11 PA s Evaluation, using Scoring Assessment with the Leadership Theories.

1. 1. Critically assess the positive and negative aspects of Performance Appraisal (PA) systems in terms of their effect on behaviours, motivation and teamwork. • Depending upon your conclusions suggest how PA systems might be modified, or what might replace them in order to better align performance management approaches with leadership theory. • 2. Use your wiki to develop your ideas using the library database and other sources appropriately to support your views.3. Prepare a short presentation (10 – 15 minutes) of your team's findings. Make sure that in your presentation you cite all reference sources that you use, using APA format, and provide a reference list (as the last slide if you are using a slide show to support your presentation).4. Present your findings on Wednesday 23 February at 9.00 am in IMC Room 249. MBE2010/11 A-1

2. 11 PAs Evaluation, using Scoring Assessmentwith the Leadership Theories. MBE A-1

3. Methodology • Analysis • Select 11 PAs • Pros-Cos Analysis • Team Assessment, scoring • Development • Evaluation from Behaviours • Evaluation from Motivation • Evaluation from Teamwork • Conclusion • Summary (Modification) • Replacement 11 Performance Appraisals are: Critical incident method Weighted checklist method Paired comparison analysis Graphic rating scales Essay Evaluation method Behaviourally anchored rating scales Performance ranking method Management By Objectives (MBO) method 360 degree performance appraisal Forced ranking (forced distribution) Behavioural Observation Scales Disclaimers *This result was analysed, using the average of scoring by MBE A-1 (n=6), therefore, this result can not be identified and verified as a official research outcome on the course of WMG. *This analysis should be calculated by relative evaluation, however, it can not avoid human bias on the calculation precisely, because assessors are not professional. MBE2010/11 A-1

4. Analysis 1. Critical incident method Pros Might reduce frequency of negative critical incidents. Manager writes down positive and negative performance behavior of employees throughout the performance period. Cons • No information given back to employees. • Would probably lead to a negative incident bias. • Employees may worry about the consequences. • Employees may conceal information regarding incidents. MBE2010/11 A-1 Source: Woolsey, K. L. (1986)

5. Analysis 2. Weighted checklist method Pros Helps managers to evaluate performance. If done objectively, can enhance teamwork. This method describe a performance appraisal method where rater familiar with the jobs being evaluated prepared a large list of descriptive statements about effective and ineffective behavior on jobs. Cons • Human bias by leaders/raters/supervisors all possible. • Process is expensive and time consuming. • Can be difficult to analyze data. • Limited to behavioral observations, not open-ended. MBE2010/11 A-1 Source: Park, K., & Kim, J. (1990)

6. Analysis 3. Paired comparison analysis Pros Helps managers decide where employees would be most effective. Useful when priorities are not clear. Peoples skills are recognised A range of plausible options is listed. Each option is compared against each of the other options. The results are tallied and the option with the highest score is the preferred option. Cons • Weightings need to be reviewed regularly, due to changing requirements, markets, etc. • People may be assigned to jobs they would prefer not to do, solely because they are good at them. MBE2010/11 A-1 Source: Katz, B., Bruck, M., & Coleman, W. (2001)

7. Analysis 4. Graphic rating scales Pros Easy to understand for leaders and employees. Shared and individual goals. Quantitative comparisons possible. Could be used in most departments. The Rating Scale is a form on which the manager simply checks off the employee’s Cons • Does not give reasons as to why supervisors give particular ratings. • Used subjectively in many cases. • Not valid if comparing employees rated by different supervisors. MBE2010/11 A-1 Source: Keavenya, T. J., & McGann, A. F. (1975)

8. Analysis 5. Essay Evaluation method Pros Non-quantitative, descriptive evaluation can be very important for improvement. This method asked managers / supervisors to describe strengths and weaknesses of an employee’s behavior. Essay evaluation is a non-quantitative technique. Cons • Could be biased. • Evaluator might do it without fully assessing employee. • Can take a long time and be uneconomical MBE2010/11 A-1 Source: Smith, B. N., Hornsby, J. S., & Shirmeyer, R. (1996)

