess current skill, experience and performance level of every employee AND performance standards critical for future requirements ffective appraisal system makes explicit what constitutes effective and efficient !ehaviour on part of employees that is critical to implementing strategic plan determine what top mgt should do to implement plan once it is formulated "utcomes of analyses translate into valid appraisal instrument o #alidity refers to fact that ppl are !eing measured on areas that are truly impt to the attainment of their departmental$organizational o!%ectives Performance appraisal: process !y which organizations evaluate employee %o! performance o Accurate performance appraisals show employees where they are deficient o Provide feed!ack on development activities, staffing process, %o! designs and external challenges o &erve as quality control check on employee and '( dpt performance o )ithout appraisal system* Promotions, transfer and employee+related decisions su!%ect to trial and error ,areer planning and '( development suffer !$c no systematic performance feed!ack '( department lacks adequate info to evaluate performance o!%ectivelylack of feed!ack can result in missed o!%ectives
o -ses of performance appraisals see figure .+/ pg0 123 Performance improvement ,ompensation ad%ustments Placement decisions 4raining and development needs ,areer planning and development Deficiencies in staffing process International inaccuracies 5o! design errors Avoidance of discrimination xternal challenges

o "rganization6s performance appraisal system must !e effective and accepted to identify developmental and career planning needs and replacement summaries

ELEMENTS OF THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

Approach must identify performance+related criteria, measure criteria dn then give feed!ack to employees and '( department

e! elemen"s of Performance Appraisal S!s"ems '( department develop performance appraisals for employees in all departments so centralization ensures uniformityresults are more compara!le across similar groups of employees '( department seldom does evaluation of performance7 usually employee6s immediate supervisor !$c often in !est position to make appraisal Appraisal should !e* /

o Job-related: system evaluates critical !ehaviours that constitute %o! success o Practical: understood !y all evaluators and employees 8ie* %udge !ased on production9 o Have standards--performance s"an#ar#s* !enchmarks against which performance is measured (elate to desired results of each %o! ,ollect standards through %o! analysis o Use dependable measures:Performance s"an#ar#s: ratings used to evaluate employee performance asy to use, report on critical !ehaviours that determine performance Direct o!servation* rater actually sees performance Indirect o!servation* rater can evaluate only su!stitutes for actual performance -sually less accurate !$c evaluate su!stitutes for actual performance &u!stitutes are called cons"r$c"s "!%ectives performance measures* indicators of %o! performance that are verifia!le !y others 8ie* gross units produced, net units approved !y quality control, scrap rates, ; of computational errors, ; of customer complaints or some other mathematically precise measure of performance9 &u!%ective performance measures* ratings not verifia!le !y others7 rater6s personal opinions
4ypes of Performance >easures "!%ective &u!%ective (elative Degree of Accuracy Direct Indirect #ery 'igh 'igh Aow #ery Aow

Ra"er %iases <ias = distortion of measurement, usually caused !y raters who fail to remain emotionally detached while they evaluate employee performance >ost common rater !iases* o Halo Effect: !ias that occurs when an evaluation allows some info to disproportionately affect the final evaluation o Error of Central Tendency: error in rating employees that consists of evaluating employees as neither good nor poor performers even when some employees perform exceptionally well or poorly7 place marks near centre of rating sheet so employees appear ?average@ o Lenienc and Strictness !ias: Lenienc! &ias: tendency to rate employees higher than their performance %ustifies S"ric"ness &ias: tendency to rate employees lower than their performance %ustifies <oth occur when performance standards are vague7 leniency is more common o Personal Pre"udice o Recency Effect: rater !ias that occurs when rater allows recent employee performance to sway unduly the overall evaluation of the employee6s performance )hen su!%ective measures >-&4 !e used, '( specialists can reduce distortion from !iases through training, feed!ack and the proper selection of performance appraisal techniques &teps for training raters* o Discuss !iases and causes o xplain role of performance appraisals and stress need for impartiality and o!%ectivity o (aters should !e allowed to apply su!%ective performance measures as part of their training B

CHARACTERISTICS OF AN EFFECTI'E PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

