1 / 35

MANAGING & EVALUATING PERFORMANCE Week 9 2BC3 ________________________ Dr. Teal McAteer

MANAGING & EVALUATING PERFORMANCE Week 9 2BC3 ________________________ Dr. Teal McAteer. Performance Management. HR system that includes processes used to identify, encourage, measure, evaluate, improve, and reward employee performance

gezana
Download Presentation

MANAGING & EVALUATING PERFORMANCE Week 9 2BC3 ________________________ Dr. Teal McAteer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. MANAGING & EVALUATING PERFORMANCEWeek 92BC3________________________Dr. Teal McAteer

  2. Performance Management • HR system that includes processes used to identify, encourage, measure, evaluate, improve, and reward employee performance • Related to terms such as performance appraisal, performance evaluation, etc. • Although Performance Management is often considered to be a broader term

  3. Common Purposes of Performance Appraisal • Administrative – to make employment decisions • Promotion, termination • Training—who to train; training needs in general • Compensation—merit increases • Legal justification for these decisions • Feedback and Development • Point out strengths and weaknesses • Identify corrective action to address weaknesses • Motivation

  4. The Criterion Problem • Difficulties involved in determining what performance is and how to measure it • Ultimate Criterion • Includes everything that ultimately defines success on the job • Is a construct – conceptual in nature • Operational Criterion • The aspects of performance that are actually measured

  5. The Criterion Problem • Criterion Deficiency • When performance standards fail to capture the full range of employees’ responsibilities • E.g., focus on sale revenue but ignore customer service • Criterion Contamination • When factors outside of employee’s control influence his/her performance • E.g., machine breakdowns; differences in sales regions

  6. Potential Performance Criteria • Output • Units produced, items sold, $ sales, commission earnings, etc. • Quality measures • # of errors, # of errors detected, # complaints/grievances, # commendations, rates of scrap/breakage • Lost time • Absences (unexcused), Lateness/tardiness, • Turnover (withdrawal) from training or job, transfers due to inadequate performance

  7. Potential Performance Criteria • Ratings • Performance appraisals by trainers, supervisors, peers, self • Performance in work samples, simulations, etc. • Others • Counterproductive behaviours • Safety records, accidents • Citizenship (voluntary) behaviours

  8. The Appraisal Process

  9. Legal Considerations in PA • Performance standards should be job-related • Based on job analysis (content validity) • Employees must be aware of performance standards • Managers must be able to observe the behaviour they are rating • Raters should be trained • Ratings should be valid / bias-free • Reasonable time frame for performance improvement

  10. Factors Affecting Legal DecisionsMcShane (1989) • In cases involving dismissal due to poor performance, Canadian courts may consider the following: • Cause of poor performance • Within or outside of employee control • Effect of poor performance on employer • Organizations may be required to show adverse effect of poor performance • If found, opportunity must be provided to improve performance

  11. Factors Affecting Legal DecisionsMcShane (1989) • Link between job duties and performance standards must exist • Manager was fired for poor interpersonal skills – court ruled in her favour because job description did not include interpersonal skills as requirement • Feedback / warnings must be provided before employee can be dismissed for poor performance

  12. Factors Affecting Legal DecisionsMcShane (1989) • Credibility of appraisal source • Source of appraisal must be considered “balanced and detached” – i.e., fair and unbiased • Contrived appraisals • Courts tend to rule against appraisals that are done just to document poor performance • E.g., court ruled in favour of fired TD Bank employee because a management memo requested that the next appraisal contain negative comments

  13. Importance Elements of PA • In general, Performance Appraisal systems – like selection systems – should be: • Valid • Reliable • Free from bias • Practical • Fairness is also critical

  14. 3 Dimensions of Fairness / Justice • Distributive justice • Perceived fairness of the distribution of the rewards • Procedural justice • Perceived fairness of the procedure/system used • “Voice” • Interactional justice • Perceived fairness of the relationship with the rater(s); sincerity, etc.