9. Analysis 6. Behaviorally anchored rating scales Pros Quantitatively assesses how well certain specific behaviors are exhibited. Could help managers to understand link between certain behaviors and critical incidents. This method used to describe a performance rating that focused on specific behaviors or sets as indicators of effective or ineffective performance. It is a combination of the rating scale and critical incident techniques of employee performance evaluation. Cons • Can take a long time to create and develop effective indicators. • Bias and subjectivity could be present. MBE2010/11 A-1 Source: Smith, B. N., Hornsby, J. S., & Shirmeyer, R. (1996)

10. Analysis 7. Performance ranking method Pros Individually quite motivating, especially for competitive employees. Could be effective in short-term. Ranking is a performance appraisal method that is used to evaluate employee performance from best to worst. It is a combination of the rating scale and critical incident techniques of employee performance evaluation. Cons • Difficult to evaluate fairly. • Would encourage competition with employees only looking out for themselves. • Instills fear and can be demoralizing for those with low rank. MBE2010/11 A-1 Source: Katz, B., Bruck, M., & Coleman, W. (2001)

11. Analysis 8. Management By Objectives (MBO) method Pros Based on employee/manager input and commitment. Gives focus and direction to employees. Periodic re-evaluation keeps progress on track. MBO is a process in which managers / employees set objectives for the employee, periodically evaluate the performance, and reward according to the result. MBO focuses attention on what must be accomplished (goals) rather than how it is to be accomplished (methods) Cons • Goal-oriented approach that may not understand the limitations of the process to achieve (Red-bead). • May limit people to reaching targets, when they could exceed them. • De-motivates those unable to improve or achieve targets. MBE2010/11 A-1 Source: Ivancevich, J. M. (1972).

12. Analysis 9. 360 degree performance appraisal Pros Wide scope of feedback makes use of all possible sources of experience. Motivator to perform on all fronts. Removes subjectivity aspects of other methods. Identifies strengths and areas for improvement. Anonymous, so no fear of reprisal from those who are rated. Holds even the management accountable. Can address skills, competencies, behaviors. Very flexible. 360 Degree Feedback is a system or process in which employees receive confidential, anonymous feedback from the people who work around them. Cons • Extremely time-consuming for all involved. • Limitations where new employees are involved (may not have experience as assessors, other people might not know them well, etc…) MBE2010/11 A-1 Source: Pollack, D. M., & Pollack, L. J. (1996)

13. Analysis 10.Forced ranking (forced distribution) Pros Can create a high-performance culture. Framework is fixed and does not depend on changing market requirements. Forced ranking is a method of performance appraisal to rank employee but in order of forced distribution. For example, the distribution requested with 10 or 20 percent in the top category, 70 or 80 percent in the middle, and 10 percent in the bottom. Cons • Would encourage cut-throat competition with employees only looking out for themselves. • Makes collaboration almost impossible. • Harms morale. MBE2010/11 A-1 Source: Smith, B. N., Hornsby, J. S., & Shirmeyer, R. (1996)

14. Analysis 11. Behavioral Observation Scales Pros Avoid critical incidents by understanding who/what might cause them. Allows management to identify patterns in employee behaviors. Behavioral Observation Scales is frequency rating of critical incidents that worker has performed. Cons • Employees may conceal information from supervisors. • Can de-motivate staff as there is no room for experimentation; failure is punished. • Could be biased. MBE2010/11 A-1 Source: Topel, R. (1993)

15. Development Result of Scoring -Table Basic Collection Data N=6, Scoring Range between 1 and 5; 5: Very Good 4: Good 3: Acceptable 2: Partly Acceptable 1: Not Acceptable AVG of indivi Scores= (∑X)/n MBE2010/11 A-1

