Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What is performance?
Performance is the sum of behavior and results, and cannot be viewed as independent of either component. It is an outcome of effective management. Bernadin et al (1995) are concerned that performance should be defined as the outcomes of work because they provide the strongest linkage to the strategic goals of the organization, customer satisfaction, and economic contributions
Brumbrach (1988):
Performance means both behaviours and results. Behaviours emanate from the performer and transform performance from abstraction to action. Not just the instruments for results, behaviours are also outcomes in their own right the product of mental and physical effort applied to tasks and can be judged apart from results.
Handbooks / Guidelines
Performance Appraisal Handbook. U.S. Department of the Interior http://www.doi.gov/hrm/guidance/370d m430hndbk.pdf
Aguinis (2009) defines: PM is a continuous process of identifying, measuring and developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organization
So PM is Continuous Process of
Identifying performance of individuals and teams Measuring performance of individuals and teams Developing performance of individuals and teams and Aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organization
Performance Management
An iterative process of goal-setting, communication, observation and evaluation to support, retain and develop exceptional employees for organizational success.
Set Goals
Communicate
Evaluate
Observe
20
History of PM
The phrase was first coined by Beer and Ruh in 1976. But it did not become recognized as a distinctive approach until the mid-1980s
Continuous improvement
A management philosophy that requires employers to continuously set and relentlessly meet ever-higher quality, cost, delivery, and availability goals by:
Eradicating the seven wastes:
overproduction, defective products, and unnecessary downtime, transportation, processing costs, motion, and inventory.
Requiring each employee to continuously improve his or her own personal performance, from one appraisal period to the next.
PM Contribution
Motivation to performance is increased Self-esteem is increased Managers gain insight about subordinates The definitions of job and criteria are clarified Self-insight and development are enhanced Administrative actions are more fair and appropriate Organization goals are made clear Employees become more competent
There is better protection from lawsuits There is better and more timely differentiation b/w good and poor performers Supervisors views of performance are communicated more clearly Organizational change is facilitated Motivation, commitment, and intentions to stay in the organization are enhanced Management behaviours beat the political behaviours
Unjustified demands on managers and employees resources Varying and unfair standards and ratings Emerging biases Unclear rating systems Political behaviours beat the management behaviours
Reward Systems
Not all types of returns are directly related to PM system, e.g. allocations are based on seniority as opposed to performance
Tangible returns
Cash compensation
Base pay Cost-of-Living & Contingent Pay Incentives (short- and long-term)
Benefits, such as
Income Protection Allowances Work/life focus
Intangible returns
Relational returns, such as
Recognition and status Employment security Challenging work Learning opportunities
Strategic Purpose
Link employee behavior with organizations goals Communicate most crucial business strategic initiatives
Administrative Purpose
Provide information for making decisions re:
Salary adjustments Promotions Retention or termination Recognition of individual performance Layoffs
Informational Purpose
Communicate to Employees: Expectations What is important How they are doing How to improve
Developmental Purpose
Performance feedback/coaching Identification of individual strengths and weaknesses Causes of performance deficiencies Tailor development of individual career path
Documentational Purpose
Validate selection instruments Document administrative decisions Help meet legal requirements
Thorough
All employees are evaluated All major job responsibilities are evaluated Evaluations cover performance for entire review period Feedback is given on both positive and negative performance
Practical
Available Easy to use Acceptable to decision makers Benefits outweigh costs
Meaningful
Standards are important and relevant System measures ONLY what employee can control Results have consequences Evaluations occur regularly and at appropriate times System provides for continuing skill development of evaluators
Specific
Concrete and detailed guidance to employees whats expected how to meet the expectations
Reliable
Consistent Free of error Inter-rater reliability
Valid
Relevant (measures what is important) Not deficient (doesnt measure unimportant facets of job) Not contaminated (only measures what the employee can control)
Inclusive
Represents concerns of all involved
When system is created, employees should help with deciding
What should be measured How it should be measured
Correctable
Recognizes that human judgment is fallible Appeals process provided
Standardized
Ongoing training of managers to provide Consistent evaluations across
People Time
Ethical
Supervisor suppresses self-interest Supervisor rates only where she has sufficient information about the performance dimension Supervisor respects employee privacy
Challenges
A survey conducted by the consulting firm Watson Wyatt showed that only 3 in 10 employees believe their companys performance review system actually helped them improve their performance A recent survey of almost 1000 HRM professionals in Australia revealed that 96% of companies are currently implementing PMS.
