Chapter 5 Measuring Results and Behaviors Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Key Questions Where should each individual focus efforts? What are the expected objectives? How do we know how well the results were achieved? Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Measuring Results: Overview Accountabilities Objectives Performance Standards Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Accountabilities Broad areas of a job for which an employee is responsible for producing results Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Objectives Statements of important and measurable outcomes Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Performance Standards Yardstick used to evaluate how well employees have achieved objectives Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Determining Accountabilities Collect information about the job (Job Description) Determine importance of task or cluster of tasks Percentage of employee’s time spent performing tasks Impact on the unit’s mission if performed inadequately Consequences of error Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Determining Objectives Purpose: to identify outcomes Limited number Highly important When achieved Dramatic impact on overall organization success Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Ten Characteristics of Good Objectives Specific and Clear Challenging Agreed Upon Significant Prioritized Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Ten Characteristics of Good Objectives (Continued) Bound by Time Achievable Fully Communicated Flexible Limited in Number Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Determining Performance Standards Standards refer to aspects of performance objectives, such as: Quality How well the objective is achieved Quantity How much, how many, how often, and at what cost? Time Due dates, schedule, cycle times, and how quickly? Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Standards Must Include A verb The desired result A due date Some type of indicator Quality or Quantity Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Good Performance Standards: Six Characteristics Related to the Position Concrete, Specific, and Measurable Practical to Measure Meaningful Realistic and Achievable Reviewed Regularly Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Measuring Behaviors: Overview Identify competencies Identify indicators Choose measurement system Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Identify Competencies Measurable clusters of KSAs Knowledge Skills Abilities That are critical in determining how results will be achieved Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Types of Competencies Differentiating Distinguish between superior and average performance Threshold Needed to perform to minimum standard Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Identify Indicators Observable behaviors Used to measure the extent to which competencies are present or not Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Necessary Components for Describing Competencies Definition Description of specific behaviors When competency is demonstrated When competency is not demonstrated Suggestions for developing the competency Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Choose a Measurement System Comparative system Compares employees with one another Absolute system Compares employees with prespecified performance standards Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Advantages of Comparative Systems Easy to explain Straightforward Identifies top as well as underperformers Better control for biases and errors found in absolute systems Leniency Severity Central tendency Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Disadvantages of Comparative Systems Rankings may not be specific enough for: Useful feedback Protection from legal challenge No information on relative distance between employees Specific issues with forced distribution method Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Comparative Systems Simple rank order Alternation rank order Paired comparisons Relative percentile Forced distribution Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Simple Rank Order Advantages: Simple and easy to do Results are clear Disadvantages: Judges performance based on one dimension only May be difficult to rank similar performance levels Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Alternation Rank Order Advantages: Simple and easy to do Results are clear Uses two anchors (best and worst) Disadvantages: Judges performance based on one dimension only May be difficult to rank similar performance levels Does not specify threshold for acceptable performance Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Paired Comparisons Advantages: Thorough Final rankings are more accurate Disadvantages: Very time consuming May encounter problem of comparing “apples and oranges” Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Relative Percentile Advantages: Simple and easy to use Evaluates specific competencies or overall performance Disadvantages: May be difficult to consider all ratees at the same time Time consuming if using several scales for different competencies Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Forced Distribution Advantages: Categorizes employees into specific performance groups Facilitates reward assessment Competition may be good for organizational performance Disadvantages: Assumes performance scores are normally distributed May discourage contextual performance and teamwork Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Absolute Systems Essays Behavior checklists Critical incidents Graphic rating scales Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Advantages and Disadvantages of Absolute Systems Can be used in large and small organizations Evaluations more widely accepted by employees Disadvantages: Higher risk of leniency, severity, and central tendency biases Generally, more time consuming than comparative systems Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Behavior Checklists Advantages: Easy to use and understand Provides quantitative information Widespread use More objective than other systems Disadvantages: May feel impersonal and disconnected Scale points used are often arbitrary Difficult to get detailed and useful feedback Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Essays Advantages: Simplest absolute method Individualized for each employee Can be done anytime Potential for detailed feedback Disadvantages: Unstructured and may lack detail Depends on supervisor’s writing skill Comparisons virtually impossible Lack of quantitative information; difficult to use in personnel decisions Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Critical Incidents Advantages: Focus on actual job behavior Provides specific examples Employees identify with rating Disadvantages: Collecting critical incidents can be very time consuming Quantification is difficult Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Graphic Rating Scales Advantages: Meanings, interpretations, and dimensions being rated are clear Useful and accurate Most popular tool Disadvantages: Time consuming and resource-laden to develop Lacks individualized feedback and recommendations Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Graphic Rating Scales: BARS Improvement Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) Uses critical incidents as anchors Involves multiple groups of employees in development Identify important job elements Describe critical incidents at various levels of performance Check for inter-rater reliability Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Measuring Performance Several types of methods Differ in terms of: Practicality (time and effort) Usefulness (quantifiable) Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Quick Review Measuring Results Identify accountabilities Set objectives Determine standards of performance Measuring Behaviors Identify competencies Identify indicators Choose measurement system Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall