Common to some 90% of organizations Acknowledged by CEOs to drive strategy Failure rates of 80%-90% Produces conflict & competition Some have advocated abolishing appraisal 1 “the process never works as it is intended. Numbers continue to get in the way of meaningful conversation, ratings are rarely accurate, people continue to feel bitter and betrayed, and managers, in general, are uneasy with the process.” “In a 2010 survey of PM practices, Sibson Consulting found that 58% of organizations rated their performance management systems as C Grade or below” 1 Coens & Jenkins, 2000

Sibson Consulting 2010 Study of PM

Modal Criterion Model* Supervisors evaluate multiple ratees Ratees ‘sign-off’ to indicate agreement or not Ratings approved by higher-level authority Ratings conducted annually Ratings are used for important personnel decisions Important countable results are unavailable Absolute rather than comparative ratings are used Raters are uncomfortable doing appraisals Ratings are done on graphic rating scales Bernardin & Villanova 1986

Separate administrative and developmental functions of appraisal Conduct separate administrative and developmental reviews 6 months separation Developmental reviews should: Precede administrative review Provide feedback Produce a development plan Include coaching for improvement

Utilize multiple criteria and rating sources Hard and soft criteria in tandem may serve to validate ratings Better represent the ultimate criterion and reduce deficiency Multiple criteria are less prone to the same source of bias, so mitigates bias effects Multiple sources of ratings provide for social consensus of judgments Multiple sources of ratings are consistent with an ‘internal customer model’

Use Behavior-based scales when possible for subjective ratings Behavior checklist Whether behavior performed or not Comes to resemble a binary results criterion Behavior frequency Performance of a behavior Behavior accuracy How accurately & completely the behavior is done

Provide rater training Involve in scale development to extent possible Detailed instructions Formal training RET – Rater Error Training This is the error – avoid it RAT – Rater Accuracy Training Feedback on ratings accuracy FOR – Frame Of Reference training Common nomenclature for labeling behavior By dimension and level of performance SET-R – Self-Efficacy Training for Raters

Attend to Justice Issues in the Appraisal Process Distributive Justice Perception of just /fair distribution of outcomes Equity theory Procedural Justice Perception of just/fair procedures Participation, accuracy, bias mitigation, appeals Interactional Justice Perception of just/fair interpersonal treatment Respect, dignity, information

Employ error and bias suppression measures Technical Develop clear instructions Train raters Accuracy Self-efficacy Analyze rater data Reliability Validate raters Identify rater biases Social-Contextual Involve raters/ratees in scale development Communicate expectations about ratings Provisions for rater accountability Review Appeal pv

Table 4. Sample Responses for each of the Four Dimensions Identified in the Answers to Open-ended Questions. Process "It is difficult to judge people without a set of quantitative standards. My company fails to provide these standards, therefore I am uncomfortable creating my own." "I find it difficult to have to make a performance review fit what my boss had predetermined the budget to be." Subjectivity "I find it difficult to overlook personal feelings in the evaluation process when the employee's personal life may be in conflict with their professional life." "It is difficult to avoid personal biases when rating employees." Discussion "I find it difficult to inform poor performers of bad performance when they are in denial that they have problems." "It is difficult to inform employees that their work was below average when they actually were pleased with their contribution." Suggesting Improvement "It is difficult to suggest ways to improve performance when subordinates are much older than you." "I find it difficult to suggest ways of improvement to people who do not have the right job fit. In such cases, people do not want to listen to any suggestions you might offer to improve their performance. Bernardin & Villanova, 2005

Table 6. Performance Appraisal Self-Efficacy Scale (PASES) for raters. Instructions: Using the scale below, please indicate with what level of confidence you have in being able to successfully perform the behavior as it is described in each statement With no With little With some With good With great confidence confidence confidence confidence confidence 1. Establishing accurate and fair standards for judging the job performance of others. 2. Using my observations of others’ job performance in assigning ratings. 3. Explaining to employees how it is that I arrived at a performance rating when they believe higher ratings were deserved. 4. Setting aside any personal biases to arrive at accurate employee ratings. 5. Assigning ratings that are accurate but that may disagree with others’ expectations. 6. Collecting observations and records of employee performance to produce accurate ratings. 7. Providing suggestions for improving job performance to more senior or more experienced employees. 8. Setting aside employees’ personal life accounts for poor performance. 9. Justifying poor ratings to employees who believe poor ratings are undeserved. 10. Suggesting ways to improve job performance to employees resistant to change their ways of doing the work. 11. Evaluating employee performance independent of personal like or dislike for the employee. 12. Discussing my reasons for assigning specific ratings to employees suspicious of my motives. Note. Items 1,2, & 6 reflect process features of the appraisal; items 4,5, & 11 relate to the rater subjectivity dimension; items 3,9, & 12 are relevant to appraisal discussion; and items 7,8, & 10 pertain to suggesting performance improvements. Bernardin & Villanova, 2005