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
PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL
Determination and Documentation of Individual's
Performance
Should be tied directly to criteria
USES
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
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
Copyright Paul E. Spector,
All rights reserved, July 22, 2002.