#alidit : aka relevance o (esults are the most valid criteria as they tend to !e o!%ective o 5o!+related !ehaviours are also relevant !ut personality traits are still questiona!le o >ust !e !ased on thorough %o! analysis and documented in %o! description for each position o ,rucial for validation of any selection test o ssential for any court challenge of performance criteria Reliabilit : aka consistency o Difficult to achieve !$c different raters, different instruments and changing work environments o #alid criteria tend to !e relia!le <-4 relia!le criteria are not necessarily valid $nput into s stem development: want employee participation as it increases pro!a!ility of acceptance of system !y !oth supervisors and employees7 gives employees sense of ownership Acceptable per%ormance standards: derive standards from %o! analysis using input from employees to gain their commitment Acceptable goals: set unilaterally !y managers, derived from strategic !usiness plans of organization, operationalized at department level !y manager o >anager must act as coach to set goals that are seen as achieva!le !y employee Control o% standards: current standards used in appraisals often seem to !e !ased on assumption that %o! in question is independent of other %o!s <-4 really, %o!s are interdependent o &tandard of performance not fully under control of employee is not valid &re'uenc o% %eedbac(: given !y supervisor immediately after effective or ineffective %o! !ehaviour was o!served7 monthly, quarterly or !iyearly !asis Rater training: train in o!servation techniques and categorization of skills7 !e familiar w$ errors and ways to minimize them Ratee training* could !e part of process of developing performance appraisal system to ensure that the system is understood and accepted !y employees $nput into intervie) process: allow employees to have high level of participation in appraisal interview increases satisfaction and morale Appraisal conse'uences: if not have consequences, lose effectiveness quickly7 need to see system taken seriously and are followed up on *i%%erent sources +raters,: don6t want to rely on %udgement of one person !$c increases risk of !iases

A N$r"$rin( Or(ani)a"ional En*ironmen" 4rusting relationship !etween managers and employees tends to foster B+way communication processes and lead to mutually agreea!le performance goals &tudy found that raters w$ low trust in appraisal system process rated su!ordinates significantly higher than raters w$ high trust in process Le(al Aspec"s of Performance Appraisal Performance appraisal form is a legal document In courts, '( manager has to prove performance criteria used were valid and were used consistentl (easona!le time from must !e set for performance improvement 8legal requirement9length of time depends on %o!

PAST+ORIENTE, APPRAISAL METHO,S

Advantage* deal w$ performance that has already occurred and, to some degree, can !e measured 1

Disadvantage* past performance can6t !e changed

Noncompara"i*e E*al$a"ion Me"-o#s: appraisal methods that evaluate an employee6s performance according to pre+set data, and not !y comparing one person6s performance with that of co+workers Rating Scale: scale that requires the rater to provide a su!%ective evaluation of an individual6s performance7 oldest and most widely used o valuation !ased solely on opinions of rater o ,riteria not related to %o! 8most of the time9 o Immediate supervisor completes form !y checking most appropriate response for each performance factor o (esponses may !e given numerical values to ena!le average score to !e computed and compared o Advantages* Inexpensive to develop and administer, raters need little training or time to complete form, can !e applied to large num!er of employees o Disadvantages* !iases reflected, specific performance criteria omitted to make form applica!le to variety of %o!s, standardized form with a procedure that is not always %o!+related Critical Incident Method: rater records statements that descri!e extremely effective or ineffective !ehaviour related to performance o Incidents usually recorded !y supervisor during evaluation period for each su!ordinate o (ecorded incidents include !rief explanation of what happened o -seful for giving employees %o!+related feed!ack, reduce recency !ias o Difficult to get supervisors to record incidents as they occur 8lose interest in it9 Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS): evaluation tools that rate employees along a rating scale !y means of specific !ehaviour examples on the scale o Attempts to reduce su!%ectivity and !iases of su!%ective performance measures o Performance descriptions are grouped into performance+related categories o ,ites specific !ehaviour that can !e used to provide performance feed!ack to employees o 5o! related, practical, standardized for similar %o!s o ,ould still have some !ias !ut the specific !ehaviours anchor scale and provide some criteria to guide sincere rater o -nlikely that supervisors will follow through completelyreduce effectiveness o !ehaviour -bservation Scale +!-S, is like <A(& in that it uses ,I <-4 instead of making %udgement a!out whether specific %o! !ehaviour is expected to occur, it measures the frequency of the o!served !ehaviours w$ scales ranging from high to low Per%ormance .ests and -bservations o )ith ltd ; %o!s, performance appraisal may !e !ased on test of knowledge or skills7 can !e paper+and+pencil variety or actual demonstration of skills o 4est must !e relia!le and valid to !e useful o In order to !e %o!+related, make o!servations under circumstances likely to !e encountered o Practicality may suffer when cost of test development is high Compara"i*e E*al$a"ion Me"-o#s: collection of different methods that compare one person6s performance w$ that of co+workers -sually conducted !y supervisor -seful for deciding merit pay increases, promotions and organizational rewards !$c result in ranking of employees from !est to worst

