HRM Chapter 10

once managers decide what they want the rating system to accomplish, their next questions are

"What's the best method? Which technique should I use?", and as in so many other areas of HR management, there is no simple answer

paired comparisons

a behavior-oriented rating method in which an employee is compared to every other employee (usually in terms of an overall category such as "technical/functional expertise") and the rater chooses the "better" of each pair and each employee's rank is determined by counting the number of times she or he was rated superior; the number of comparisons becomes quite large as the number of employees increases, but ranking methods that compare employees to one another are useful for generating initial rankings for purposes of employment decisions

to some, MBO is _____; in theory, MBO _____

a complete system of planning and control and a complete philosophy of management; promotes success in each employee because, as each employee succeeds, so do that employee's manager, the department, and the organization, but only to the extent that the individual, departmental, and organizational goals are compatible, which is typically not the case

forced distribution is most useful when

a large number of employees must be rated and there is more than one rater

reliability

consistency or stability of a measurement procedure; third requirement of sound rating systems; in this context, refers to consistency of judgment

despite their shortcomings, performance reviews

continue to be used widely, especially as a basis for tying pay to performance, and to attempt to avoid these shortcomings by doing away with reviews is no solution, as whenever people interact in organized settings, judgments about performance will be made formally or informally, so the real challenge is to identify methods and techniques that are most likely to achieve the purposes we listed earlier

performance standards

criteria that specify how well, not how, work is to be done, by defining levels of acceptable or unacceptable employee behavior and translate job requirements into them; play a critical role in the job or work analysis-performance rating linkage

destructive criticism

criticism that is general in nature, that is frequently delivered in a biting, sarcastic tone, and that often attributes poor performance to internal causes

from an employee's perspective, lack of regular feedback about performance

detracts from his or her quality of work life- most people want to improve their performance on the job, to receive constructive suggestions regarding areas they need to work on, and to be commended for things that they do well

not all teams are created equal

different types of teams require different emphases on performance measurement at the individual and team levels

provide a sufficient number of rewards that employees really value

don't bother offering rewards that nobody cares about- begin by asking your people what's most important to them (eg, pay, benefits, free time, merchandise, special privileges), then consider tailoring your awards program so that employees or teams can choose from a menu of similarly valued options

work planning and review

emphasizes periodic review of work plans by both supervisor and subordinate in order to identify goals attained, problems encountered, and needs for training

there are solid organizational payoffs for implementing strong performance-management systems

empirical research has found; organizations with such systems are 51% more likely to outperform their competitors on financial measures and 41% more likely to outperform their competitors on nonfinancial measures (e.g., customer satisfaction, employee retention, quality of products or services)

in a broader context, we are concerned with developing

employment-decision systems- from this perspective, relevance, sensitivity, and reliability are simply technical components of a system designed to make decisions about employees, but just as much attention needs to be paid to ensuring acceptability and practicality, and the five basic requirements of performance-rating systems should be embedded in the broader performance-management system because a lack of understanding of the context surrounding performance rating is likely to result in a failed system

supervisory activities during performance feedback interviews

encourage subordinates to participate, judge performance, not personality and mannerisms, be specific, be an active listener, set mutually agreeable goals for future improvements, avoid destructive criticism

provide rewards in a manner that employees consider fair

fairness is a subjective concept, but it can be enhanced by adhering to four important practices: voice—collect employee input through surveys or interviews, consistency—ensure that all employees are treated consistently when seeking input and communicating about the process for administering rewards, relevance—include rewards that employees really care about, communication—explain clearly the rules and logic of the rewards process

critics of performance reviews have suggested that ratings produce

fight-or-flight responses- in fact, many people have stronger reactions to not being rated, so in the interests of improving the overall process, therefore, here are three practical suggestions: 1. train all frontline managers and give them the tools they need—such as real-time performance-management software—to initiate frequent and productive conversations with workers, and remember, the goal is to raise performance, not blood pressure, 2. link employees' goals to business priorities and maintain a strong element of flexibility, 3. get executive buy-in-to do that, consider reporting return-on-investment data for financial executives, customer satisfaction for sales leaders, and employee engagement for HR executives, record baseline metrics under your old review system, and track changes as managers roll out real-time feedback; performance reviews will probably never be perfect, but making the kinds of changes suggested here can lead to better outcomes for everyone involved in the process

raters and their reliability

for any given employee, ratings made by raters working independently of one another should agree closely; in practice, ratings made by supervisors tend to be more reliable than those made by peers; raters with different perspectives (e.g., supervisors, peers, subordinates) may see the same individual's job performance very differently, but this can actually make the feedback less useful and more problematic

Western expatriate managers are often surprised to learn that their management practices

have unintended consequences when applied in non-Western cultures (eg, we know that concepts such as individual rewards for individual performance and making explicit distinctions in performance among employees are not universally accepted- where the prevailing view is that it takes contributions from everyone to achieve continuous improvement (i.e., the concept of kaizen in Japanese enterprises), the practice of singling out one employee's contribution may actually cause that employee to "lose face" among his or her fellow work-group members-in other cultures, where nepotism is common and extended family members work together, the primary objective is to preserve working relationships, which may cause host-country managers to overlook results that more objective observers might judge to be inadequate)

several possible raters

immediate supervisor, peers, subordinates, self-appraisal, customers served

practicality

implies that appraisal instruments are easy for managers and employees to understand and use, since those that are not or that impose inordinate time demands on all parties simply are not practical, and managers will resist using them, and managers need as much encouragement and organizational support as possible if thoughtful performance management is to take place

feedback is a fairly inexpensive way to ____, but ____

improve productivity; to work effectively, programs require sustained commitment, so the challenge for managers is to establish clear goals, and then to provide feedback or "progress reports" regularly to all their employees

judge performance, not personality

in addition to the potential legal liability of dwelling on personality rather than on job performance, supervisors are far less likely to change a subordinate's personality than they are his or her job performance; maintain the problem-solving, job-related focus because evidence indicates that supervisory support enhances employees' motivation to improve; emphasizing the employee's personality, as opposed to the work to be done, is likely to lead to lower levels of future performance

relevance

in an effective appraisal system, a requirement that there be clear links between the performance standards for a particular job and the organization's goals, and clear links between the critical job elements identified through a job analysis and the dimensions to be rated on an appraisal form

assessment

in defining performance, the third requirement; regular ___ of progress toward goals focuses the attention and efforts of an employee or a team (eg, Adobe does this through quarterly "check-ins," managers at The Gap hold monthly "touch-base" sessions)

critical incidents

in job analysis, vignettes consisting of brief actual reports that illustrate particularly effective or ineffective worker behaviors; a behavior-oriented rating method consisting of such anecdotal reports

central tendency

in rating employees, a tendency to give employees an average rating on each criterion

get training in performance feedback and appraisal interviewing

includes topics unique to managers and unique to employees, as well as topics appropriate for both groups; use a problem-solving, rather than a "tell-and-sell," approach

applicant group

individuals who are eligible for and formally apply for a job; defined by the two factors of eligibility and interest

destructive criticism leads to three predictable consequences

it produces negative feelings among recipients and can initiate or intensify conflict; it reduces the preference of individuals for handling future disagreements with the giver of the feedback in a conciliatory manner (e.g., compromise, collaboration); it has negative effects on self-set goals and on feelings of self-confidence

