Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
What steps can I, as a manager, take to make the performance management process
more relevant and more acceptable to those who will be affected by it?
How can we best fit our approach to performance management with the strategic
direction of our department and business?
Should managers and nonmanagers be appraised from multiple perspectivesfor
example, by those above, by those below, by coequals, and by customers?
What strategy should we use to train raters at all levels in the mechanics of
performance management and in the art of giving feedback?
What would an effective performance management process look like?
MANAGING FOR MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE
9-1
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.
A manager does this by paying attention to three key elements:
Goals
Measures
Assessment
Setting a goal:
Directs attention to the specific performance in question
Mobilizes efforts to accomplish higher levels of performance
Fosters persistence for higher levels of performance.
Specific and challenging goals clarify precisely what is expected and leads to high
levels of performance.
On average, productivity improves by 10 percent when goal setting is used.
The mere presence of goals is not sufficient. Managers must also be able to measure
the extent to which goals have been accomplished.
In defining performance, the third requirement is assessment.
Regular assessment of progress toward goals focuses the attention and efforts of
an employee or a team.
There should be no surprises in the performance management processand regular
appraisals help ensure that there wont be.
Facilitate Performance
Managers who are committed to managing for maximum performance have three
major responsibilities:
Eliminate roadblocks to successful performance.
Roadblocks can include:
Outdated or poorly maintained equipment
Delays in receiving supplies
Inefficient design of work spaces
Inefficient work methods
Provide adequate resources to get a job done right and on time; capital resources,
material resources, or human resources.
A final aspect of performance facilitation is the careful selection of employees.
Having people who are ill suited to their jobs (e.g., by temperament or
training) often leads to overstaffing, excessive labor costs, and reduced
productivity.
In leading companies, even top managers often get involved in selecting new
employees
If youre truly committed to managing for maximum performance, you pay attention
to all of the factors that might affect performance, and leave nothing to chance.
9-2
Encourage Performance
A 2004 study by Rainmaker Thinking of more than 500 managers found that few of
them consistently provide their direct reports with the five management basics:
Clear statements of whats expected of each employee
Explicit and measurable goals and deadlines
Detailed evaluation of each persons work
Clear feedback
Rewards distributed fairly
Legally and scientifically, the key requirements of any appraisal system are:
Relevance
9-3
Sensitivity
Reliability
Relevance
Job analysis identifies what is to be done. Performance standards specify how well
work is to be done.
Such standards may be quantitative or qualitative.
Relevance also implies the periodic maintenance and updating of job analyses,
performance standards, and appraisal systems.
Sensitivity
9-4
Reliability
By making appraisal systems relevant, sensitive, and reliable, we can assume that the
resulting judgments are valid.
Acceptability
HR programs must have the support of those who will use them.
Evidence indicates that appraisal systems that are acceptable 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.
Smart managers enlist the active support and cooperation of subordinates or teams by
making explicit exactly what aspects of job performance they will be evaluated on.
Practicality
Practicality implies that appraisal instruments are easy for managers and employees
to understand and use.
Those that are not easy, or that impose inordinate time demands, are not practical;
managers will resist using them.
The crucial question to be answered in regard to each appraisal system is whether its
use results in fewer (and less costly) human, social, and organizational errors.
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
9-5
The type of evidence required to defend performance ratings is linked to the purposes
for which the ratings are made.
Many regard rating methods or formats as the central issue in performance appraisal.
However, 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
Rater training
9-6
Paired Comparisons
Each employee is compared with every other employee, usually in terms of an overall
category such as present value to the organization. The raters task is simply to
choose the better of each pair, and each employees rank is determined by counting
the number of times he/she was rated superior.
Methods that compare employees to one another are useful for generating initial
rankings for purposes of employment decisions.
Forced Distribution
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 everybody else falls in between.
Forced distribution eliminates 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).
It is most useful when a large number of employees must be rated and there is more
than one rater.
Behavioral Checklist
The rater is provided with a series of statements that describe job-related behavior.
His/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.
Descriptive ratings are likely to be more reliable than evaluative (good-bad) ratings.
9-7
The overall numerical rating (or score) for each employee is the sum of the
weights of the responses that were checked for each item.
Critical Incidents
Supervisors may find that recording incidents for their subordinates on a daily or even
a weekly basis is burdensome.
In terms of the amount of structure provided, the scales differ in three ways:
The degree to which the meaning of the response categories is defined.
The degree to which the individual who is interpreting the ratings can tell clearly
what response was intended.
The degree to which the performance dimensions are defined for the rater.
Graphic rating scales may not yield the depth of essays or critical incidents, but they:
Are less time-consuming to develop and administer.
Allow results to be expressed in quantitative terms
Consider more than one performance dimension
Facilitate comparisons across employees.
A variation of the simple graphic rating scale is behaviorally anchored rating scales
(BARS).
The major advantage of BARS is that they define the dimensions to be rated in
behavioral terms and use critical incidents to describe various levels of performance.
9-8
BARS require considerable effort to develop, yet there is little research evidence to
support the superiority of BARS over other types of rating systems.
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.
Work planning and review is similar to MBO; however, it places greater emphasis
on the periodic review of work plans by both supervisor and subordinate in order to
identify goals attained, problems encountered, and the need for training.
The rating format is not as important as the relevance and acceptability of the rating
system.
