Performance Appraisal:
The Achilles Heel of Personnel?
Why evaluate the performance of
employees?
 Compensation (raises, merit pay, bonuses)
 Personnel Decisions (e.g., promotion, transfer,
dismissal)
 Training (Identify specific requirements)
 Research (e.g., assessing the worth/validity of
selection tests
Basic Performance Appraisal Process
Conduct a Job Analysis (e.g., specify tasks and
KSAs)
Develop Performance Standards (e.g., define
what is superior, acceptable, and poor job
performance)
Develop or Choose a Performance Appraisal
Approach
Job Performance Measurement
Objective
(Production) data and
Personnel Data
Subjective
(Judgmental) data
Contextual data
Production: Units
produced, sales
volume. Personnel:
Absenteeism,
tardiness, turnover,
accidents
Use of rating scales
(e.g., supervisors)
OCBs (assisting others,
loyalty, extra work/effort,
volunteering), emotional
labor, counterproductive
behaviors (CWBs; late
arrivals, sabotage,
gossiping)
Objective Appraisal Data (Limitations)
1) Production Data (e.g., sales volume, units produced)
• When observation occurs (timing), and how data is collected
• Fairness and relevancy issue
• Potential limited variability
• Limitations regarding supervisory personnel
2) Personnel Data
• Absenteeism (excused versus unexcused)
• Tardiness
• Accidents (fault issue)
Production Data Examples
Judgmental Methods
Relative Data
• Ranking
1st _____
2nd_____
3rd _____
• Pair Comparison
Employee-1 _____ versus Employee-2 _____
Employee-1 _____ versus Employee-3 _____ etc.
Both are difficult to use with a large number of subordinates
Judgmental Methods
Absolute Data
1) Narrative essays
• Unstructured (e.g., content, length)
• Affected by the writing ability of supervisors and time
availability
• Cannot validate selection devices (no numbers)
2) Simple Rating Scale (most common)
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Very
Poor
Average
Excellent
Sources of Performance Data
1)
Supervisors (most common)
• Role Conflict (e.g., judge and trainer/teacher)
• Motivation
• Time availability
• Friendship
2) Co-Workers (Peers)
Peer nominations: (Identifying those with highest and lowest KSAs)
*Peer ratings: For providing feedback
Peer rankings: For discriminating highest to lowest performance on various
dimensions
• Friendship bias
•
Leniency
•
High level of accuracy
•
Best used as a source of feedback
Effects of poor peer ratings on
subsequent task performance:
Lower perceived group performance
Lower cohesiveness
Lower satisfaction
Lower peer ratings
Sources of Information (cont)
3)
Self
• Lots of knowledge
• Leniency effect
• Good preparation for performance appraisal meeting (conducive for dialog)
4)
Subordinates
• Biases (e.g., # of subordinates, type of job, expected evaluation from
supervisor)
• Best if ratings are anonymous -- if not, leniency in ratings occur
(Antonioni, 1994)
• Can add information above and beyond other sources (Conway, et. al 2001)
5)
Clients
• Good source of feedback
• Negativity bias
• Customer ratings on the web (usage/role, accuracy, verification issues)
Technology and Client/Customer Feedback
Other examples: Amazon, eBay, Trip Advisor, iTunes
Technology and Client/Customer Feedback (cont.)
Other Examples of Internet-Based Performance Information
Amazon
Other Examples of Internet-Based Performance Information
Expedia
That's the second time I stay in this hotel. The location is fantastic and the rooms, in general are
very comfortable. The view from the top, at the breakfast place is superb. Rating: 4.0
The standard rooms are very, very small, I had only one bag and no place to put it. you could
barely turnaround in the bathrooms. I love the decor/ art deco style but a little updating is
definitely do. Rating: 2.0
Judgmental Methods
Behavioral Methods (use of critical incidents)
Behavior Observation Scales (BOS)
• Rate the frequency in which critical incidents are
performed by employees
• Sum the ratings for a total “performance” score
1) Assists others in job duties.
_____ _____ _____ _____
Never
Usually
_____
Always
2) Cleans equipment after each use.