360-degree feedback

performance assessments from above, below, and at the same level as an employee; may also include feedback from customers

critical incidents are judging

performance, not personality

ranking can be

simple or alternation

does feedback from 360-degree feedback improve subsequent job performance

a comprehensive review found that the effects of multisource feedback have been mixed at best; perhaps the biggest problem is that conflicting feedback information often generated from 360-degree rating systems can actually make the feedback less useful and even problematic, which has led many practitioners to become quite negative about these systems, even though they had been quite positive when the systems were first introduced

performance management is fundamentally

a feedback process, and research indicates that feedback may result in increases in performance varying from 10-305, although it is not uniformly effective

careful selection of employees

a final aspect of performance facilitation; the last thing any manager wants is to have people who are ill-suited to their jobs (e.g., by temperament or training) because this often leads to overstaffing, excessive labor costs, and reduced productivity; in leading companies (eg, Apple, Google) even top managers are expected to get actively involved in selecting new employees (eg, both companies typically require even experienced software developers to go through several hours of intense interviews); if you're truly committed to managing for maximum performance, you pay attention to all of the details (all of the factors that might affect performance) and leave nothing to chance; doesn't mean you're constantly looking over everyone's shoulder, it implies greater self-management, more autonomy, and lots of opportunities to experiment, take risks, and be entrepreneurial

it seems like a performance management revolution

a fundamental change in the ways that companies manage their employees and the relationships that managers have with them, but wait is this a stampede?; hardly- recent surveys of employers in more than 50 countries indicate that 90% or more still undertake formal reviews of employee performance each year, and 89% calculate an overall score for each worker and link pay to these ratings; but change is unmistakable

think of performance management as

a kind of compass that indicates a person's actual and desired direction-like a compass, the job of the manager is to indicate where that person is now, and to help focus attention and effort on the desired direction

define performance

a manager who defines performance ensures that individual employees or teams know what is expected of them and that they stay focused on effective performance; the manager does this by paying careful attention to three key elements: goals, measures, and assessment

encourage participation

a perception of ownership—a feeling by the subordinate that his or her ideas are genuinely welcomed by the manager—is related strongly to subordinates' satisfaction with the feedback interview, the fairness of the performance management system, and their motivation to improve; participation provides an opportunity for employee voice- it encourages the belief that the feedback process was fair and constructive, that some current job problems were cleared up, and that future goals were set

in short, relevance is determined by answering the question ______, and the answer to the latter is simple: ____

"what really makes the difference between success and failure on a particular job, and according to whom?; the customer, who may be internal (e.g., your immediate boss, workers in another department) or external (those who buy your company's products or services), but in all cases, it is important to pay attention to the things that the customer believes are important (e.g., on-time delivery, zero defects, information to solve business problems)

to establish objectives, the key people involved should do three things:

(1) meet to agree on the major objectives for a given period of time (because businesses no longer have clear annual cycles and it is important to engage in agile goal setting), (2) develop plans for how and when the objectives will be accomplished, and (3) agree on the measurement tools for determining whether the objectives have been met; progress reviews are held regularly until the end of the period for which the objectives were established, and at that time, those who established objectives at each level in the organization meet to evaluate the results and to agree on the objectives for the next period

many organizations now use input from managers, subordinates, peers, and customers to provide a perspective on performance from all angles (360 degrees), and there are at least four reasons such an approach is potentially valuable:

1. it includes observations from different perspectives and perhaps includes different aspects of performance that capture the complexities of an individual's performance in multiple roles; 2. feedback from multiple sources may reinforce feedback from the boss, thereby making it harder to discount the viewpoint of that single person; 3. it may improve the reliability of performance information because it originates from multiple sources and not just one; 4. it has the potential to decrease biases, since multiple perspectives and individuals are involved

there is a rich body of case law on performance reviews and multiple reviews of it reached similar conclusions- to avoid legal difficulties, consider taking the following steps:

1. conduct a job analysis to determine the characteristics necessary for successful job performance, 2. incorporate these characteristics into a rating instrument- may be done by tying rating instruments to specific job behaviors (e.g., behaviorally anchored rating scales, as described later in this chapter), but courts routinely accept less sophisticated approaches, such as simple graphic rating scales, regardless of the method used, provide written standards to all raters; 3. provide written instructions and train supervisors to use the rating instrument properly, including how to apply performance standards when making judgments- the uniform application of standards is very important, as the vast majority of cases lost by organizations have involved evidence that subjective standards were applied unevenly to members of protected groups versus all other employees, 4. establish a system to detect potentially discriminatory effects or abuses of the rating process, 5. include formal appeal mechanisms, coupled with higher-level review of ratings, 6. document the ratings and the reason for any termination decisions- this information may prove decisive in court, as long as it was not generated after the supervisor made the decision to terminate, credibility is enhanced by documented ratings that describe specific examples of poor performance based on personal knowledge, 7. provide some form of performance counseling or corrective guidance to assist poor performers

FOR training proceeds as follows:

1. participants are told that they will evaluate the performance of three ratees on three separate performance dimensions; 2. they are given rating scales and instructed to read them as the trainer reads the dimension definitions and scale anchors aloud; 3. the trainer then discusses ratee behaviors that illustrate different performance levels for each scale- goal is to create a common performance theory (frame of reference) among raters such that they will agree on the appropriate performance dimension and effectiveness level for different behaviors; 4. participants are shown a video of a practice vignette and are asked to evaluate the manager using the scales provided; 5. ratings are then written on a blackboard and discussed by the group of participants- trainer seeks to identify which behaviors participants used to decide on their assigned ratings, and to clarify any discrepancies among the ratings; 6. trainer provides feedback to participants, explaining why the ratee should receive a certain rating (target score) on a given dimension

to encourage performance, especially repeated good performance, it's important to do three more things well:

1. provide a sufficient number of rewards that employees really value, 2. in a timely fashion, and 3. in a fair manner

in terms of the amount of structure provided, graphic rating scales differ in three ways:

1. the degree to which the meaning of the response categories is defined, 2. the degree to which the individual who is interpreting the ratings (e.g., a higher-level reviewing official) can tell clearly what response was intended, 3. the degree to which the performance dimensions are defined for the rater

five more specific purposes: of performance management systems

1. they provide legal and formal organizational justification for employment decisions to promote outstanding performers, to coach or counsel low performers, to train, transfer, or discipline others, to justify pay increases (or no increases), and as one basis for reducing the size of the workforce- so it serves as a key input for administering a formal reward and punishment system; 2. they provide feedback to employees- so serve as vehicles for personal and career development; 3. they can help to identify developmental needs of employees and to establish objectives for training programs; 4. they can help diagnose organizational problems by identifying training needs and the personal characteristics to consider in hiring, and they provide a basis for distinguishing between effective and ineffective performers; 5. data regarding employee performance can serve as criteria in HR research (eg, test results can be correlated with performance ratings to evaluate the hypothesis that test scores predict job performance)

management by objectives (MBO)

a philosophy of management with a results-oriented rating method that relies on goal setting to establish objectives for the organization as a whole, for each department, for each manager, and for each employee, thus providing a measure of each employee's contribution to the success of the organization (eg, at Kraft Heinz, employees display their personal objectives on their desks, while those of top executives, including the CEO, are posted widely, and the objectives are data-driven, measurable, and linked to the goals of other employees to encourage teamwork as well as the company's values of ownership and transparency)

halo error

a rating error occurring when an appraiser rates an employee high (or low) on many aspects of job performance because the appraiser believes the employee performs well (or poorly) on some specific aspect; not as common as believed; raters who commit this error assign their ratings on the basis of global (good or bad) impressions of ratees

performance management in practice

a study by RainmakerThinking of more than 500 managers in 40 different organizations found, unfortunately, that few managers consistently provide their direct reports with what Rainmaker calls the five management basics: clear statements of what's expected of each employee, explicit and measurable goals and deadlines, detailed evaluation of each person's work, clear feedback, and rewards distributed fairly; only 10% of managers provide all five of the basics at least once a week, only 25% do so once a month, and about 1/3 fail to provide them even once a year, so clearly there is much room for improvement

the written report should contain the following elements:

a summary that integrates the main themes from the scores (assuming quantitative results are part of the process) and a detailed summary of ratings from each source- careful attention to these action steps is an integral component of performance management; another important consideration is the timing and frequency of performance appraisal

FOR training provides trainees with

a theory of performance that allows them to understand the various performance dimensions, how to match these performance dimensions to rate behaviors, how to judge the effectiveness of various ratee behaviors, and how to integrate their judgments into an overall rating of performance

smart managers enlist the

active support and cooperation of subordinates or teams by making explicit exactly what aspects of job performance they will be rated on- defining performance is the first step in performance management, and only then can we hope for acceptability and commitment

the immediate supervisor as a possible rater

among the nearly 80% of firms that conduct performance ratings, this person is the most common rater- she or he is probably most familiar with the individual's performance and, in most jobs, has had the best opportunity to observe actual job performance, and is probably best able to relate the individual's performance to what the department and organization are trying to accomplish, and to distinguish among various dimensions of performance; since she or he also is responsible for reward (and punishment) decisions, and for managing the overall performance-management process, it is not surprising that feedback from supervisors is more highly related to performance than that from any other source

behavior-oriented rating methods

an appraisal method in which employee performance is rated either by comparing the performance of employees to that of other employees or by evaluating each employee in terms of performance standards without reference to others; includes narrative essay, ranking, paired comparisons, forced distribution, behavioral checklist, critical incidents, graphic rating scales, behaviorally anchored rating scales

performance facilitation

an approach to management that emphasizes eliminating roadblocks to successful employee performance, providing adequate resources to get a job done right and on time, and paying careful attention to the selection of employees

forced distribution can foster a great deal of employee resentment if

an entire group of employees as a group is either superior or substandard- if teamwork and social support are necessary to accomplish work, such systems can foster dysfunctional competition, and in general, they are seen as less fair than absolute rating systems

subordinates as possible raters

appraisal by subordinates can be a useful input to the immediate supervisor's development, and the ratings are of significantly higher quality when used for that purpose; they know firsthand the extent to which the supervisor actually delegates, how well he or she communicates, the type of leadership style he or she is most comfortable with, and the extent to which he or she plans and organizes; longitudinal research shows that managers who met with their direct reports to discuss their upward feedback improved more than other managers, and managers improved more in years when they discussed the previous year's feedback with their direct reports than in years when they did not, which is important because it demonstrates that what managers do with upward feedback is related to its benefits

regardless of whether performance is measured at the individual level or at the individual and team levels, raters

are likely to make intentional or unintentional mistakes in assigning performance scores- good news is that raters can be trained to minimize such biases

remember that the rating format is not

as important as the relevance and acceptability of the rating system

thus far we have assumed that each source of performance information, be it the supervisor, peer, subordinate, self, or client, makes his or her judgment individually and independently from other individuals, but in practice

assessing performance is not strictly an individual task (so Salesforce.com lets people post Twitter-length questions about their performance in exchange for anonymous feedback)- 2/3 of the questions come from managers (information from outside sources may influence supervisors' ratings, and they may change their ratings, particularly when a ratee's peers provide information perceived as useful); information is perceived to be most useful when it agrees with the rater's direct observation of the employee's performance-in sum, although direct observation is the main influence on ratings, the presence of indirect information also is likely to affect them; supervisors may distort their ratings to accomplish goals that they value (e.g., motivating subordinates), or to avoid negative repercussions from assigning ratings that subordinates or superiors will find objectionable

should the performance management system be challenged in court, relevance will

be a fundamental consideration in the arguments presented by both sides

the mere presence of goals is not sufficient, managers must also

be able to measure the extent to which goals have been accomplished- goals such as "make the company successful" are too vague to be useful, measures such as the number of defective parts produced per million or the average time to respond to a customer's inquiry are much more tangible

to be most useful, the strategic management of performance must

be linked to the strategies an organization (or a strategic business unit) uses to gain competitive advantage (eg, innovation, speed, quality enhancement, cost control)- as one manager observed, "If you can't find hard measures of why something's strategically important, you let it go"

critical incidents are useful for

because they force attention onto the ways in which situations determine job behavior and on ways of doing the job successfully that may be unique to the person described, they can provide the basis for training programs; lend themselves nicely to "check-in" sessions and performance-review feedback because supervisors can focus on actual job behaviors rather than on vaguely defined traits

critical incidents focus on

behaviors, not traits- force attention onto the ways in which situations determine job behavior and on ways of doing the job successfully that may be unique to the person described