>any large companies use ela!orate group evaluation method that reduces !iases !$c multiple raters are used and some feed!ack results when managers and professionals learn how they compared w$ others on each critical factor0 '") # (, these results are often not shared w$ employee Ran ing Method: method of evaluating employees that ranks them from !est to worst on the same trait o Doesn6t say how much !etter or worse the person is o &u!%ect to halo and recency effects !ut rankings of B or more raters can !e averaged to help reduce !ias o ase of administration and explanation !orced "istri#utions: method of evaluating employees that requires raters to categorize employees7 sort them into classifications w$ a certain proportion in each o (elative differences among employees are unknown o "vercomes !ias of central tendency, leniency and strictness o mployees are sometimes ranked lower than they or their supervisor$rater think to !e correct

F.T.RE+ORIENTE, APPRAISAL METHO,S

Self Appraisals -seful if goal of evaluation is to further self+development Defensive !ehaviour is less likely to occur when evaluate selfself improvement more likely ,an help users set personal goals for future development ,an !e used with past$future+oriented approached mployee must !e involved and committed to improvement process &tarts w$ supervisor telling employee what is expectedemployee gets worksheet and writes down their understanding of the %o! ,ompleted sheets tell supervisor what they need to do to ?eliminate road!locks to meeting or exceeding %o! standards@ Mana(emen"+&!+O&/ec"i*es Approac- 0M%O1: requires an employee and supervisor to %ointly esta!lish performance goals for the future0 mployees are su!sequently evaluated on how well they have o!tained these o!%ectives >utually agreed upon goals that are o!%ectively measura!le mployee can ad%ust !ehaviour to ensure attainment of o!%ective if can measure progress toward it <-4 performance feed!ack must !e availa!le on regular !asis for this to happen "!%ectives give employee motivational !enefit of target to organize and direct efforts and ena!les employee and supervisor to discuss special developmental needs of employee "!%ectives can !e too am!itious or too narrowfrustrated employees or overlooked areas of performance Assessmen" Cen"re Tec-ni2$e: assessment centre is a standardized form of employee appraisal that relied on several types of evaluation and several raters -sually applied to groups of middle+line managers who appear to have potential to perform at more responsi!le levels in organization -sually mem!ers first meet at assessment centre where they are individually evaluated through in+ depth interviews, psychological tests, personal !ackground histories, peer ratings !y other attendees, leaderless group discussions, ratings !y psychologists and managers, and stimulated work exercises to evaluate future potential 2

&imulated work experiences include in+!asket exercises, decision+making exercises, computer+!ased !usiness games and other %o!+like opportunities that test the employee in realistic ways -sually done over few days away from %o! site stimate strengths, weaknesses and potential of each person and pool estimates to arrive at conclusion Cood predictor of on+the+%o! performance in D2E cases xpensive, requires separate facility and multiple raters

Recen" ,e*elopmen"s 345+#e(ree performance appraisal: com!ination of self, peer, supervisor and su!ordinate performance evaluation o ,omes from trend toward flatter organization and wider span of control o Fewer managers have to supervise more employees therefore difficult to assess everyone6s performance accuratelytrend toward teamwork and participative mgt -se performance appraisal software, integrated system o &ystem is time consuming, complex and costly <-4 savings and higher efficiency offset costs 4here are difficulties assoc w$ change of paying employees for and assessing them on competencies N"4 %o! performancenow we focus more on skill levels %alance# scorecar#: integrated organizational performance measure, looking at organizational learning and innovation, financial management, internal operations and customer management People management Need to address pro!lems w$ assessing contingency employeeslimit assessment to specific tasks that have !een communicated to them, and tie rewards to satisfactorily completion of these tasks