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
Never
Usually
Always
Behavioral Expectation Scale (BES)
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) Process
1) Generate critical incidents (examples of good, average, and poor
job behaviors)
2) Place Critical Incidents into performance dimensions (e.g.,
Responsibility, Initiative, Safety, Decision-Making, Leadership)
3) Retranslation Step (do step # 2 again with a separate group of
job experts. Discard incidents where disagreement exists as to
which dimension in which they belong)
4) Calculate the mean and standard deviation of each critical
incident (discard those with a large standard deviation)
5) Place critical incidents on a vertical scale
BARS
CI
CI
CI
Decision-Making
CI
CI
CI
Leadership
CI
Communication
CI
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Compute mean and standard deviation of CIs
CI
Decision Making
CIs
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
BARS (Pros and Cons)
• Process involves various employees (increases likelihood of usage)
• Job specificity (different BARS need to be developed for each position)
• Not any better at reducing common rating scale errors (e.g., leniency,
halo)
• Time consuming
3. Problem Solving/Troubleshooting
Definition: Uses a logical, step-by step approach to identify and solve process problems
1
2
Well Below Expectations
Below
Expectations
 Fails to understand how equipment
and processes interrelate
 Does not complete checklists or
other required forms
 Is not able to identify root causes of
process deviations
 Does not consistently meet A2E
expectations
 Depends on others to solve
problems
3
Meets Expectations
4
5
Consistently Exceeds
Expectations
 Uses available resources (e.g.,
drawings, checklists, forms,
people—engineers, data
historian) to determine the root
cause of problems
 Selects and interprets data to
solve problems
 Investigates the nature of
equipment and process
malfunctions on an ongoing
basis
 Participates in A2E efforts
Outstanding
 Develops novel, safe and
effective solutions to current
problems
 Anticipates problems before they
occur and suggests solutions
 Takes ownership in problem
solving and sees it through to
completion
 Effectively leads problem solving
efforts (e.g., A2E, handles
complicated analysis requests on
one’s own)
Behavioral Examples of Rating:_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Teamwork
Definition: Strives to build and maintain a good working relationship with one’s work group; shares information with team
members; accepts ideas and opinions of others
1
Well Below Expectations
2
3
4
5
Below
Expectations
Meets Expectations
Consistently Exceeds
Expectations
Outstanding
 Does not respond to work
requests from other team
members
 Fails to share information and/or
resources with others
 Refuses to help co-workers
 Conflicts with coworkers on 'yours
not mine' work situations, or is
known to say "that's not my job“
 Frequently complains or makes
negative or derogatory remarks
about site initiatives, leadership,
and/or fellow workers
 Is slow to respond to work
requests from other team
members or management
 Considers alternative solutions
provided by team members
 Accepts and provides feedback
to others
 Shares information (e.g., trends,
status updates) and/or
resources with others when
asked
 Readily offers to help other
team members on tasks
 Works with support services and
other areas (e.g., maintenance)
to resolve shift problems in a
timely manner
 Anticipates other team
members’ needs (e.g., training,
tools, equipment, information)
 Resolves conflicts between team
members
 Supports company objectives and
volunteers for work duties within
and outside of one’s work area
 Sacrifices one’s own needs for
the need of the team
 Initiates team building activities
(e.g., organizing outside group
activities, breakfasts)
Behavioral Examples of Rating:_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
360 Degree Performance Appraisal
360 Degree Feedback – Useful technique for
evaluating managers
• Gathers judgmental information from
superiors, peers and subordinates
Common Rating Scale Errors
Leniency (positive bias)
X
_____
Very
Poor
_____
_____ _____ _____
Average
Excellent
Central Tendency (midpoint)
X
_____
Very
Poor
_____
_____ _____ _____
Average
Excellent
Both lead to a
restriction in the
range of
performance
scores
Halo Error
Observation of specific
behavior (s) (e.g., volunteers
to work overtime)
Responsibility
Commitment
Initiative
Sensitivity
Judgment
High ratings on other
performance
dimensions
Communication
Differences in Objective and Judgmental Data
Objective data
Judgmental data
r = .39
Source: Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & Mackenzie (1995)
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs)
• Not formally part of the job, but done by
a worker to assist other workers or the
organization
– Teaching new workers
– Assisting other workers
– Putting extra time and effort into work
Dimensions of OCBs
1. Helping behavior
2. Sportsmanship
3. Organizational loyalty
4. Organizational compliance
5. Individual initiative
6. Civic Virtue
7. Self-Development
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs)
What Leads to OCBs?
• Connected with organizational commitment,
perceptions of fairness, perceived support from
leaders/supervisors
• Managers are influenced by worker’s OCBs,
especially judgmental performance evaluations
(bias?)
Sample Items From The Survey of Perceived Organizational Support
(Eisenberger et al., 1986)
_____ really cares about my well-being
_____ is willing to help me if I need a special favor _____ would grant a reasonable request
for a change in my working conditions
Organizational Commitment: Sample Items From The Affective Commitment
Scale (Meyer & Allen, 1997) Other 2 types = Continuance (cost assessment) and
Normative (obligation, allegiance)
I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization
I am proud to tell others I work at my organization
Sample Perceived Distributive Justice (Price and Mueller, 1986)
“My supervisor has fairly rewarded me when I consider the responsibilities I have”.