16. Development Result of Scoring -Graph MBE2010/11 A-1

17. Development AP selection from Behaviour’sPoint of View SoPK Leadership & SoPK CEO SnrMngs Mngs Supervisers Ops CEO SnrMngs Mngs Supervisers Ops Control Coach MBE2010/11 A-1 Source: Deming (1993)

18. Development AP selection from Motivation’s Point of View MasLow’s Hierarchy of needs Herzberg’s Motivation Hygiene Theory Source: Maslow, A. (1954) & Herzberg (1959) MBE2010/11 A-1

19. Development AP selection from Teamwork’s Point of View Action Centred Leadership • Source: Adair (1973) MBE2010/11 A-1

20. Positioning Map Analysis of PAs Add-Value No Information Information ① Zero-Value MBE2010/11 A-1

21. Positioning Map Analysis of PAs Add-Value Lack of Info ⑨ ⑧ Lack of Add-Value ③ ⑥ No Information Information ⑤ ④ ② ① ⑪ ⑦ ⑩ ① Zero-Value MBE2010/11 A-1

22. Modification from the outcomes MBE2010/11 A-1

23. Conclusion Conclusion Wide scope of feedback makes use of all possible sources of experience Helps managers to evaluate performance. Easy to understand for leaders and employees. Quantitative comparisons possible. Non-quantitative, descriptive evaluation can be very important for improvement. Could help managers to understand link between certain behaviors and critical incidents. Periodic re-evaluation keeps progress on track. Allows management to identify patterns in employee behaviors. • Options to Replace Performance (Modification) • Giving Direction • Giving Feedback & Identifying areas for training • Developing a new Reward System (not only based on financial reward). • Providing an Objective Basis for Promotion • Motivating Staff Can address skills, competencies, behaviors. If done objectively, can enhance teamwork. Gives focus and direction to employees Framework is fixed and does not depend on changing market requirements. • Identifies strengths and areas for improvement. • Motivator to perform on all fronts. • Peoples skills are recognised • Shared and individual goals. MBE2010/11 A-1

24. References • Adair, J. (2006). Action -Centered-Leadership. In Leadership and Motivation (pp. 19-35). Kogan Page Ltd; Reissue. • Adair, J. (1987). The leader. In Effective Teambuilding (pp. 116-125). Business Management. • Deming, E. W. (1993). The new economics: for industry, government, education. Cambridge: MIT, Centre for Advanced Engineering Study. • Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. • Ivancevich, J. M. (1972). A Longitudinal Assessment of Management by Objectives. Administrative Science Quarterly Vol. 17, No. 1, Mar., 1972 , 126-138. • Katz, B., Bruck, M., & Coleman, W. (2001). The Benefits of Powered Liposuction Versus Traditional Liposuction: A Paired Comparison Analysis. Dermatologic Surgery Volume 27, Issue 10 , 851-914. • Keavenya, T. J., & McGann, A. F. (1975). A comparison of behavioral expectation scales and graphic rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology Volume 60, Issue 6 , 695-703. • Park, K., & Kim, J. (1990). Fuzzy weighted-checklist with linguistic variables. Reliability Volume: 39 Issue:3 , 389 - 393 . • Pollack, D. M., & Pollack, L. J. (1996). Using 360 Degree Feedback in Performance Appraisal. Public Personnel Management, Vol. 25 . • Smith, B. N., Hornsby, J. S., & Shirmeyer, R. (1996). Current Trends in Performance Appraisal: An Examination of Managerial Practice. SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 61 . • Topel, R. (1993). Discretion and bias in Performance Evaluation. European Economic Review 37 , 355-365. • Woolsey, K. L. (1986). The Critical Incident Technique: An Innovative Qualitative Method of Research. Canadian Journal of Counselling, v20 n4 , 242-254. MBE2010/11 A-1

25. Q & A Thank you MBE2010/11 A-1