research indicates that if a rater is asked to assess an employee's performance over a 6- to 12-month period,

biased ratings may result, especially if information has been stored in the rater's memory according to irrelevant, oversimplistic, or otherwise faulty categories- unfortunately, faulty categorization seems to be the rule more often than the exception

performance management

broad process that requires managers to define, facilitate, and encourage performance by providing timely feedback and constantly focusing everyone's attention on the ultimate objectives

some key topics to address with respect to performance-management training for both managers and employees

building trust, learning strategies for communication, ongoing expectations and feedback, developing through experience

be specific and be an active listener

by being candid and specific, the supervisor offers clear feedback to the employee about his or her past actions, and she or he also demonstrates knowledge of the employee's level of performance and job duties; by being an active listener, the supervisor demonstrates genuine interest in the employee's ideas

some key topics to address with respect to performance-management training for employees

ensuring clear expectations, seeking feedback, reacting well to feedback

what does the research literature on 360-degree feedback tell us

evidence indicates that ratings from these different sources generally do not agree closely with each other- one study found that the correlations among ratings made by self, peer, supervisor, and subordinate raters ranged from a high of 0.79 (supervisor-peer) to a low of 0.14 (subordinate-self ), but evidence also indicates that ratings from the different sources are comparable, for they reflect the same underlying dimensions of performance

examples of implications for management practice

chief talent officer for Deloitte Australia remarked that when it comes to performance management, employees really just want three things: "something to believe in, someone to believe in, and someone who believes in me;" through its Project Oxygen, designed to identify and build better bosses, Google found that effective leadership is synonymous with effective performance management, and by analyzing performance reviews, feedback surveys, and nominations for managerial awards, Google identified eight habits of highly effective managers and three pitfalls that hamper success- what employees valued most were even-keeled bosses who made time for one-on-one meetings, helped them solve problems by asking questions rather than by dictating answers, and took an interest in their lives and careers, effective managers also expressed a clear vision and strategy for the team, surprisingly, the manager's ability to perform technical work ranked last among the top eight behaviors, and the three pitfalls were managers who had trouble transitioning to the team (empowering it, and not micromanaging), lack of a consistent approach to performance management and career development, and those who spent too little time managing and communicating- in short, Google discovered that bosses have a great impact on employees' performance and job attitudes, and better bosses translate into bottom-line results

evidence indicates that training raters

clearly improves the overall effectiveness of performance management, implementing a performance-management system without training all parties in how to use it as designed is a waste of time and money, and training managers, but then not holding them accountable for implementing what they have been trained on, is just as bad

forced distribution does eliminate

clustering almost all employees at the top of the distribution (rater leniency), at the bottom of the distribution (rater severity), or in the middle (central tendency)

supervisory activities before performance feedback interviews

communicate frequently with subordinates about their performance, get training in performance-appraisal interviewing, plan to use a problem-solving approach rather than "tell-and-sell," encourage subordinates to prepare for performance-feedback interviews

supervisory activities after performance feedback interviews

communicate frequently with subordinates about their performance, periodically assess progress toward goals, make organizational rewards contingent on performance

some key topics to address with respect to performance-management training for managers

communicating the big picture, diagnosing and addressing performance issues, deep-diving on feedback and coaching skills

obstacles that can inhibit maximum performance

consider just a few: outdated technology, poorly maintained equipment, lack of timely information, inefficient design of workspaces, ineffective work methods- employees are well aware of these, and they are only too willing to identify them, if managers will only ask for their input, and then it's the manager's job to eliminate these obstacles

acceptability

extent to which a performance measure is deemed to be satisfactory or adequate by those who use it; in practice, is the most important requirement of all (eg, we know that when senior managers emphasize the importance of the performance-management process—that is, when they "own" it—it is far more effective, versus when HR "owns" it, it is seen more as an administrative exercise, and evidence indicates that appraisal systems that are ___ to those who will be affected by them lead to more favorable reactions to the process, increased motivation to improve performance, and increased trust for top management)

frame-of-reference (FOR) training

form of rater training that attempts to establish a common perspective and standards among raters; of the many types of rater-training programs available today, meta-analytic evidence has demonstrated reliably that this is most effective at improving the accuracy of performance appraisals; addition of training in performance dimensions, rater errors, and observation, in combination with this improves rating accuracy even further

number of pairs of ratees to be compared may be calculated

from the formula [n(n - 1)]/2, so if 10 individuals were being compared, [10(9)]/2, or 45, comparisons would be required

only about 20% of companies are considering

giving up ratings, and fewer than that have actually done it- in reality, even when companies get rid of performance reviews, ratings still exist, employees just can't see them, but Facebook is an exception, with 87% of surveyed employees wanting to keep performance ratings

Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS)

graphic rating scales that define the dimensions to be rated in behavioral terms and use critical incidents to describe various levels of performance/anchor various points along the scale

the most fundamental requirement for any rater is that he or she

has an adequate opportunity to observe the ratee's job performance over a reasonable period of time (e.g., 6 months), which suggests several possible raters

provide adequate resources

having eliminated roadblocks to successful performance, this is the next step; includes capital resources, material resources, or human resources- if employees lack the tools to reach the challenging goals they have set, they will become frustrated and disenchanted (one observer has gone so far as to say, "it's immoral not to give people tools to meet tough goals"), and employees really appreciate it when their employer provides everything they need to perform well and usually perform well under those circumstances

set mutually agreeable goals

how does goal setting work to improve performance-studies demonstrate that goals direct attention to the specific performance in question, that they mobilize effort to accomplish higher levels of performance, and that they foster persistence for higher levels of performance; practical implications of this work are clear: set specific, challenging goals, because this clarifies for the subordinate precisely what is expected and leads to high levels of performance- we cannot change the past, but interviews that include goal setting and specific feedback can affect future job performance

there is no clear "winner, and researchers generally agree that the type of rating scale per se does not lead to better ratings," but the researchers were able to provide several "if . . . then" propositions and general conclusions, including the following:

if the objective is to compare employees across raters for important employment decisions (e.g., promotion, merit pay), then don't use MBO or work planning and review, as they are not based on a standardized rating scheme for all employees; if you use a BARS, then also use a feedback app to incorporate real-time performance assessments- multiple data points will improve the accuracy of the ratings and will help supervisors distinguish between effective and ineffective employees; if objective performance data are available, then MBO is the best strategy to use, remember, though, that how an employee or a manager achieves results is also important; in general, appraisal methods that are best in a broad, organizational sense—BARS and MBO—are the most difficult to use and maintain, no rating method is foolproof; methods that focus on describing, rather than evaluating, behavior (e.g., BARS, summed rating scales) produce results that are the most interpretable across raters- they help remove the effects of individual differences in raters; no rating method has been an unqualified success when used as a basis for merit pay or promotional decisions; when certain statistical corrections are made, the correlations between scores on alternative rating formats are very high, so all the formats measure essentially the same thing

