Chapter 6 Gathering Performance Information Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Overview Appraisal Forms Characteristics of Appraisal Forms Determining Overall Rating Appraisal Period and Number of Meetings Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Overview (Continued) Who Should Provide Performance Information? A Model of Rater Motivation Preventing Rating Distortion through Rater Training Programs Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Appraisal Forms: Nine Major Components Basic Employee Information Signatures Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Appraisal Forms: Nine Major Components (Continued) Accountabilities, Objectives, and Standards Competencies and Indicators Major Achievements and Contributions Stakeholder Input Employee Comments Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Appraisal Forms: Nine Major Components (Continued) Developmental Achievements Developmental Needs Plans Goals Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Appraisal Forms: Eight Desirable Features Simplicity Relevancy Descriptiveness Adaptability Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Appraisal Forms: Eight Desirable Features (Continued) Comprehensiveness Definitional Clarity Communication Time Orientation Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Determining Overall Rating Judgmental strategy Consider every aspect of performance Arrive at defensible summary Mechanical strategy Consider scores assigned to each section Add weighted scores to obtain overall scores Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Open-Ended (Comments) Sections Challenges Difficult to systematically categorize and analyze Quality, length, and content vary Tools to overcome challenges Computer-aided text analysis (CATA) software Establish goals of information provided Training in systematic and standardized rating skills Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Appraisal Period Number of Meetings Annual May not provide sufficient opportunity for supervisor/employee discussion Semi-annual Quarterly Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

When Review Is Completed Anniversary date Supervisor doesn’t have to fill out forms for all employees at the same time Can’t tie rewards to fiscal year Fiscal year Rewards tied to fiscal year Goals tied to corporate goals May be burden to supervisor, depending on implementation Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Six Types of Formal Meetings (Can Be Combined) System Inauguration Self-Appraisal Classical Performance Review Merit/Salary Review Development Plan Objective Setting Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Who Should Provide Performance Information? Employees should be involved in selecting Which sources evaluate Which performance dimensions When employees are actively involved Higher acceptance of results Perception that system is fair Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Who Should Provide Performance Information? Direct knowledge of employee performance Supervisors Peers Subordinates Self Customers Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Supervisors Advantages Can evaluate performance vs. strategic goals Make decisions about rewards Able to differentiate among performance dimensions Viewed as exclusive source in some cultural contexts Disadvantages Supervisor may not be able to directly observe performance Evaluations may be biased Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Peers Advantages Assess teamwork Disadvantages Possible friendship bias May be less discriminating Context effects Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Subordinates Advantages Accurate when used for developmental purposes Good position to assess some competencies Disadvantages Inflated when used for administrative purposes May fear retaliation (confidentiality is key) Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Self Advantages Increased acceptance of decisions Decreased defensiveness during appraisal interview Good position to track activities during review period Disadvantages May be more lenient and biased Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Self (Continued) Suggestions to improve quality of self- appraisals Use comparative instead of absolute measurement systems Allow employees to practice their self- appraisals Ensure confidentiality Emphasize the future Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Customers (External and Internal) Advantages Employees become more focused on meeting customer expectations. Disadvantages Time Money Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Disagreement Across Sources Expect disagreements Ensure employee receives feedback by source Assign differential weights to scores by source, depending on importance Ensure employees take active role in selecting which sources will rate which dimensions Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Types of Rating Errors Intentional errors Rating inflation Rating deflation Unintentional errors Due to complexity of task Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

A Model of Rater Motivation Expected Positive and Negative Consequences of Rating Accuracy Probability of Experiencing Positive and Negative Consequences Expected Positive and Negative Consequences of Rating Distortion Motivation to Provide Accurate Ratings Motivation to Distort Ratings   Rating Behavior Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Motivations for Rating Inflation Maximize merit raise/rewards Encourage employees Avoid creating written record Avoid confrontation with employees Promote undesired employees out of unit Make manager look good to his/her supervisor Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Motivations for Rating Deflation Shock employees Teach a lesson Send a message to employee Build a written record of poor performance Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Reducing Intentional Rating Distortion Recommendations: Have raters justify their ratings Have raters justify their ratings in a face- to-face meeting Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Preventing Rating Distortion Through Rater Training Programs Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Rater Training Programs Should Cover: Information Motivation Identifying, observing, recording and evaluating performance How to interact with employees when they receive performance information Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Information—How the System Works Reasons for implementing the performance management system Information on the appraisal form and system mechanics Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Motivation—What’s in It for Me? Benefits of providing accurate ratings Tools for providing accurate ratings Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Identifying, Observing, Recording, and Evaluating Performance How to identify and rank job activities How to observe, record, and measure performance How to minimize rating errors Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall How to Interact with Employees When They Receive Performance Information How to conduct an appraisal interview How to train, counsel, and coach Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall Quick Review Appraisal Forms Characteristics of Appraisal Forms Determining Overall Rating Appraisal Period and Number of Meetings Who Should Provide Performance Information? A Model of Rater Motivation Preventing Rating Distortion Through Rater Training Programs 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