Performance Appraisal
The Need for a Results-based Performance Management System: Employee Appraisal & Development
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D., CFLE 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Performance Management Parable
. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. . And God said: “Let there be light” . God separated the light from darkness—calling the light “day” and the darkness “night.” . There was evening and there was morning—the first day. . God assessed His first day’s performance as: . “It is good.”
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Parable cont’d
. On the second day, God created water and separated it from the sky. . On the third day, God gathered the water into one place and created land. With the land, he created vegetation, plants, trees, seed-bearing fruit.
. God assessed His second and third day’s performance as: . “It is good.”
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Parable cont’d
. On days 4 & 5, God created the seasons, the sun, the moon, and the stars. He also created living creatures to live in the sea, on the land, and in the air. . On day 6, God created male and female in his own image. He told them to rule over all that he had created. He also told them to be fruitful and multiply. . God assessed these three day’s of performance as: . “It is good.”
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Parable cont’d . Believing that His week’s work had been very productive…. . God decided to reward himself with a day off. . This was the 7th day—a day of rest.
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Parable, cont’d
. On the 8th day —Lucifer, the wicked angel—better known as “Satan”--came to God and asked the following: . “God, this past week, you have worked very hard, you have created amazing things, you have even created humans after your own image--- . Why then—have you assessed your own work as.. ―It is GOOD? . Why not something else like: ―Great? ―Extraordinary? ―Exceeds Expectations?”
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Parable, cont’d
God simply replied— “Go to Hell-Satan!”
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Our Workshop Roadmap
. Performance Management Introduction . Two Ways Performance Management Adds Value . Why Many Performance Management Systems Fail . A Results-based Performance Management System . Five Steps in Implementing . Addressing the Legal Requirements . Assessing Our Knowledge & Implementation of Performance Management Systems
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Performance Management Intro
. “Achilles Heel” ―Highly Personal ―Threatening Process . 30% Managers Improves Performance ―Reluctant to provide Candid Feedback ―Honest Discussions . 40% Employees Clear Goals & Honest Process ―Managers Unskilled Discussing Performance ―Ineffective at Coaching & Development
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 How Performance Management Systems Add Value: 2 Ways
Key Decision-Making & Employee Development
Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Two Purposes of Performance Management
Key Decision-Making Employee Development
Supports Retention & Promotion Positive Growth Oriented Feedback Goals Established & Measured Motivates Superior Performance
Fairly Distributes Merit & Compensation Counsels & Corrects Poor Performance
Succession Planning Encourages Mentoring & Coaching
Confirms Selection Decisions Training & Development Needs
Legal Defense for Decisions Improve Communication
Revenue Creation Productivity Maximize & Realize Employee Potential Cost Containment Force Reductions Clarify Job Responsibilities & Expectations
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Challenge: Blending Decision-making & Development
. Decision-making Approach ―Too Lenient Inflated Ratings ―Too Focused on Rewards & Recognition . Development Approach ―Too Variable Employee Strengths & Potential ―Too Need-based & Not Performance Focused . “Hard to Blend Healthy Conversations Around Wants & Needs”
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 What are Results-based Performance Management Systems?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009 What are “Results?”
. “Results”—Performance-oriented achievement. ―Actual job outputs ―Countable results ―Measureable outcomes and accomplishments ―Objectives, Targets and/or Goals achieved.
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 What are “Behaviors?”
. “Behaviors”—how the individual performed/acted ―Traits/Attributes/ Characteristics/Proficiencies ―Personal Style/Manner/ Approach ―KASH (Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills, Habits)
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 What is “Development”
. “Development” Maturation of Talent
―Maximizing Ability ―Unleashing Human Expertise
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Implementing a Results-based Performance Management System
A 5-Phase Model
Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Performance Management Model
Key Components
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Performance Management Model
1. Performance Planning Set “job-based” performance objectives. Establish and communicate performance standards.
Key Components
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Performance Management Model
1. Performance Planning Set “job-based” performance objectives. Establish and communicate performance standards.
2. Execution Perform Achieve Stretch Key Components
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Performance Management Model
