Title: PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL: LEGAL ISSUES
1PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL LEGAL ISSUES
- PA must be job related. Validation requirements
apply to PA procedures. - Objective performance standards preferred
- Subjective measures use with caution especially
trait based measures - PA system can be discriminatory if 1)
rating content not job related
2) content rated not based on Job Analysis 3)
raters do not observe ratees performing their
work
4) ratings based on subjective factors
5) ratings not collected and scored in
standardized fashion
2COMMON PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL RATING ERRORS
- Leniency Error give more positive ratings to
employees than they deserve - Severity errors evaluate employees more
unfavorably than they deserve - Central Tendency error rating all employees near
the mid-point of the performance scale - Halo Error rating a single individual based on
the interviewers general feeling toward the
individual so that employee receives nearly
identical ratings (usually high) on all
performance areas
3WHY DO RATING ERRORS OCCUR
- I. Unintentional Errors
- Cognitive information processing
- Performance Appraisal (PA) is a complex memory
process where performance information is
acquired, stored, retrieved at later date, and
then weighed into performance judgement - 2) Shortcut used to condense information can
cause errors. Example Schemas
4WHY DO RATING ERRORS OCCUR
- I. Unintentional Errors continued
- Shortcut used to condense
information can cause errors. An Example
Schemas - - Schemas are mental categories used to
organize information and classify people - a. prototypes are sets of characteristics
that are used to classify someone into that
schema
b. ratee doesnt have
to exhibit all characteristics of prototype to
be classified into a particular schema - c. leniency and severity errors affected by
nature of schema prototypes - II. Intentional Errors by supervisors
5IMPROVING PERFORMANCE RATINGS USING SUBJECTIVE
MEASURES
- Rater Error Training
1) teach raters what are
common rater errors and train to avoid them
2) helps reduce common
rating errors but not necessarily rating accuracy
- Frame of Reference Training
1) reduce errors by developing a
common frame of reference for raters to use
2) examples
of good and poor performance are identified
raters trained to observe these and use them to
judged employee performance
6IMPROVING PERFORMANCE RATINGS USING SUBJECTIVE
MEASURES
- Information Processing Approaches
1) Observation training help raters
improve way they observe behavior and identify
important performance activities
2) Decision-making
training instructs raters in good decision
making methods - Feedback to Evaluators rating the raters can
reduce systematic bias. Can be stressed by
including in the raters own PA how well that
person does subordinate PA - Combine practice (whatever method selected) and
feedback
7SUBJECTIVE METHODSI. COMPARATIVE PROCEDURES
- Rankings employees compared directly against one
another
1)
Straight ranking of employees in order from best
to worst
2) Paired comparison ranking examine all
possible employee pairs, choosing the better
person in each pair. Person chosen first most is
ranked first, and so on. 3) Forced
distribution must place certain percentage of
employees in each of several performance
categories, which based on overall assessment of
employees performance. - Advantages of comparative methods
1) easy to use and explain
2) helpful in making promotion and merit
raise decisions
3) control for leniency, severity
and central tendency errors
8 DISADVANTEGES OF COMPARATIVE PROCEDURES
- Employees evaluated on overall performance rather
than job specific performance dimensions
(deficiency) - Highly subjective and difficult to support with
evidence - Open to legal challenge because they do not focus
on specific job-related behaviors - cannot tell what is absolute difference in
performance among employees. Ordering of
employees based on size and character of each
group. - One evaluator must know performance of everyone
who is evaluated - not useful for feedback
- may have groups of employees who do not conform
to a normal distribution
9SUBJECTIVE METHODII. ABSOLUTE STANDARDS
PROCEDURES
- A. Graphic Rating Scales most widely used
1) employee
evaluated on each of several dimensions with a
clearly defined scale 2) more
important dimensions can be weighted before total
calculated - Advantages
1) easily to develop
and use 2)
can have more than one performance dimension
3) employees scores can be compared
4) method accepted by raters
5) can be as reliable
and valid as more complicated procedures - Disadvantages
1) prone to halo,
leniency, severity and central tendency errors
2) dimensions scale for ratings may be
vague - B. Mixed Standard Scales define low medium, and
high performance levels for each dimension
then determine what statement is most descriptive
of employees performance
10SUBJECTIVE METHOD II. ABSOLUTE STANDARDS
PROCEDURES
- C. Forced Choice system
1) for each
pair of items must choose the one item that is
more characteristic of the employee
2) only one of the two items is related to job
performance and rater does not know which item
will make employee look good
3) pairs are designed so that
both appear equally good or bad
4) hard to develop
4) not good for
feedback purposes
5) can reduce leniency
11SUBJECTIVE METHOD II. ABSOLUTE STANDARDS
PROCEDURES
- D. Weighted Checklists rater marks from list of
job related characteristics those typical of
employee
1) developed with job experts indicating levels
of good/poor performance each behavior or
characteristic represents
2) item weights summed but
rater does not know value of the weights of the
individual items - 3) leniency may be a problem
12SUBJECTIVE METHOD II. ABSOLUTE STANDARDS
PROCEDURES
- E. Critical Incidents Technique
- evaluator keeps log on employee where record
behaviors and performance incidents that are
particularly effective or ineffective
- log used to evaluate employee
- time consuming and can be difficult to quantify
- have more than one performance dimension
- can be used with more structured subjective
methods (BARS)
13SUBJECTIVE METHODS II. ABSOLUTE STANDARDS
PROCEDURE
- F. Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)
1) graphic
scales on which anchor points are defined by
using examples of behavior that represent
different levels of performance
- 2) raters mark the scale point the best
represents the employees level of performance
- 3) involves multi-step, costly and time
consuming developmental process - - critical incidents that show effective
/average/ineffective behavior (one group) - - identify important performance dimensions
(second group) - -assign CIs to dimension (third group)
- - rate level of performance of each CI
(fourth group).