Leading Contributors
Chris Argyris:Action Science Benjamin Bloom: Educational Technology Edward Deming: TQM Peter Drucker: Management Sciences Robert Gagne: Instructional System Design Thomas Gilbert: Behavioural Engineering Joe Harless: Front-End Analysis Roger Kaufman: Strategic Planning Donald kirkpatrick: Evaluation Malcolm Knowles: Androgogy
Kurt Lewin: Force Field Analysis Robert Mager: Instructional Objectives Douglas McGregor: Theory X & Y Susan Markle: Programmed Instruction Geary Rummler: Three levels of Org. Performance Pater Senge: Learning Orgs B. F. Skinner: Behaviourism Fredrick Taylor: Scientific Management Sivasailam (Thiagi) Thiagarajan: Games and Playfulness Donald Totsi: Feedback Marvin Weisbored: Six Boxes for org diagnostic framework
Our Roadmap
References
Text Books
Aguinis, Herman (2009). Performance Management (2nd ed). New Delhi: Pearson. Kirkpatrick, Donald L. (2006). Improving Employee Performance through Appraisal and Coaching (2nd Edition). New York: AMACOM Adkins, Tony (2006). Case Studies in Performance Management: A Guide from the Experts. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Carton, Robert B., and Hofer, Charles W. (2006). Measuring Organizational Performance: Metrics for Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management Research. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Cokins, Gary (2004). Performance Management. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Muddux, Robert. B. (2004). Performance Appraisal (4th edition). New Delhi: Viva Books Private Limited Bacal, Robert (2004). Managers Guide to Performance Reviews. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hale, Judith (2004). Performance-Based Management: What Every Manager Should Do to Get Results. USA: John Wiley & Sons. Rummler, Geary A. (2004). Serious Performance Consulting: According to Rummler. USA: International Society for Performance Improvement.
Willmore, Joe (2004). Performance Basics. USA: ASTD. Grote, Dick (2002). The Performance Appraisal Question and Answer Book: A Survival Guide for Managers. New York: AMACOM. Armstrong, Michael (2000). Performance Management Key strategies and practical guidelines (2nd edition). London: Kogan Page Limited. Clemmer, J. (1995). Pathways to Performance: A Guide to Transforming Yourself, Your Team, and Your Organization. New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
Handbooks
Handbook of Applied Behavior Analysis, John Austin & James E. Carr. Context Press. 2000. Handbook of Organizational Performance, Thomas C. Mawhinney, William K. Redmon & Carl Merle Johnson. Routledge. 2001.
Journals
Organizational Behavior Management Network, Dr. John Austin, Dr. Dale Brethower, Dr. Alyce Dickinson. www.obmnetwork.com. 2009. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Published quarterly. 2009.
1963
Farson, R. E. (1963). Praise Reappraised. Harvard Business Review, September October, p. 61.
1965
Meyer, H. H., Kay, E., and French, J. R. P. (1965). Split Roles in Performance Appraisal. Harvard Business Review.
1981
Feldman, J.M. (1981). Beyond Attribution Theory: Cognitive Processes in Performance Appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(2), 127-148.
1984
Shrader, C.B., Taylor, L. and Dalton, D. R. (1984). Strategic Planning and Organizational Performance: A Critical Appraisal. Journal of Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, 149-171 (1984)
1986
Pearce, J.L., and Porter, L.W. (1986). Employee Responses to Formal Performance Appraisal Feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 211-218.
1989
Cleveland, J.N., Murphy, K.R. and Williums, R. E. (1989). Multiple Uses of Performance Appraisal: Prevalence and Correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 130-135.
1991
Greenberg, J. (1991). Using explanations to manage impressions of performance appraisal fairness. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4(1), 51-60.
1992
Bretz, R. D., Milkovich, G .T. and Read, W. (1992). The Current State of Performance Appraisal Research and Practice: Concerns, Directions, and Implications. Journal of Management, 18(2), 321-352. Folger, R., Konovsky, M.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1992). A Due Process Metaphor for Performance Appraisal. Research in Organizational Behaviour. 14, pp. 129-177
1993
Ilgen, D.R., Barness-Farrell, and Mckellin, D.B. (1993). Performance Appraisal Process Research in the 1980s: What has it Contributed to Appraisals in Use. Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Processes, 54, pp. 321-368.
1994
Rater motivation in the performance appraisal context: a theoretical framework Journal of Management, Winter, 1994 by Michael M. Harris Woehr, D. J. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: a quantitative review. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 67(3), pp. 189205
1995
Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space in the Organization Chart, Geary A. Rummler & Alan P. Brache. Jossey-Bass; 2nd edition. 1995. The Values-Based Safety Process: Improving Your Safety Culture with Behavior-Based Safety, Terry E. McSween. John Wiley & Sons. 1995. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117.
1996
Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance, Thomas F. Gilbert. Pfeiffer. 1996.
1998
Performance-based Instruction: Linking Training to Business Results, Dale Brethower & Karolyn Smalley. Pfeiffer; Har/Dis edition. 1998.
1998
Wiese, D, S., and Buckley, M. R. (1998). The evolution of the performance appraisal process. Journal of Management History, 4(3), 233 - 249
1999
Mayer R. C.; Davis J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management : A field quasiexperiment. Journal of applied psychology. 84(1), pp. 123-136 Bringing out the Best in People, Aubrey C. Daniels. McGraw-Hill; 2nd edition. 1999.
2001
Abraham, S.E., Karns, L.A., Shaw, K. and Mena, M . A. (2001). Managerial competencies and the managerial performance appraisal process. Journal of Management, 20(10), 842852.