1. Performance Planning Set “job-based” performance objectives. Establish and communicate performance standards.
2. Execution Perform Achieve Stretch Key Components
3. Monitor & Develop On-going Feedback Encouragement Coach & Mentor Training
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Performance Management Model
1. Performance Planning Set “job-based” performance objectives. Establish and communicate performance standards.
2. Execution Perform Achieve Stretch Key Components
4. Appraisal 3. Monitor & Develop Formally rate progress toward On-going Feedback previously stated objectives Encouragement (Employee & Manager) Coach & Mentor Training
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Performance Management Model
1. Performance Planning Set “job-based” performance objectives. Establish and communicate performance standards.
2. Execution 5. Review & Feedback Perform Set Meeting Achieve Review Year Stretch Reinforce: Rewards Key & Recognition Components
4. Appraisal 3. Monitor & Develop Formally rate progress toward On-going Feedback previously stated objectives Encouragement (Employee & Manager) Coach & Mentor Training
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5 Stages are better than 7 Stages
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Phase 1: Performance Planning
Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Planning Together
. “The Dance”--Management and employees are involved in all phases of the process . Key Performance Criteria? . Comprehensive & Fair? . Goal-focused Strength-focused ―Individual ―Department ―College ―University
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Dilbert on Goals
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Getting SMART with Goals
Good performance objectives are SMART!
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Establishing Clear/Fair Goals
. Performance Competencies/Expectations ―What is the Employee to Accomplish/Achieve? ―What Behaviors Count? . Conditions ―Under what Conditions are they suppose to Achieve? . Ratings Criteria ―What Standards Count? ―What Ratings will be used?
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Dilbert & Performance Goals
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 . Teaching (50%) ―Student Assessments (25%) ―Peer Evaluations (25%) . Research (25%) ―Publications (20%) ―Refereed Presentations (5%) . Service (20%) ―Journal Reviews (10%) ―Academy Officer (10%) . Professionalism/Collegiality (5%)
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 UT-Performance Ratings & Clear Definitions
Outstanding More than Expected Less Than Unsatisfactory (Excellent) Expected (Good) Expected (Poor) (Very Good) (Fair)
Behavior: Behavior: Behavior: Behavior: Behavior: Far exceeds Exceeds Meets Falls short of Falls far short of expectations expectations expectations meeting meeting expectations expectations
Results: Results: Results: Results: Results: Highest Impact High Impact Moderate Impact Low Impact No or Negative Impact
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 UT Merit & Performance-based Salary Adjustments
Exceeds Meets Needs Unsatisfactory Expectations Expectations Improvement
Eligible for Eligible for Not Eligible for Not Eligible for significant merit/ minimum merit/ merit/ merit/ performance pay performance pay performance pay performance pay adjustments adjustments adjustments adjustments (Improvement (Improvement Plan) Plan)
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Dilbert & Performance Metrics
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Expected Distributions & Other Forms of Rating
5-10% 20-25% 60-65% 5-10% 0-5%
.Outstanding* .More than .Expected* .Less than .Unsatisfactory* Expected* Expected*
.Exceptional .Meets .Unacceptable .Exceeds Expectations .Below Expectations Expectations .Excellent .Expected .Above Performance .Marginal .Extraordinary Expectations
.Satisfactory .Needs .Exceeds Improvement Objectives .Fully Met Expectations .Didn’t Fully
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Competencies & Weighted Performance Behavior Elements
Teaching Outstanding More Than Expected Less Than Unsatisfactory Quality Expected Expected (1) (5) (3) (4) (2) Facilitates to Student Learning* (60%)
Classroom Management Skills* (20%)
Exhibits Interpersonal Skills* (20%)
Total Score
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Phase 2: Performance Execution
Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Phase 2: Performance Execution
. “Git-R-Done” . Employee’s Responsibility ―Follow game plan ―Achieve Measurable Results . Supervisor’s Responsibility ―Ensure a Culture that Motivates & Enhances Success ―Confront and Remove Obstacles ―Supportive Feedback ―Motivate, Motivate, Motivate
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Dilbert & Motivation
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Breaking Down Performance Problems
Determine Root Cause(s)
yes train / Is it caused by a problem with… Ability? educate
no yes remove Environment? obstacles
no
yes align Motivation? feedback
no
yes Fit? transition
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 16 Reasons Faculty Fail to Execute
Don’t Know Why They Should Do It Rewarded for Not Doing It
Don’t Know How Punished For Doing It
Don’t Know They are Supposed To Anticipate Negative Consequences
Think Your Way will not Work No Negative Consequences
Think Their Way is Better Beyond Their Control
Think Something Else is More Important Personal Limitations Prevent Them
No Positive Consequence Personal Private Problems
Actually Think They Are Doing It Nobody Can Do It
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Demotivation…
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Phase 3: Monitor & Develop
Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Phase 3: Monitor & Develop
. Regularly measure performance. . Timely Feedback (positive and negative) . Coach and mentor . Development plan Opportunities
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Monitoring Performance Goals
Competencies Performance Results Teaching .Goal #1 .Goal #2 Research .Goal #1 .Goal #2 Service .Goal #1 .Goal #2 Collegiality/Professionalism .Goal #1 .Goal #2
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Phase 4: Performance Appraisal
Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Definition of “Appraisal”
An effort to determine “worth.”
Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Phase 4: Performance Appraisal
. Evaluating “how well” the job has been done. . 4 Awareness Factors Contributing to Appraisal ―Job Analysis, Description, & Assignment ―Job Context ―Job Expectations & Performance Criteria ―Job Holder Issues . Criteria Used: Calibrate, Calibrate, Calibrate!
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Common Appraisal Errors
. Attractiveness Effect ―Assuming attractive people are great performers . Attribution Bias ―Blaming failures under the individual’s control externally . Central Tendency ―Rate people in the middle of the scale . Initial Impression Error ―First impression (positive or negative) that colors or distorts later information
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Common Appraisal Errors
. Halo/Horns Effect ―Rate employees the same on every trait . High Potential Error ―Confusing future performance with current performance . Negative and/or Positive Skew ―Leniency--rank high to avoid conflicts ―Severity--rank low to punish, coerce, threaten . Past Performance Error ―Permitting the past to influence the present
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Common Appraisal Errors
. Recency Effect ―What have you done for me “lately” . Similar-to-Me Effect ―Rating candidate favorably because they resemble “me” . Contrast Effect ―Rating candidate in comparison to others . Stereotyping ―Generalizing across groups and ignoring differences
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Phase 5: Performance Review & Feedback
Tuesday, September 8, 2009 The Office
. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9LLZJFBWdc&feature=related
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Phase 5: Performance Review & Feedback
. Discussion and Feedback . Two-step Process ―Step 1: . Review year’s performance compared to the development plan . Identify successes and unrealized goals ―Step 2: . Set a date to create the plan for next year’s goals, objectives, and development
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Employee’s & Supervisor’s Role
Employee’s Role Supervisor’s Role
Report Personal Accomplishments Review Original Goals
Compare with Original Goals Preliminary Assessment
Identify Obstacles Solutions Discuss Accomplishments (2 or 3 Core Messages) Self-Assessment Prepare Final Assessment
Identify Next Cycle’s Goals Consult Administration
Plan Next Cycle’s Goals
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Dilbert’s Self-Appraisal
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Phase 5: The Meeting: “Teeing-it-Up”
. Welcome employee . Meeting’s importance . Time frame for the meeting . Starting Place: Tell them where you are beginning . Kick-off statement . Invite employee Share their perceptions . Plans for next planning meeting
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Providing Effective Feedback
. Briefly summarize the conversation’s direction . Provide immediate positive feedback ―Discuss 2-3 strengths to be continued/enhanced . Areas for improvement ―Ask employee’s view What could be done differently? . Explore developmental needs ―Ask employee What resources do you need? . Congratulate (offer authentic statement of “hope”)
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Simon & Performance Feedback
. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DelJrP3P7tA
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Delivering Tough Messages . Don’t wait. . Define your view of the problem . Focus on the Problem, not the Person. . Work together Solution
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Effective Development Discussions
. Tailor actions for the employee. . Create a vision. . Blend planning and opportunism. . Support a learning and development- oriented ethic in all action planning.