Sample Procedural Justice (Niehoff and Moorman, 1993).
“Job decisions are made by my supervisor in an unbiased manner”.
Sample Interpersonal Justice (Colquitt, 2001)
“To what extent does your organization treat people with respect?
Sample Informational Justice
Has the supervisor been candid in his/her communication with you?
Has the supervisor communicated details in a timely manner
OCB Scale Examples
Adaptive Performance
A deliberate change in the thinking or behavior because of
anticipated or existing change in work activities or
environment
• Research on using AP for selection focused on which WRCs would predict AP:
• Problem solving (Persisting and working through details of problems)
• Learning ability (Applying lessons learned from previous experience)
• Cognitive complexity (Consider/integrate conflicting information)
• Frame Changing (Alternating between ways of attending to and
interpreting problems and solution strategies)
• Resiliency (Persisting and recovering quickly)
•
OCBs and AP will be included as parts of job performance in the near future
Dimensions of Adaptive Behaviors
Counter Productive Work Behaviors (CWBs)
Undesirable performance actions that harm the organization and often
its employees and customers
(Can occur from emotion-based processes when organizational conditions are perceived as
unpleasant or stressful; Fox & Spector, 1999). Example: Perceived justice violations:
distributive, procedural, interpersonal (interpersonal and informational)
CWBs
 Directed toward organizations (CWB-O)
 Directed toward other people (CWB-P)
• Withdrawal behaviors (e.g., absenteeism, tardiness)
• Sabotage
• Production deviance (work slow down)
• Theft
• Abuse against others
(Fox & Spector, 2003)
Table 2.4 – Counterproductive
Work Behaviors
Appropriate Characteristics
of Job Performance Measures
• Individual control over performance
• Relevancy
• Measurable
• Lack of contamination, error, biases (e.g.,
knowledge of predictor scores, self-fulfilling
prophecy)
• Variability
Performance Appraisal Training: Best Practices
1) Frequent observation of performance and feedback
(both positive and negative)
2) Recordkeeping (ongoing if possible)
3) Encourage self-assessment of employees
4) Focus on behaviors (not traits)
5) Use specific behavioral criteria and standards
6) Set goals for employees (specific and challenging ones)
7) Focus on how to observe job behaviors and provide
incentives to do so
Legally Defensible Appraisal Systems
1) Ensure that procedures for personnel decisions do not differ as a function
of the race, sex, national origin, religion, or age of those affected by such
decisions.
2) Use objective and uncontaminated data whenever they are available.
3) Provide a formal system of review or appeal to resolve disagreements
regarding appraisals.
4) Use more than one independent evaluator of performance.
5) Use a formal, standardized system for personnel decisions.
6) Ensure that evaluators have ample opportunity to observe and rate
performance if ratings must be made.
7) Avoid ratings on traits such as dependability, drive, aptitude, or attitude.
8) Provide documented performance counseling prior to performance,-based
termination decisions.
Legally Defensible Appraisal Systems (cont)
9) Communicate specific performance standards to employees.
10) Provide raters with written instructions on how to complete performance
evaluations.
11) Evaluate employees on specific work dimensions, rather than on a single overall or
global measure.
12) Require documentation in terms of specific behaviors (e.g., critical incidents) for
extreme ratings.
13) Base the content of the appraisal form on a job analysis.
14) Provide employees with an opportunity to review their appraisals (e.g., several
days
prior to formal feedback session).
15) Educate personnel decision-makers regarding laws on discrimination.
Factors Affecting Employees Acceptance of Performance Evaluations
• Asking for (and using) performance information/input from employees
• Ensure a 2-way interaction during the performance appraisal meeting
(importance of using employee self-evaluations)
• Provide a way for employees to counter or challenge the appraisal
• Sufficient detail and knowledge of employee performance by supervisors
• Consistent use of performance standards across employees
• Basing performance evaluation on actual job behaviors
Importance
of rater
training
Satisfactory
Non minority
Performance
Criterion
Minority
Unsatisfactory
Reject
Accept
Predictor Score
Equal validity, unequal criterion means
- Equal test scores; Minorities performing less well on job (over predicting performance)
- Minorities hired same as non minorities but probability of success is small. Can
reinforce existing stereotypes.
To Combine or Not to Combine Criteria?
Global criteria
3.0 GPA
Separate, multiple criteria
A
A
C
C
Is there a single, underlying dimension that “allows” combining
separate criteria?
Purposes of the data (e.g., a) for personnel decisions or b)
feedback, understanding psychological and behavioral processes