Standard of Judging; a Rule Or Test by Which Anything Is Tried in Forming A

4. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

What does it mean to do a good job, and how can you determine if someone is doing one?

CRITERION

Standard of judging; a rule or test by which anything is tried in forming a correct judgment respective it. A standard. In I/O definition (operationalization) of good performance.

COMPOSITE CRITERION

Brogden & Taylor (1950) Dollar Criterion 1. Job analysis to define subcriteria Ft2 Damage to equipment Time of other personnel consumed Accidents Quality of finished product Errors in finished product Ft2 laid 2. Determine which to use 3. Affix dollar amounts 4. Calculate value of employee

MULTIDIMENSIONAL

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRITERIA: Contamination, Deficiency, Relevance Theoretical Criterion

Deficiency

Relevance

Contamination

Actual Criterion PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Determination and Documentation of Individual's Performance Should be tied directly to criteria

Administrative decisions (promotion, firing, transfer)

Employee development and feedback

Criteria for research (e.g., validation of tests)

Documentation for legal action

Training METHODS

Objective Methods

Advantages Consistent standards within jobs Not biased by judgment Easily quantified Face validity-bottom line oriented

Disadvantages Not always applicable (teacher) Performance not always under individual's control Too simplistic Performance unreliable--Dynamic Criterion Subjective Methods: Rating Scales

Trait based graphic rating scale Behavior based: Critical incidents Mixed Standard Scale Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale Behavior Observation Scales

Problems:

Rating errors: Leniency, Severity, Halo Supervisor subversion of system--leniency as a strategy Mixed purposes (feedback vs. administrative) Negative impact of criticism SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEM OF RATER ERRORS

ERROR RESISTANT FORMS

Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale, BARS Behavior Observation Scale, BOS Mixed Standard Scale, MSS

Research does not show these forms to be successful in eliminating errors

RATER TRAINING

Rater error training: instructs raters in how to avoid errors

Reduces halo and leniency error Less accuracy in some studies

Frame of reference training: Give raters examples of performance and correct ratings Initial research promising in reducing errors (Day & Sulsky, 1995, Journal of Applied Psychology), but too new to tell for certain SOUND PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PRACTICES TO REDUCE PROBLEMS

Separate purposes Raises delt with separately from feedback

Consistent feedback, everyday

Limit criticism to one item at a time

Praise should be contingent

Supervisors should be coaches

Appraisal should be criterion related, not personal TECHNOLOGY

Technology helpful for performance appraisal

Employee performance management systems Web-based Automated—reminds raters when to rate Reduces paperwork Provides feedback

360-degree feedback systems Ratings provided by different people Peers Subordinates Supervisors Self Big clerical task in large organizations to track/process ratings Web makes 360s easy and feasible Consulting firms available to conduct 360s Performaworks LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Barrett and Kernan defensible performance appraisal system

Job analysis to define dimensions of performance Develop rating form to assess dimensions from prior point Train raters in how to assess performance Management review ratings and employee appeal Document performance and maintain detailed records Provide assistance and counseling

Werner and Bolino (1997, Personnel Psychology) analysis of 295 court cases

Organizations lost 41% of discrimination cases overall Organizations using multiple raters lost only 11% Safe system Job analysis Written instructions Employee input Multiple raters

Employee input leads to better attitudes, even when ratings are lower