peers as possible raters

in some jobs, such as outside sales, the immediate supervisor may observe a subordinate's actual job performance only rarely (and indirectly, through written reports), and in other environments, such as self-managed work teams, there is no supervisor; sometimes objective indicators, such as the number of units sold, can provide useful performance-related information, but in other circumstances, the judgment of peers is even better- they can provide a perspective on performance that is different from that of immediate supervisors, so a member of a cross-functional team may be in a better position to rate another team member than that team member's immediate supervisor, but to reduce potential friendship bias while simultaneously increasing the feedback value of the information provided, it is important to specify exactly what the peers are to evaluate (eg, "the quality of her help on technical problems"); even then it is important to be aware of context effects- ratings might differ, depending on the context in which the technical problems occurred—in a crisis versus a less stressful context; peer ratings can provide useful information, but in light of the potential problems associated with them, friendship bias and context effects, it is wise not to rely on them as the sole source of information about performance

customers served as raters

in some situations, the consumers of an individual's or organization's services can provide a unique perspective on job performance; examples abound: subscribers to a cable-television service, bank customers, clients of a brokerage house, and citizens of a local police- or fire-protection district; although the customers' objectives cannot be expected to correspond completely with the organization's objectives, the information that customers provide can serve as useful input for employment decisions, such as those regarding promotion, transfer, and need for training and can also be used to assess the impact of training or as a basis for self-development (eg, at GE, the customers of senior managers are interviewed formally and regularly as part of the managers' appraisal process- their evaluations are important, but at the same time they also build commitment, because customers are giving time and information to help GE)

the assessment of team performance does not imply that ____, on the contrary, _____

individual contributions should be ignored; if individual performance is not assessed and recognized, social loafing may occur, even worse, when other team members see there is a "free rider," they are likely to withdraw their effort in support of team performance, so assessing team performance, therefore, should be seen as complementary to the assessment and recognition of individual performance (as we have discussed so far) and individuals' behaviors and skills that contribute to team performance (e.g., self-management, communication, decision making, collaboration)

work or service teams

intact teams engaged on routine tasks (eg, manufacturing and service tasks)

payoff for managers who do performance management well, compared to those who do not,

is striking- they have 50% less staff turnover, 10-30% higher customer-satisfaction ratings, 40% higher ratings of employee commitment, and double the net profits- in sum, the myth that employees know how they are doing without adequate feedback from management can be an expensive fantasy

performance management has many facets: _____; so ____

it is an exercise in observation and judgment, a feedback process, an organizational intervention, an assessment process as well as an intensely emotional process, and above all, an inexact, human process; not surprisingly, there is considerable dissatisfaction with many such systems, but if implemented well, they can serve several important purposes

relationship of performance standards to job or work analysis and performance rating

job or work analysis describes work and personal requirements for a job, performance standards translate job requirements into levels of acceptable and unacceptable performance, performance rating describes the job-relevant strengths and weaknesses of an individual or team; job analysis identifies what is to be done, while performance standards specify how well work is to be done

to assess adverse impact, organizations should

keep accurate records of who is eligible for and interested in promotion (these two factors, eligibility and interest, define the applicant group)

some of the most common types of rating errors

leniency, severity, central tendency, halo, contrast, and recency errors

the type of evidence required to defend performance ratings is

linked to the purposes for which the ratings are made (eg, if a rating of past performance is to be used as a predictor of future performance (i.e., promotions), evidence must show that the ratings of past performance are, in fact, valid and that the ratings of past performance are statistically related to future performance in another job, and at the very least, this latter step should include job-analysis results indicating the extent to which the requirements of the lower- and higher-level jobs overlap)

relevance also implies the

periodic maintenance and updating of job analyses, performance standards, and rating systems

active listening

listening in which five things are done well: taking time to listen, communicating verbally and nonverbally, not interrupting or arguing, watching for verbal and nonverbal cues, and summarizing what was said and what was agreed to

leader behaviors to build trust and employee responses

make realistic commitments- willingness to follow manager lead; follow through on premises- willingness to take feedback; keep others informed- perception of fair treatment; show support and avoid blame- increased innovation and creativity; share info- higher satisfaction; protect those not present- increased effectiveness

to overcome potential problems of 360-degree feedback, decision makers need to be aware of the personal biases of raters and attempt to control their effects, to do this, consider taking the following steps:

make sure that 360-degree feedback has a single, clear purpose—development; train all raters to understand the overall process as well as how to complete forms and avoid common rating errors (eg, UPS explains the 360-degree feedback process and discusses how data will be used), but recognize that no amount of training is going to be of any help if the organizational climate is politically charged and trust is low; seek a variety of types of information about performance, and make raters accountable to upper-level review- allowing employees to nominate raters who will provide information about their performance (Goldman Sachs allows a maximum of six) increases acceptance of the results; help employees interpret and react to the ratings, perhaps with the aid of a personal coach- longitudinal research demonstrates convincingly that a key ingredient in producing positive changes in the ratee's behavior is organizational support that facilitates both the feedback and development process; link 360-degree feedback to other HR systems (e.g., training, rewards), and take the time to evaluate their effectiveness- today, many organizations administer 360-degree feedback via the Internet in order to minimize paperwork and to reduce the time involved in collecting, organizing, and summarizing the data, such "talent-management" systems allow organizations to manage data about employees in a systematic and coordinated way

advantages and disadvantages of results-oriented alternative appraisal methods

management by objectives- focuses on results and on identifying each employee's contribution to the success of the unit or organization, but is generally short-term oriented, provides few insights into employee behavior, and does not facilitate comparison across employees; work planning and review- in contrast to MBO, emphasizes process over outcomes, requires frequent supervisor/subordinate review of work plans, does not facilitate comparisons across employees

should subordinate ratings be anonymous?