An extensive review of the research literature that relates the various rating methods
to indicators of performance appraisal effectiveness found no clear winner.
9-9
If objective performance data are available, MBO is the best strategy to use.
In general, the appraisal methods that are best in a broad, organizational sense
BARS and MBOare the most difficult to use and maintain.
Methods that focus on describing, rather than evaluating, behavior (e.g., BARS,
summed rating scales) produce results that are the most interpretable across raters
and 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. Hence all the formats measure essentially
the same thing.
WHO SHOULD EVALUATE PERFORMANCE?
The most fundamental requirement for any rater is that he/she has an adequate
opportunity to observe the ratees job performance over a reasonable period of time.
The Immediate Supervisor
He/she is probably most familiar with the individuals performance and, in most jobs,
has had the best opportunity to observe actual job performance.
Is probably the person best able to relate the individuals performance to what the
department and organization are trying to accomplish.
Because he/she also is responsible for reward (and punishment) decisions, and for
managing the overall performance management process, feedback from supervisors is
more highly related to performance than that from any other source.
Peers
In some jobs, the immediate supervisor may observe a subordinates actual job
performance only rarely. In other environments, such as self-managed work teams,
there is no supervisor.
To reduce potential friendship bias while increasing the feedback value of the
information provided, it is important to specify exactly what the peers are to evaluate.
In light of the potential problems associated with peer appraisals, it is wise not to rely
on them as the sole source of information about performance.
Subordinates
9-10
Subordinates know firsthand the extent to which the supervisor actually delegates,
how well he/she communicates, the type of leadership style he/she is most
comfortable with, and the extent to which he/she plans and organizes.
Managers who met with their direct reports to discuss their upward feedback
improved more than other managers.
Many organizations now use input from managers, subordinates, peers, and
customers to provide a perspective on performance from all angles (360 degrees).
There are at least four reasons why such an approach is potentially valuable:
It includes observations from different perspectives, and perhaps includes
different aspects of performance that capture the complexities of an individuals
performance in multiple roles.
Feedback from multiple sources may reinforce feedback from the boss, thereby
making it harder to discount the viewpoint of that single person.
Discrepancies between self-ratings and those received from others may create an
awareness of ones needs for development, and motivate individuals to improve
their performance in order to reduce or eliminate such discrepancies.
At least some senior managers believe that if they can improve leadership among
their organizations leaders, ultimately that will benefit the bottom line.
Research shows that the practice of annual or semi-annual appraisals are far too
infrequent.
This is why some firms add frequent, informal progress reviews between the
annual ones.
9-11
There should be no surprises in appraisals, and one way to ensure this is to do them
frequently.
Feedback has maximum impact when it is given as close as possible to the action.
Focus on managerial characteristics that are difficult to rate and on characteristics that
people think are easy to rate but which generally result in disagreements.
9-12
It encourages the belief that the interview was fair, that it was a constructive activity,
that some current job problems were cleared up, and that future goals were set.
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 subordinates personality than
they are performance.
Specific feedback and active listening are essential to subordinates perceptions of the
fairness and accuracy of the process.
9-13
Set specific, challenging goals, for this clarifies for the subordinate precisely what is
expected and leads to high levels of performance.
Continue to Communicate, and Assess Progress toward Goals Regularly
If subordinates see a link between appraisal results and employment decisions, 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.
CHALLENGING QUESTIONS
What would an effective performance management system look like?
An effective system for one organization will not look like that of another. The key
is in the development of the system. Employees and supervisors should be involved to
as great an extent as possible in the development of the system. Managers should
receive initial training on the rationale and importance of the system, and on how to
conduct appraisal interviews. Such training should involve filmed models of effective
9-14
and ineffective appraisal interviews, and an opportunity for role-play practice and
reinforcement. It is a good idea to start any change effortsuch as implementation of
new performance management system--at the top of the organization and in
departments that are most receptive to the idea. The early successes can generate
momentum for the program. It is important to recognize that changes in appraisal
systems signal major changes in the way of doing business, and therefore should be
handled similarly to large-scale organization development projects.
Whatever the final form of the performance management system, it should be legally
defensible.
What is the difference between performance management and performance appraisal?
A performance appraisal is generally done once or twice a year and is used to identify
and discuss job-relevant strengths and weaknesses of individuals and teams.
Performance management is used on a more frequent basis to help individuals and
teams determine where they are now and in what direction they should be headed.
You have been asked to design a rater-training program. What types of elements would
you build into the process?
The rater training program would be designed to help raters understand: (a) the
philosophy and uses for the system, (b) the system itself, (c) the roles and
responsibilities of the employees and raters, (d) common rating errors, (e) the
importance of providing ongoing feedback, (f) how to give feedback in a way that
minimizes defensiveness, and (g) how to identify and address training and
development needs. Further, raters should understand the legal issues surrounding the
evaluation process.
How is performance appraisal for teams different from performance appraisal for
individuals?
Individual performance appraisals focus on how well the individual performed and
how this performance contributed to the success of the team.
Performance evaluations for teams focus on the performance of the team as a whole
and how well the team contributed to the success of the organization.
How can we overcome employee defensiveness in performance feedback interviews?
Given the intensely emotional nature of such interviews, it is unlikely that
defensiveness can be totally eliminated. However, defensiveness may be reduced by
following the steps suggested in the text:
(a) communicate performance feedback regularly so that there are no surprises
come appraisal time;
9-15
9-16