Performance Appraisal Flashcards
Performance Management
Process of creating a work environment in which people can perform to the best of their abilities
Performance Reviews (Appraisals/Evaluations)
Process in which a manger evaluates an employee’s performance relative to the requirements of the job and uses the info to show the person where/how improvements can be made (Annually, biannually, quarterly)
Purpose of Performance Management
- Goals set to align with higher level goals
- Behavioural expectations and standard set, then aligned with employee and organizational goals
- Ongoing performance feedback provided during cycle
- Performance appraised by manger
- Formal review session conducted
- HR decision making (Pay, promotion etc.)
Components of Performance
- Job Performance (Behaviour)
Task performance - Citizenship behaviours (Above and beyond stuff, helping newer employees)
- Counterproductivity (Sexual harassment, stealing, not showing up, bullying)
Why Performance Management Systems Sometimes Fail
Performance criteria, procedures, feedback
- Manager prepared inadequately
- Employee not given clear objectives at beginning of period
- Manager not able to observe performance/have all info
- Performance standards not clear
- Manager rates employee’s personality rather than performance
- Raters subject to biases
- The time span too short/long
Performance Standards
Based on job-related requirements derived from job analysis and reelected in employee’s job description/specifications
Strategic Relevance
- Extent to which the performance standards relate to/serve the strategic objectives of the organization in which they are applied
- Provides documentation for HR to justify training expenses to close gaps
- Helps employees know how they are contributing to overall success (Motivating)
Criterion Contamination
- Factors outside of employee’s control that influence their performance
- Comparison of performance of production workers should not be contaminated by the fact that some work with newer machines than others do
Criterion Deficiency
Performance standards should capture entire range of employee’s performance (Not just one part)
Reliability
performance standard
Stability/consistency of standard or extent to which individuals tend to maintain certain level of performance over time
Fairness and Acceptability
Organizational politics, firms culture/history, orientation of managers, and current competitive conditions can affect how managers rate/view how well their employees are doing (Inflated reviews)
Legal issues in performance appraisal
If poorly done/inaccurate, or if they don’t make decisions based on them, there could be legal troubles
- Relevance (Job related, performance standards developed through job analysis)
- Timeliness (Employees given written job standards in advance, document problems)
- Avoid subjectivity (Measurable standards, review evaluations, trained to do reviews)
- Transparency (Corrective guidance offered to help poor performers, employees transfer to different positions that better suits them)
- Fairness (Appeals procedure established)
Sources of Performance Review Information
Manger/Supervisor
Manger/Supervisor Review: Performance evaluation done by employee’s manger and often reviewed by a manger one level higher
May not have time to observe the performance of everyone (Criterion deficiency/contamination)
Employee
Self-evaluation
Increase employees involvement
Employee and manager compare notes and agree on final evaluation
Developmental purposes not administrative decisions (Inflated reviews)
Subordinates
Subordinate Evaluations: Performance review of a superior by an employee (Developmental not administrate purposes)
May give employees too much power
Submitted anonymously, combine all results into 1 report
Peers
Peer Evaluation: Performance evaluation done by fellow employee’s, generally on forms complied into a single profile for use in evaluation meeting conducted by employee’s manger
More accurate info
Shouldn’t be only factor for administrative decision
Team Members
Team Evaluation: performance evaluation that recognizes team accomplishment rather than individual performance
Help break down barriers between individual employees and encourage joint effort on their part
Customers
Customer Evaluations: Performance evaluation that includes evaluation from both a firm’s external and internal customers
More objective evaluations
types of Rating Errors
Harshness/leniency
Central tendency
Halo bias
Similar‐to‐me effect
Temporal/Recency effect
Distributional Errors
Single rating is skewed toward an entire group of employees
Error of Central Tendency
All employees are rated about average
Leniency/Strictness Error
Appraiser tends to give employees unusually high/low ratings
Forced Distribution
Raters are required to place certain percentage of employees into various performance categories (10% be poor/excellent)
Temporal (Recency) Error
Evaluation is based largely on the employee’s most recent behaviour rather than on behaviour throughout the evaluation period
-Document employee’s accomplishments and failures throughout the whole period
Contrast Error
Employee’s evaluation is biased either upward or downward because of comparison with another employee just previously evaluated
Similar-to-Me Error
Appraiser inflated the evaluation of an employee because of a mutual personal connection
Trait Methods
Performance review Method
- graphic rating scales
Measure extent to which an employee processes certain characteristics
Comparative methods
Performance review Method
- alternate ranking, forced distribution, paired comparision
evaluating employees’ performance by directly comparing them to one another,
results methods
Performance review Method
based on the outcomes or objectives they achieve, focusing on measurable results such as sales targets, project completion, or other performance metrics