managers want to know who said what, but subordinates prefer to remain anonymous to avoid retribution; to address these concerns, collect and combine the ratings in such a manner that a manager's overall rating is not distorted by an extremely divergent opinion; like peer assessments, provide only one perspective on performance, although evidence indicates that ratings provided by peers and subordinates are comparable, for they reflect the same underlying dimensions

without ratings, pay and bonus decisions

may become more nuanced, according to company leaders- though high performers can still be rewarded with annual raises and bonuses, managers can make finer distinctions among employees who fall in the middle of the spectrum; the hope is that more detailed feedback may spur middle-of-the-road employees to aim higher

regarding project teams, end-of-project outcome measures

may not benefit the team's development because the team is likely to disband once the project is over- instead, measurements taken during the project can be implemented so that corrective action can be taken if necessary before the project is over, which is what HP uses with its product-development teams

pros and cons of graphic rating scales

may not yield the depth of essays or critical incidents, but are less time consuming to develop and administer; allow results to be expressed in quantitative terms; consider more than one performance dimension; because scales are standardized, facilitate comparisons across employees; have come under frequent attack, but when compared with more sophisticated forced-choice scales, have proven just as reliable and valid and are more acceptable to raters

in reality, firms are not getting rid of performance reviews, they are

modifying them, hopefully for the better; 5 changes that are proving particularly popular: 1- companies are getting rid of "ranking and yanking," in which those with the lowest scores each year are fired, as research indicates that forced ranking does not boost productivity, cooperation with others, creativity, or personal improvement, it actually creates antagonism between managers and workers; 2. annual reviews are being replaced with more frequent ones—quarterly or even weekly; 3. there is separation between performance reviews and pay reviews; 4. some performance reviews are turning into "performance previews," focusing more on discovering and developing employees' potential than on rating their past work; 5. technology in the form of apps and tools that workers and managers can use to track worker performance on a real-time basis, often with graphs and charts, is becoming widely accepted (eg, apps from firms such as Zugata, Reflektive, BetterWorks, Small Improvements), as they create a record of feedback that is more reliable than memory months after the fact

to provide reliable data, each rater

must have an adequate opportunity to observe what the employee has done and the conditions under which he or she has done it, or unreliability may be confused with unfamiliarity

advantages and disadvantages of behavior-oriented alternative appraisal methods

narrative essay- good for individual feedback and development but difficult to make comparisons across employees; ranking and paired comparisons-good for making comparisons across employees but provides little basis for individual feedback and development; forced distribution- forces raters to make distinctions among employees but may be unfair and inaccurate if a group of employees, as a group, is either very effective or ineffective; behavioral checklist- easy to use, provides a direct link between job analysis and performance appraisal, can be numerically scored, and facilitates comparisons across employees, but the meaning of response categories may be interpreted differently by different raters; critical incidents- focuses directly on job behaviors, emphasizes what employees did that was effective or ineffective, but can be very time consuming to develop; graphic rating scales (including BARS)- easy to use, very helpful for providing feedback for individual development and facilitating comparisons across employees, but time consuming to develop, but dimensions and scale points are defined clearly, often do not define dimensions or scale points clearly

evidence indicates that ratings (i.e., judgments about performance) are

not strongly related to results- ratings depend heavily on the mental processes of the rater, and because these processes are complex, there may be errors of judgment in the ratings, and conversely, results depend heavily on conditions that may be outside the control of the individual worker, such as the availability of supplies or the contributions of others, so most measures of results provide only partial coverage of the overall domain of job performance

performance rating actually encompasses two distinct processes: ____, and managers ____

observation and judgment; must observe performance, at least a representative sample of an employee's performance, if they are to be competent to judge its effectiveness, but some managers assign performance ratings on the basis of small (perhaps unrepresentative) samples of their subordinates' work, while others assign ratings based only on the subordinate's most recent work- is this ethical, and further, is it ethical to assign performance ratings (either good or bad) that differ from what a manager knows a subordinate deserves?

formal feedback

occurs in formal sit-down meetings (infrequent), covers work conducted over time: multiple performance events and competencies, initiated led and controlled by a manager

informal feedback

occurs spontaneously whenever discussion is needed, covers a specific incident- what went right or wrong and what to do differently, relies on two-way accountability and interaction

GE old and new performance review approaches

old: employees had a formal performance review at the end of the year, managers placed staff in categories ranging from "role model" to "unsatisfactory," with raises tied to ratings and reviews, from goal setting to manager approvals, reviews could take as long as 5 months to complete; new: managers and employees check in frequently throughout the year holding a brief annual summary rather than a review, employees use a mobile app (PD@GE) to give one another feedback at any time, GE pilot-tested rating-free reviews with 30,000 employees

recording critical incidents

on a daily, or even a weekly, basis is burdensome, but employee feedback apps that incorporate real-time inputs from peers, subordinates, supervisors, and even customers make this much less of a problem today than it once was

traditionally, formal appraisals were done once, or at best twice, a year, but research has indicated that

once or twice a year is far too infrequent- unless he or she keeps a diary, considerable difficulties face a rater who is asked to remember what several employees did over the previous 6 or 12 months, which is why firms such as Adobe, GE, Cisco, Accenture, and Deloitte have shifted to more frequent "check-ins"

who tends to be most lenient in forced distribution

one study found that individuals who score high in agreeableness (trustful, sympathetic, cooperative, and polite) tend to be most lenient, while those who score high in conscientiousness (strive for excellence, high performance standards, set difficult goals) tend to be least lenient

there should be no surprises in appraisals, and

one way to ensure this is to do them frequently (eg, social-networking-style systems now let employees post Twitter-length questions, such as "How can I run meetings better?" in exchange for anonymous feedback, such "micro-feedback" enables them to get job-related developmental information as often as they want); latest generation of performance-management software goes even further (eg, Salesforce Work.com, offers real-time 360 feedback, uses drag-and-drop performance reviews, lets employees track team goals, and ties those goals to metrics and incorporates social-networking tools and rewards employees with prizes, both virtual and real); biggest change is that the annual performance review is rapidly becoming a year-round activity

team-based organizations do not necessarily

outperform organizations that are not structured around teams, but there seems to be an increased interest in organizing how work is done around teams, so given the popularity of teams, it makes sense for performance-management systems to target not only individual performance but also an individual's contribution to the performance of his or her team(s)—as well as the performance of teams as a whole

role of performance appraisal in the overall performance-management process

performance appraisal is a necessary, but far from sufficient, part of performance management; typically, appraisal is done annually, or in some firms, quarterly; but performance management requires willingness and a commitment to focus on improving performance at the level of the individual or team every day- a compass provides instantaneous, real-time information that describes the difference between one's current and desired course, and to practice sound performance management, managers must do the same thing—provide timely feedback about performance while constantly focusing everyone's attention on the ultimate objective (e.g., world-class customer service)

continue to communicate and assess progress toward goals regularly

periodic tracking of progress toward goals has three advantages: it helps keep behavior on target, it provides a better understanding of the reasons behind a given level of performance, it enhances the subordinate's commitment to perform effectively; all of this helps to improve supervisor/subordinate work relationships. Improving those work relationships, in turn, has positive effects on performance

incidents alone do not

permit comparisons across individuals or departments, a problem that graphic rating scales may overcome