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Writing Employee Accomplishments
. Describe ―key performance objectives ―expected results . Include Context . Describe critical incidents employee took . Describe the impact of the accomplishment ―Individual-level ―Department-level
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Creating A Developmental Action Plan
Development Specific Actions Completion Date Areas Improve student Return student Next grading cycle feedback timeline. written assignments within 2 weeks. Consult faculty mentor for accountability. Write due date on calendar.
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Addressing the Legal Requirements of Performance Management
Suggested Tips
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Addressing Legal Requirements
. Only evaluate relevant factors ―Appointment/Agreement Letters Starting Place ―Nothing More & Nothing Less ―“Specific” is better than “General” ―Calibrate Criteria Application . Employees must be informed of expectations and standards at the beginning of the cycle. . Document positive and negative incidents. . Be timely in discussing performance-related issues.
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 More Legal Issues . Reviewed by higher-level managers or panel. . Employees need an un-biased appeals process . The appraisal process ―well-documented ―standardized with defined employee and manager roles. . Employee appraisals and subsequent employment decisions must be consistent. ―Higher performance ratings Higher merit.
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Performance Management Quick Tip Summary . Clear performance expectations and standards. . Continuous measurement and feedback to prevent surprises—no “bowling in the dark.” . Development activities and opportunities. . Performance-based appraisals of job-related results . Accurate attributions of good or poor performance. . Formulation of future plans to promote positive performance. . Be Smart Be Legal
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Small Group Sessions: Possible Topics
. Evaluating Peers & Colleagues . Feedback for Probationary Faculty vs Tenured Faculty . New UT Performance Scale ―Defining Performance Behavior Elements ―Defining Appropriate Weights ―Calibrating Applications ―Implications for Merit Considerations
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Thank You & Good Luck!
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Assessing Your Performance Management System & Assessing Your Understanding of the Performance Management System
A Quick Check-up
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Assessing Your Performance Management System
. Managers are held accountable for doing effective appraisals. . Performance is defined and measured at all levels and effectively communicated. . Individuals know how their performance impacts the performance of their work group and the organization. . High levels of performance are valued, recognized, and rewarded. . The system was designed with input from all levels. . The system measures the right things. . The system measures both results and how they were achieved. . Employees view the system as being fair.
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Assessing Your Performance Management System
. The system is legally defensible and explainable. . Employees understand how the systems works. . The process is simple and not time consuming. . Managers view it as a valuable management tool. . The system appropriately impacts recognition and rewards. . Ratings are very accurate and reflect actual performance. . Managers are timely in conducting and always do them. . Poor performers are provided with developmental opportunities. . Performance problems are dealt with quickly. . Repeated poor performance results in appropriate consequences.
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Assessing Your Performance Management System
. Managers treat appraisal as a continuous process rather than a one-time, end of year, event. . Feedback is constructive and employees know what is expected and how they are doing at all times. . Managers are appraised on well they appraise. . Performance standards are consistent across the unit. . Training in performance appraisal is provided to all appraisers. . All managers are skilled in making appraisals. . Developmental feedback is provided to support appraisal ratings. . There is an adequate appeals process in place. . Ratings are strictly based upon performance—not the person.
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Your Knowledge of Performance Management (Williams & Levy, 1992)
. I understand the performance management system being used. . I agree with the meaning of the criteria used in the performance management system. . I understand the objectives of the present performance management system. . I have a real understanding of how the performance management system works. . I understand how my last performance management rating was determined.
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Your Knowledge of Performance Management (Williams & Levy, 1992)
. I understand the criteria used by my employer to evaluate performance. . I understand the standards of performance my employer expects. . I can clearly communicate the objectives of the performance management system. . I would benefit from additional training in the process of the performance management system. . Procedures regarding the performance management system are fully understood by our employees. . An attempt should be made to increase employee’s understanding of the performance management system.
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Selected References & Suggested Readings
For a detailed description of the following references and readings, please see Pulakos, E.D. (2007). Performance management: A roadmap for developing, implementing, and evaluating a performance management system. Arlington, VA: SHRM Foundation.
