Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Performance Measurement - Coggle Diagram
Performance Measurement
Performance Appraisal/Evaluation: Formal standard HR procedure of assessing worker performance in comparison to established organisational standard
Objectives:
Managing employee performance
Personnel decisions (e.g. raising salaries, etc.)
Identify training needs
Validating job selection tools (criterion validity)
Performance Management: Linking individual performance to organisational goals, done more frequently between supervisor and subordinate. Emphasis on modelling change and development of the employee
Definition of performance: Organisational objectives and strategies
Actual measurement process
Communication between supervisory and subordinate about extent to which individual behaviour fits with organisational expectations
Measurement types
Objective performance measures (hard data): Laid down facts that reflect performance
Judgemental Performance Measures (soft data): Judgements of ratings from people. But there are problems with subjectivity and bias
360-degree feedback
Others
Testing: Engage employees in work-related tasks derived from JA
Hands-on performance measurement: Requires an employee to engage in word-related tasks
Walk-through testing: Requires an employee to describe to an interviewer in detail how to complete a task of job-related behaviour
Electronic performance monitoring: Exhaustive performance data for operational jobs
Rating methods
Absolute: Standalone measurements of an individual
Narrative: Supervisor does a write-up of performance. But this is influenced by assessor's writing skill. A mum effect can influence the write-up if the content is negative
Recalling critical incidents: Supervisor thinks about critical incidents. However, there may be lapses in memory. Critical incidents may also occur too infrequently or the supervisor may not be aware of their occurrence
Graphic rating scale (GRS): Likert scale and giving ratings on quality or frequency
Less costly, similar ratee satisfaction to BOS
Behaviourally anchored rating scale (BARS):
Identify representative behaviours or critical incidents from the job
Rank behaviours incidents along the continuum
These become the anchors of a rating scale
The issue is that the behaviours described on the continuum may be very vague, or require a comparison anyway (making it more relative instead of absolute)
Not superior to other rating methods on reliability and bias
Moderate validity
Anchors are taken as overly representative
Better than GRS, bust less preferable compared to BOS and GRS
Behavioural observation scale (BOS): Each item is one behaviour or critical item and attach a frequency scale to it
Higher work goal clarity, acceptance, commitment than BARS, higher work satisfaction than GRS
Behavioural checklist: List performance statements and just check if it was exhibited. There are different weights assigned to each statement
The purpose is to make sure that the raters and users do not know what the checklist is actually measuring; this can reduce bias
Forced-choice format: Choose two out of the four statements that best describes the ratee
Relative: Comparing a person with a target group
Simple ranking: Just rank, but is crude and more feasible for a small number of people
Alternate ranking: Rank the tops and bottoms first, but middle ranking can be difficult
Pairwise comparison: Compare pairs in a "round-robin" format and rank number of wins each individual has
Number of comparisons = n(n-1)/2
Disadvantages: Time consuming for large group
Does not provide an objective standard for measuring job performance
Computer adaptive rating scales (CARS): Presents two statements that might characterise a given ratee and the rater is asked to choose the statement that is more descriptive of the individual
Forced distribution: Bell curve + banding. The issue is that performance is not always normally distributed, or has only small variations, which can make banding very difficult
Rating errors/biases
Memory retrieval failure
Selective attention
Halo effect: Overgeneralisation of one good attribute to the others
Rusty halo effect: Reverse case for bad attributes
Leniency/Severity effect: Too strict or too lenient
Central tendency effect: Rating everyone close to the average
Due to personal style, agenda, or vague banding labels
Remedies: Forced distribution, clear anchors
Recency effect: Higher weights given to recent events, exacerbated by time pressure
Remedy: Keep structure diary to record employee performance
Attribution errors
Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)
Actor-observer bias
Personal bias
Positive regard for a person heightens both halo and leniency effects
Perceived similarity and inflated ratings: Some traits are considered similar and equally rated as high or low
Others
Economic factors: Recession influence performance
Organisation politics
Manager's own performance appraisal: Manager who receive positive performance feedback rate their employees higher than those who receive negative feedback (due to possible anchoring effects)
Accountability: When raters are accountable to higher status or mixed-status audiences (e.g. big bosses), they put in more effort. Ratings are inflated when raters are accountable to low status audiences as positive ratings are easier to justify
Remedies: Taining
Administrative Training: Knowledge of different rating scales
Psychometric training: Learning about rating biases to avoid them
Frame-of-reference training: Provides clear examples of how ratings should be made
Performance feedback
Raters: Want subordinates to look good and worry about relationship with subordinate. Concerned about subordinate's future performance
Ratee: Showing willingness to work hard and improve, and may want to explain why performance is constrained
Sandwich approach: Praise-criticism-praise
DeNisi and Kluger:
Focus on the behaviour but not the person
Be selective (focus on one critical weakness rather than on all)
Focus on the way to achieve desired behaviour (positive framing)
Organisation: Between-person use (salary, promotion, etc.), within-person use (training needs, strengths identification, etc.), Systems-maintenance uses (manpower planning, etc.)
Good appraisal system:
Standardised and uniform
Well-communicated
Proved notice of deficiencies and opportunities to correct the system (employees should have the opportunity to feedback about the appraisal process)
Appeal procedures
Provide training to raters and use multiple raters
Allow checks for possible discrimination problems
Legal issues: Discrimination and equal opportunities
Performance ratings
Overall performance ratings: Influenced by task performance, OCB, and CWB
Trait ratings: E.g. Big-5. Are not measurements of actual behaviours
Task-based ratings: Indicate effectiveness of employee on tasks