if narrative essays are done well, they can ___, but ____

provide detailed feedback to subordinates regarding their performance; comparisons across individuals, groups, or departments are almost impossible because different essays touch on different aspects of each subordinate's performance, which makes it difficult to use essay information for employment decisions because subordinates are not compared objectively and ranked relative to one another

performance encouragement

provision of a sufficient amount of rewards that employees really value, in a timely, fair manner; the last area of management responsibility in a coordinated approach to performance management

in Japan, greater emphasis is placed on the

psychological and behavioral sides of performance rating than on objective outcomes, so an employee will be rated in terms of the effort he or she puts into a job- on integrity, loyalty, and cooperative spirit, and on how well he or she serves the customer; short-term results tend to be much less important than long-term personal development, the establishment and maintenance of long-term relationships with customers (i.e., behaviors), and increasing market share

a major concern in sensitivity is the

purpose of the rating- one study found that raters process identical sets of performance-appraisal information differently, depending on whether a merit pay raise, a recommendation for further development, or the retention of a probationary employee is involved, and these results highlight the conflict between ratings made for employment decisions and those made for employee development

performance standards may be either

quantitative (e.g., time, errors) or qualitative (e.g., quality of work, ability to analyze market research data or a machine malfunction)

alternation ranking

ranking method in which a rater initially lists all employees on a sheet of paper and then chooses the best employee, worst employee, second best, second worst, and so forth, alternating from the top to the bottom of the list, until all employees have been ranked

contrast error

rating error occurring when an appraiser compares several employees with one another rather than with an objective standard of performance (eg, if the first two workers are unsatisfactory and the third is average, the third worker may well be rated outstanding because, in contrast to the first two, her or his average level of job performance is magnified, and average performance could be downgraded unfairly if the first few workers are outstanding, but in either case, the average worker receives a biased rating)

recency error

rating error that occurs when an appraiser assigns a rating on the basis of the employee's most recent performance rather than on long-term performance; most likely to occur when rating is done only after a long period (eg, one manager described the dilemma as: "Many of us have trouble rating for the entire year- if one of my people has a stellar three months prior to the review . . . [I] don't want to do anything that impedes that person's momentum and progress", but if the subordinate's performance peaks 3 months prior to review every year, that suggests a different problem)

relative rating systems

rating formats that compare the performance of an employee with that of other employees

absolute rating systems

rating formats that evaluate each employee in terms of performance standards, without reference to other employees

results-oriented rating methods

rating formats that place primary emphasis on what an employee produces (eg, dollar volume of sales, the number of units produced, and the number of wins during a baseball season)-management by objectives (MBO) and work planning and review use this results-oriented approach

forced distribution

rating method in which the overall distribution of ratings is forced into a normal, or bell-shaped, curve, under the assumption that a relatively small portion of employees is truly outstanding, a relatively small portion is unsatisfactory, and all other employees fall in between; an assumption that may not affect reality

conflict between ratings made for employment decisions and those made for employee development

rating systems designed to support employment decisions demand performance information about differences between individuals, whereas systems designed to promote employee growth demand information about differences within individuals-the two different types of information are not interchangeable, which is why performance-management systems designed to meet both purposes are more complex and costly

full-spectrum leadership

rating systems that focus on results are popular, but a recent trend is to give equal weight to how the results were accomplished- objective is to ensure that behaviors used to achieve the results are consistent with the values of an organization

legally and scientifically, the key requirements of any performance-rating system are _____; in the context of ongoing operations, the key requirements are _____

relevance, sensitivity, and reliability; acceptability and practicality

simple ranking

requires only that the rater order all employees from highest to lowest, from "best" employee to "worst" employee

encourage subordinates to prepare

research conducted across a variety of organizations has yielded consistent results- subordinates who spend more time prior to performance-feedback interviews analyzing their job responsibilities and duties, problems they encounter on the job, and the quality of their performance are more likely to be satisfied with the performance-management process, more likely to be motivated to improve their performance, and more likely actually to improve

communicate frequently

research on the appraisal interview at GE indicated clearly that once-a-year performance appraisals are of questionable value and that coaching should be a day-to-day activity—particularly with poor performers or new employees; to appreciate this, consider the difference between formal and informal feedback; feedback has maximum impact when it is given as close as possible to the action; if a subordinate behaves effectively (ineffectively), tell him or her immediately, don't wait to discuss incidents in 6-9 months, and research strongly supports this view, so one study found that communication of performance feedback in an interview is most effective when the subordinate already has relatively accurate perceptions of her or his performance before the session

tie organizational rewards to performance

research results are clear-cut on this point- if subordinates see a link between the feedback they receive and employment decisions regarding issues such as merit pay and promotion, they are more likely to prepare for performance-feedback interviews, to participate actively in them, and to be satisfied with the overall performance-management system (eg, in 2019, star performers received raises of 4.6%, 70% higher than the 2.7% increase granted to those rated average); that kind of differentiation makes pay for performance meaningful

some employees may be happier without ratings, but

research suggests managers have a trickier task- a survey of 9,000 managers and employees by advisory firm CEB found that employees felt the quality of review conversations suffered because managers struggled to explain to workers how they performed in the past and to provide specific steps for improvement

performance appraisal

review of the job-relevant strengths and weaknesses of an individual or a team in an organization

it is not difficult to offer prescriptions for _____, but ____

scientifically sound, court-proof rating systems; as we have seen, implementing them requires diligent attention by organizations plus a commitment to make them work

to define performance properly, you must do three things well:

set goals, measure accomplishment, and provide regular assessments of progress; doing so will leave no doubt in the minds of your people what is expected of them, how it will be measured, and where they stand at any given point in time; there should be no surprises in the performance-management process, and regular assessments help ensure that there won't be

narrative essay

simplest type of absolute rating system, in which a rater describes in writing an employee's strengths, weaknesses, and potential, together with suggestions for improvement; assumes that a candid statement from a rater who is knowledgeable about an employee's performance is just as valid as more formal and more complicated rating methods

in practice, halo error is probably due to

situational factors or to the interaction of a rater and a situation (e.g., a supervisor who has limited opportunity to observe her subordinates because they are in the field, dealing with customers), so it's probably a better indicator of how raters process cognitive information than it is as a measure of rating validity or accuracy

provide rewards in a timely manner

soon after major accomplishments- if there is an excessive delay between effective performance and receipt of the reward, then the reward loses its potential to motivate subsequent high performance