  15. Now some considerations about choosing the right instrument to increase the likelihood of the PA being valid, reliable, and free from bias

  16. Considerations re: PA Methods • Absolute judgments vs Relative judgments • Absolute • Compare employee to pre-established criteria / dimensions • Relative • Compare employee to other employees - ranking

  17. Considerations re: PA Methods • What do we want to measure: traits, outcomes, or behaviours?? • Traits (personality) • E.g., loyalty, dependability, initiative • Problems • too ambiguous • susceptible to bias • not legally defensible • focuses on person rather than performance

  18. Considerations re: PA Methods • Outcomes – objective criteria • E.g., sales revenue, # of calls taken, # of complaints • Problems – influenced by factors beyond employee control • Behaviours • E.g., works well with others • Focuses on what employees do – what they should start, stop, and continue doing • 2 common instrument types: BARS, BOS

  19. BARS: Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales • Format was developed to due lack of standardization (and reliability) across raters • Goal was to help the rater rate • Performance standards are concrete • Each standard consists of a number of specific, behavioural anchors on the rating form itself • The behavioural anchors cover the range of performance – from excellent to poor behaviour • Anchors are worded in the form of expectations – see e.g.

  20. BOS: Behavioural Observation Scales • Focus on behaviour • Based on job analysis – often critical incident technique • Performance ratings are based on the “frequency of use” criterion • How often employee engages in behaviour • Using a 5-point frequency scale

  21. Example of a BOS Criterion • Overcoming Resistance to Change • Provides employees with information about organizational change Almost never 1 2 3 4 5 Almost always • Addresses/responds to employee concerns and input regarding change Almost never 1 2 3 4 5 Almost always

  22. Developing Behavioural Observation Scales (BOS) • Collect critical incidents • Group similar incidents into a behavioural item • E.g., 2 critical incidents • Describes details of organizational change to subordinates • Explains why the change is necessary • Could be grouped into a behavioural item Provides employees with information about organizational change • 2 more critical incidents (1) Listens to employee concerns (2) Asks employee for help in making the change work • Could be grouped into a behavioural item Addresses employee concerns and input regarding change

  23. Developing Behavioural Observation Scales (BOS) • Similar behavioural items are grouped into a meaningful behavioural criterion • 2 behavioural items • Provides employees with information about organizational change • Addresses/responds to employee concerns and input regarding change • Combine to form the behavioural (BOS) criterionOVERCOMING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE • The PA instrument is created by attaching a 5-point rating scale to each behavioural item

  24. Example of a BOS Criterion • Overcoming Resistance to Change • Provides employees with information about organizational change Almost never 1 2 3 4 5 Almost always • Addresses/responds to employee concerns and input regarding change Almost never 1 2 3 4 5 Almost always

  25. 360-degree PA

  26. 360-degree PA • Benefits • More complete picture of job performance • Different stakeholders may observe different behaviours • Target may behave differently with different stakeholders • Reduced bias because feedback comes from more than 1 person • Feedback from peers and subordinates useful for development purposes

  27. 360-degree PA • Limitations • Complex and time consuming • Potential for conflicting opinions • Same behaviours may be seen as positive by one group and negative by another group • E.g., manager who encourages participative decision-making • Peer, subordinate, and self evaluations not useful for administrative decisions (e.g., raises) • Peer and subordinate evaluations may jeopardize coworker relations

  28. Factors Distorting PA Ratings • Halo effect / error • Leniency / Strictness error • Central tendency • Similarity error • Recency effect • Contrast effect • Matthew effect

  29. Factors Distorting PA Ratings • Halo effect • Tendency to provide similar ratings across different PA dimensions • Leniency / Strictness error • Leniency –when ratings are restricted to high part of scale • Strictness – when ratings are restricted to low part of scale • Central tendency • When raters avoid extreme ratings and restrict ratings to middle of scale

  30. Factors Distorting PA Ratings • Similarity (“similar-to-me”) error • Tendency of rater to inflate ratings when they have something in common with the target • Recency effect • Ratings are based largely on employee’s most recent behaviour • Contrast effect • When an employee’s evaluation is biased upward or downward because of a comparison with another employee who was recently evaluated

  31. Factors Distorting PA Ratings • Matthew effect • Tendency of raters to use previous evaluations as an anchor for subsequent evaluations • i.e., Employees receive the same appraisal results, year in and year out • Like a self-fulfilling prophecy -- if they have done well, they will continue to do well; if they have done poorly, they will continue to do poorly

  32. Reasons PA can fail • Rater lacks information re: an employee’s actual performance • Performance standards are unclear • Employee does not receive on-going feedback • Rater does not take PA seriously; not prepared for PA review; lacks PA skills • Review meeting is ineffective – feedback poorly delivered and/or received • Insufficient resources to reward performance • Lack of attention to employee development

  33. Summary of Recommendations • Based on job analysis • Focus on behaviour (use BOS) • Top management must prioritize PA • Use multiple raters • Provide raters with extensive training • Ensure system is fair • Make sure performance management is on-going

  34. Comments / Questions

More Related