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Selected References & Suggested Readings
. Arvey, R.D., & Murphy, K.R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141-168.
. Beatty, R.W., Baird, L.S., Schneier, E.C., & Shaw, D.G. (1995). Performance, Measurement, Management, and Appraisal Sourcebook. Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press.
. Borman, W.C. (1991). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 2) (pp. 271-326).
. Campbell, D.J., & Lee, C. (1988). Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: Development versus evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 13, 302-314.
. Cardy, R.L. (2003). Performance management: Concepts, skills, and exercises. Armony, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
. Cawley, B.D., Keeping, L.M.,& Levy, P.E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 615-633.
. Cedarbloom, D. (1982). The performance appraisal interview: A review, implications, and suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 7, 219-227.
. DeNisi, A.S., & Klugger, A.N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14, 129-139.
. Engelmann, C.H., & Roesch, R.C. (2001). Managing individual performance: An approach to designing an effective performance management system. Scottsdale, AZ: WorldatWork.
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Selected References & Suggested Readings
. Fisher, S. G. (1997). The manager’s pocket guide to performance management. Amherst, MA: HRD Press. . Fitzwater, T. L. (1998). The manager’s pocket guide to documenting employee performance. Amherst, MA: HRD Press. . Ghorpade, J. (2000). Managing the five paradoxes of 360-degree feedback. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 140-150. . Ghorpade, J., & Chen, M. M. (1995). Creating quality-driven performance appraisal systems. Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 32-39. . Gilliland, S. W., & Langdon, J. C. (1998). Creating performance management systems that promote perceptions of fairness. In James W. Smither (Ed.), Performance . Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. . Greguras, G. J., Robie, C., Schleicher, D. J., Goff, M. (2003). A field study of the effects of rating purpose on the quality of multisource ratings. Personnel Psychology, 56, 1-21. . Grote, D. (1996). The complete guide to performance appraisal. New York: American Management Association. . Hillgren, J. S., & Cheatham, D. W. (2000). Understanding performance measures: An approach to linking rewards to the achievement of organizational objectives. Scottsdale, AZ: WorldatWork. . Hough, L. M., Keyes, M. A., & Dunnette, M. D. (1983). An evaluation of three “alternative” selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 36, 261-276. . Kahn, S. C., Brown, B. B., & Lanzarone, M. (1996). Legal guide to human resources. Boston: Warren, Gorham & Lamont. . Lee, J., Havigurst, L. C., & Rassel, G. (2004). Factors related to court references to performance appraisal fairness and validity. Public Personnel Management, 33 (1), 61-78. Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Selected References & Suggested Readings
. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. . Longnecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., Jr., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193. . Martin, D. C., Bartol, K.M., & Kehoe, P. E. (2000). The legal ramifications of performance appraisal: The growing significance. Public Personnel Management, 29(3), 379-406. . Mohrman, A. M., Jr., Resnick-West, S. M., & Lawler, E. E. III. (1989). Designing performance appraisal systems: Aligning appraisals and organizational realities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. . Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. . Rodgers, R., & Hunter, J. E. (1991). Impact of management by objectives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 322-336. . Rodgers, R., Hunter, J. E., & Rogers, D. L. (1993). Influence of top management commitment on management program success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51-155. . Schippmann, J. S. (1999). Strategic job modeling: Working at the core of integrated human resource systems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. . Smither, J. W. (Ed.). Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. . Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures: Fourth edition. Bowling Green, OH: . Spencer, L., & Spencer, S. (1994). Competence at work. New York: John Wiley. . Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. (1978). Federal register, 43, 38295-38315. Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009 Selected References & Suggested Readings
. Waldman, D., & Atwater, L. E. (1998). The power of 360-degree feedback: How to leverage performance evaluations for top productivity. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
. Weatherly, L. A. (2004, March). Performance management: Getting it right from the start. SHRM Research Quarterly, 2, 1-10.
. Werner, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (1997). Explaining U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions involving performance appraisal: Accuracy, fairness, and validation. Personnel Psychology, 50 (1), 1-24.
. Wexley, K. N. (1986). Appraisal interview. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Performance assessment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 167-185.
Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, September 8, 2009