14SUBJECTIVE METHODS II. ABSOLUTE STANDARDS
PROCEDURE
- Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)
- --Advantages of BARS
- 1) process to develop increases chances that
it will be valid performance measure and that
employees will accept it - 2) less open to legal change because they are
job related - 3) each job category requires it own BARS
- 4) may not be practical because of small
number of employees and cost
15SUBJECTIVE METHODS II. ABSOLUTE STANDARDS
PROCEDURE
- F. Behavioral Observation Scales (BOS)
- - developed to address situation where
employee who engages in effective job behavior at
other times performs poorly on the same job
behavior
- - job experts identify groups of behavioral
incidents and classify them into performance
dimensions
- - Advantages
1) based on
job analysis
2) good content validity that is
legally accepted
3) good for providing
feedback 4) BOS
may provide more performance information than
BARS because BOS uses frequency scales of behavior
16MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES
- MBO Process
- 1. Employee and supervisor agree on
performance goals for a set time period - 2. During period progress monitored but
employee free to determine how to meet goals - 3. At end of period, meet to evaluate if goals
met and to set future goals
- Advantages
- 1. defines behavioral goals instead of
subjective ones
- 2. innovation encouraged since employee
determines how to meet goals - 3. useful as way of coordination goals of
organization with managers and subordinates-promot
es goal consistency
- 4. BOS may provide more performance
17MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES
- Why has MBO failed
- 1. Time, effort commitment needed
- 2. Goals need to be flexible, adaptable,
achievable - 3. Employees with easy goal appear better than
those with harder goals
18PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW
- Types of Feedback Interviews
- A. Tell and Sell employee told how good or
bad performance was and tries to get employee to
accept that judgement. - 1) No employee input fails to recognize
that employee may have something to contribute to
evaluation - 2) directed, one-sided, and can lead to
subordinate being resentful, defensive and
frustrated - 3) employee may not accept results of
interview and as a result may not be committed to
achieving any goals set - 4) Tell and Sell effective for new employees
or for those who have little interest in
participating
19PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW
- Types of Feedback Interviews
- B. Tell and Listen employee told what is right
and wrong and then given chance to respond - C. Problem Solving employees evaluate their
own performance and set their own goals - 1)supervisor is helper and colleague rather
than judge
2)
encourages open dialogue - 3) more difficult method for supervisor, but
more likely to lead to employee acceptance and
commitment
20PROBLEMS WITH PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW
- Disagreement and Defensiveness
- 1) disagreement about performance ratings
subordinates usually rate their performance
higher - 2) disagreement about causes of performance
- a. Supervisors assume employee
responsible - b. Subordinate often assign blame to bad
luck, lack of resource, or insufficient help from
others - 3) traditional manager-subordinate PA feedback
is authoritarian and often leads to defensiveness
21PROBLEMS WITH PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW
- Multiple purposes PA interviews often used for
several purposes review past performance convey
administrative decisions, plan for future worked
goals, and to discuss the employee's career and
development goals
1) conventional view
shouldn't discuss past performance and merit
raises in same interviews as future goals and
development 2)
Recent research disagrees discussion of salary
does not seem to harm developmental aspects of
feedback interviews
3) however, a cautious
approach may be necessary especially if employee
becomes resentful. If so, best to end interview
and set another one later
22IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW
- Feedback Specificity
1) feedback from
behaviorally based appraisal instrument is
helpful and if the performance rating is backed
up with specific examples of good and poor
performance
2) specific feedback
helps employee determine what it is that should
be done to improve performance
23IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW
- Subordinate Acceptance to be credible feedback
must come from a source accepted by employee - 1) credibility enhanced when evaluator is
seen as knowledgeable about job, has observed
employees performance, and has taken time to
prepare the appraisal interview - 2) destructive criticism and threats to
subordinate are ineffective and may harm future
performance - 3) satisfaction and acceptance of appraisal
interviews is based on employees contribution to
and participation in the discussion
24IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW
- Setting Clear Goals
- 1) supervisors assist in setting specific
goals that focus subordinate's attention on
performance - 2) later supervisor follow up on goal
progress and give feedback when necessary