numerous organizations (80% of U.S. corporations) are _____

structured around teams

goal setting improves performance by ____, and the practical implactions ___

studies show that goals direct attention to the specific performance in question (e.g., percentage of satisfied customers), mobilize efforts to accomplish higher levels of performance, and foster persistence for higher levels of performance; of this work are clear: set specific, challenging goals, as this clarifies precisely what is expected and leads to high levels of performance, although several important qualifications are in order: 1. more goals are not better than fewer- experts suggest setting no more than three to four goals, 2. some jobs are fluid and unpredictable, so goals must be agile-setting goals provides context, direction, meaning, and energy, 3. individual objectives do not work well when work is team based or when results depend on factors outside an employee's control- but when individual goal setting is appropriate, on average, studies show that you can expect to improve productivity 10% by using goal setting

goal setting has a proven track record of

success in improving performance in a variety of settings and cultures

project teams

teams assembled for a specific purpose and expected to disband once their task is completed; tasks are outside the core production or service of the organization and therefore less routine than those of work or service teams

virtual teams

teams that include membership not constrained by time or space and membership is not limited by organizational boundaries (i.e., they are typically geographically dispersed and stay in touch via e-collaboration technology); work is extremely nonroutine

if performance management were easy to do, more firms would do it- one of the reasons it is difficult to execute well throughout an entire organization is

that performance management demands daily, not annual, attention from every manager- it is part of a continuous process of improvement over time.

in the study of work motivation, a fairly well-established principle is ___, so a fundamental issue for managers is ___

that the things that get rewarded get done- at least one author has termed this "the greatest management principle in the world"; "What kind of behavior do I want to encourage in my subordinates?" (eg, GE, which is in the midst of a multiyear effort to remake itself into a leaner, innovation-driven company, emphasizes behaviors such as "stay lean to go fast" and "learn and adapt to win")

at a general level, the broad process of performance management requires

that you do three things well: define performance facilitate performance, and encourage performance

if a performance-appraisal system isn't sensitive,

the best employees are rated no differently from the worst employees, so the system cannot be used for any administrative purpose, it certainly will not help employees to develop, and it will undermine the motivation of both supervisors ("pointless paperwork") and subordinates

sensitivity

the capability of a performance-appraisal system to distinguish effective from ineffective performers

use of ratings assumes that _____, but ____

the human observer is reasonably objective and accurate; raters' memories are quite fallible, and raters subscribe to their own sets of likes, dislikes, and expectations about people, expectations that may or may not be valid, and these biases produce rating errors, or deviations between the true rating an employee deserves and the actual rating assigned

behavioral checklist

the rater is provided with a series of statements that describe job-related behavior, and his or her task is simply to check which of the statements, or the extent to which each statement, describes the employee-raters are not so much evaluators as reporters whose task is to describe job behavior, and descriptive ratings are likely to be more reliable than evaluative (good-bad) ratings, and they reduce the cognitive demands placed on raters

rater leniency

the tendency to rate every employee high or excellent on all criteria

rater severity

the tendency to rate every employee low on the criteria being evaluated

self-appraisal as a rater

there are several arguments to recommend wider use of self-appraisals; the opportunity to participate in the performance-appraisal process, particularly if appraisal is combined with goal setting, improves the ratee's motivation and reduces her or his defensiveness during the appraisal interview; on the other hand, self-appraisals tend to be more lenient, less variable, and more biased, and they tend to show less agreement with the judgments of others, so a study of 3,850 managers of Walgreens drugstores who were in the same store and had the same boss for two straight years found a correlation of only 0.40 between self- and boss-ratings, moreover, because U.S. employees tend to give themselves higher marks than their supervisors do (conflicting findings have been found with mainland Chinese and Taiwanese employees), self-appraisals are probably more appropriate for counseling and development than for employment decisions

BARS require considerable effort to develop, yet

there is little research evidence to support the superiority of it over other types of rating systems, nevertheless, the participative process required to develop them provides information that is useful for other organizational purposes, such as communicating clearly to employees exactly what good performance means in the context of their jobs

major advantage of BARS

they define the dimensions to be rated in behavioral terms and use critical incidents to describe various levels of performance, and so provide a common frame of reference for raters

unfortunately, the concept of performance management means something very specific, and much too narrow, to many managers

they tend to equate it with performance appraisal or rating exercise they typically do once a year to identify and discuss job-relevant strengths and weaknesses of individuals or work teams, which is a mistake; a poll of 750 HR executives revealed that 58% of them graded their own performance-management systems a C or below, and many were frustrated that managers do not have the courage to give constructive feedback to employees- only 30% of respondents agreed that employees have a sense of trust in their performance-management systems; although HR professionals often devise the systems and follow up at the end, they cannot control how effectively managers execute reviews, so there is lots of room for improvement

many regard rating methods or formats as the central issue in performance appraisal, but

this isn't the case- broader issues must also be considered, such as trust in the appraisal system, the attitudes of managers and employees, the purpose, frequency, and source of appraisal data, and rater training- viewed in this light, rating formats play only a supporting role in the overall appraisal process

graphic rating scales

those that identify, and may define, each dimension to be rated and present the rater with alternative scale points (response categories) that may or may not be defined; many different forms exist

in developing a performance-rating system, the most basic requirement is ___, which ____

to determine what you want the system to accomplish; requires a strategy for the management of performance

in general, there are two broad objectives of performance management systems:

to improve employees' work performance as they address their firms' strategic priorities and to provide information to employees and managers for use in making work-related decisions

Likert method of summed ratings

type of behavioral checklist with declarative sentences and weighted response categories; rater checks the response category that he or she thinks best describes the employee and sums the weights of the responses that were checked for each item

the existence of a policy is no guarantee that it will be implemented, or implemented effectively

we know that feedback is most effective when it is given immediately following the behavior in question, but how effective can feedback be if it is given only once a year during a performance-review interview?; we have known for decades that when managers use a problem-solving approach, subordinates express a stronger motivation to improve performance than when other approaches are used, yet evidence indicates that many organizations still use a "tell-and-sell" approach in which a manager completes a review independently, shows it to the subordinate, justifies the rating, discusses what must be done to improve performance, and then asks for the subordinate's reaction and sign-off- a compliance approach, not a developmental one- are the negative reactions of subordinates really that surprising?

there has been no mention of the validity or accuracy of raters' judgments because ____, but ____

we really do not know what "truth" is in performance appraisal; by making rating systems relevant, sensitive, and reliable (by satisfying the scientific and legal requirements for workable performance rating systems), we can assume that the resulting judgments are valid as well

depending on the complexity of the task (from routine to nonroutine) and membership configuration (from static to dynamic), we can identify three types of teams

work or service, project, and virtual

managers will need to modify the performance-management process that is familiar to them when

working with cultures other than their own- doing so shows respect and recognizes the importance of groups as well as individuals in the organization

rater training is clearly

worth the effort, and research indicates that the kind of approach advocated here is especially effective in improving the meaningfulness and usefulness of the performance-management process