IMPLICATIONS OF THE APPRAISAL PROCESS

&pecific approach is influenced !y previous procedures and purpose of new appraisal ,omparative approaches may !e preferred if goal is to evaluate past performance to allocate rewards Past+oriented method !est if appraisal system exists primarily to give employees counselling a!out !ehaviour Future oriented focus on specific goals &elf+appraisals or assessment centres seek to uncover weakness or help w$ internal placement

Trainin( Ra"ers (aters need knowledge of system and its purpose >a%or pro!lem is rater understanding and consistency of evaluationsprovide hand!ooks w$ guidelines for conducting evaluation or for providing ratees w$ feed!ack mphasis has shifted from not making errors to the a!ility of raters to make valid %udgements !ased on relatively complex info Attention: the more deviant the o!served !ehaviour is from the expected norm, the more strongly the attention+arousing stimuli work 8ie* supervisor is more likely to pay attn to poor !ehaviour9 Categori/ation: process of classifying and storing data7 helps us to make quick %udgements w$ ltd info a!out something 8ie* stereotyping is one categorization that may result in !iased conclusions9 Recall: when making %udgements, we recall al relevant info we stored in our memory a!out the event or person in question7 depending on impression we record, we can recall some info over others7 accurate evaluation results from recalling all info 8ie* write down all ,Is9 $n%ormation $ntegration: once %udgement called for, rater tries to recall as much info as possi!le and to generate an integrated picture of employee <-4 due to attention arousing process, categorization process and recall process, final picture is understanda!ly !iased G

o >easures to improve validity of supervisory ratings*

-se !ehaviour+!ased scales 4rain how to use these scales Familiarize raters w$ performance definitions -se several raters -se quantitative criteria whenever possi!le -se %o! samples for important evaluation decisions 4rain raters to make !ehaviour sampling a routine part of supervisor6s %o!avoid memory+related !iased Avoid trait ratings ,reate positive consequences for rater and ratee

o "nce raters are trained, appraisal process can !egin <-4 results of process do little to improve employee performance unless employees receive feed!ack on their appraisalsevaluation interview E*al$a"ion In"er*ie6: performance review sessions that give employees feed!ack a!out their past performance or future potential Approaches for providing this feed!ack* o .ell and sell* reviews employee6s performance and tries to convince employee to perform !etter o .ell and listen: allows employee to explain reasons, excuses and defensive feelings a!out performance7 attempts to overcome reactions !y counselling employee on how to perform !etter o Problem solving: identifies pro!lems that are interfering w$ employee performance7 thru training, coaching or counselling, efforts are made to remove these deficiencies !y setting goals for future performance Cuidelines for ffective Performance valuation Interviews*
o o o o o o o o o o mphasize positive aspects of employee performance 4ell each employee that the evaluation session is to improve performance, not to discipline ,onduct the performance review session in private with minimum interruptions (eview performance formally at least annually and more frequently for new employees or those who are performing poorly >ake criticisms specific, not general and vague Focus criticisms on performance not on personality characteristics &tay clam and do not argue w$ the person !eing evaluated Identify specific actions the employees can take to improve performance mphasize the evaluator6s willingness to assist the employee6s efforts and to improve performance nd the evaluation session !y stressing the positive aspects of the employee6s performance and reviewing plans to improve performance

H$man Reso$rce Mana(emen" Fee#&ac7 Performance appraisal process also provides insight into the effectiveness of the '(> function 'igh num!ers of poor performers may indicate errors elsewhere in '(> function:poor screening of hires, %o! analysis info is wrong, employment equity plan seeks wrong o!%ectives, fail to respond to challenges of external environment or effective %o! design, sometimes pursue wrong o!%ectives or may !e faulty !$c of mgt resistance, incorrect performance standards or measures or lack of constructive feed!ack Future+oriented performance appraisal allows the '( dpt to provide feed!ack to employees as to the status of their career progression o Investigate inadequate performance D

o If lack of skill or experience, necessary improvements have to !e made part of goals discussed w employee o &tep+!y+step plan will !e the outcome of the interview process