Chapter 5

Measuring Results
and
Behaviors

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-1

 Key Questions

Where should each individual focus

efforts?
What are the expected objectives?
How do we know how well the
results were achieved?

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-2

Measuring Results: Overview

Accountabilities
Objectives
Performance Standards

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-3

 Accountabilities

Broad areas of a job for which

an employee is responsible for
producing results

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-4

 Objectives

Statements of important and

measurable outcomes

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-5

 Performance Standards

Yardstick used to evaluate how

well employees have achieved
objectives

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-6

Determining Accountabilities

Collect information about the job (Job

Description)
Determine importance of task or
cluster of tasks
Percentage of employees time spent
performing tasks
Impact on the units mission if
performed inadequately
Consequences of error
Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-7
 Determining Objectives

Purpose: to identify outcomes

Limited number
Highly important

When achieved
Dramatic impact on overall
organization success

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-8

Ten Characteristics of Good
Objectives
1. Specific and Clear
2. Challenging
3. Agreed Upon
4. Significant
5. Prioritized
Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-9
Ten Characteristics of Good
Objectives (Continued)
6. Bound by Time
7. Achievable
8. Fully Communicated
9. Flexible
10. Limited in Number
Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-10
 Determining Performance
Standards
Standards refer to aspects of
performance objectives, such as:
Quality
How well the objective is achieved
Quantity
How much, how many, how often, and at
what cost?
Time
Due dates, schedule, cycle times, and how
quickly?
Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-11
 Standards Must Include

A verb
The desired result
A due date
Some type of indicator
Quality or
Quantity

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-12

Good Performance Standards:
Six Characteristics
1. Related to the Position
2. Concrete, Specific, and Measurable
3. Practical to Measure
4. Meaningful
5. Realistic and Achievable
6. Reviewed Regularly
Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-13
Measuring Behaviors: Overview

Identify competencies
Identify indicators
Choose measurement system

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-14

 Identify Competencies

Measurable clusters of KSAs

Knowledge
Skills
Abilities

That are critical in determining how

results will be achieved

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-15

 Types of Competencies

Differentiating
Distinguish between superior and
average performance
Threshold
Needed to perform to minimum
standard

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-16

 Identify Indicators

Observable behaviors
Used to measure the extent to
which competencies are present or
not

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-17

 Necessary Components for
Describing Competencies
Definition
Description of specific behaviors
When competency is demonstrated
When competency is not demonstrated

Suggestions for developing the

competency
Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-18
Choose a Measurement System

Comparative system
Compares employees with one another

Absolute system
Compares employees with prespecified
performance standards

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-19

Advantages of Comparative
Systems
Easy to explain
Straightforward
Identifies top as well as underperformers
Better control for biases and errors found in
absolute systems
Leniency
Severity
Central tendency
Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-20
Disadvantages of Comparative
Systems
Rankings may not be specific enough for:
Useful feedback
Protection from legal challenge

No information on relative distance

between employees
Specific issues with forced distribution
method

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-21

 Comparative Systems

Simple rank order

Alternation rank order
Paired comparisons
Relative percentile
Forced distribution

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-22

 Simple Rank Order

Advantages:
Simple and easy to do
Results are clear
Disadvantages:
Judges performance based on one
dimension only
May be difficult to rank similar performance
levels

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-23

 Alternation Rank Order
Advantages:
Simple and easy to do
Results are clear
Uses two anchors (best and worst)
Disadvantages:
Judges performance based on one dimension
only
May be difficult to rank similar performance
levels
Does not specify threshold for acceptable
performance
Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-24
 Paired Comparisons
Advantages:
Thorough
Final rankings are more accurate
Disadvantages:
Very time consuming
May encounter problem of comparing
apples and oranges

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-25

 Relative Percentile
Advantages:
Simple and easy to use
Evaluates specific competencies or overall
performance
Disadvantages:
May be difficult to consider all ratees at the
same time
Time consuming if using several scales for
different competencies

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-26

 Forced Distribution
Advantages:
Categorizes employees into specific
performance groups
Facilitates reward assessment
Competition may be good for organizational
performance
Disadvantages:
Assumes performance scores are normally
distributed
May discourage contextual performance and
teamwork
Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-27
 Absolute Systems

Essays
Behavior checklists
Critical incidents
Graphic rating scales

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-28

Advantages and Disadvantages of
Absolute Systems
Advantages:
Can be used in large and small organizations
Evaluations more widely accepted by
employees
Disadvantages:
Higher risk of leniency, severity, and central
tendency biases
Generally, more time consuming than
comparative systems

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-29

 Behavior Checklists
Advantages:
Easy to use and understand
Provides quantitative information
Widespread use
More objective than other systems
Disadvantages:
May feel impersonal and disconnected
Scale points used are often arbitrary
Difficult to get detailed and useful feedback
Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-30
 Essays
Advantages:
Simplest absolute method
Individualized for each employee
Can be done anytime
Potential for detailed feedback

Disadvantages:
Unstructured and may lack detail
Depends on supervisors writing skill
Comparisons virtually impossible
Lack of quantitative information; difficult to use in
personnel decisions

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-31

 Critical Incidents
Advantages:
Focus on actual job behavior
Provides specific examples
Employees identify with rating
Disadvantages:
Collecting critical incidents can be very time
consuming
Quantification is difficult

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-32

 Graphic Rating Scales
Advantages:
Meanings, interpretations, and dimensions
being rated are clear
Useful and accurate
Most popular tool
Disadvantages:
Time consuming and resource-laden to
develop
Lacks individualized feedback and
recommendations
Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-33
 Graphic Rating Scales:
BARS Improvement
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales
(BARS)
Uses critical incidents as anchors
Involves multiple groups of employees in
development
Identify important job elements
Describe critical incidents at various levels of
performance
Check for inter-rater reliability
Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-34
 Measuring Performance

Several types of methods

Differ in terms of:
Practicality (time and effort)
Usefulness (quantifiable)

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-35

 Quick Review
Measuring Results
Identify accountabilities
Set objectives
Determine standards of performance
Measuring Behaviors
Identify competencies
Identify indicators
Choose measurement system
Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-36
 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior
written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United
States of America.

Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc.

publishing as Prentice Hall
Copyright 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 5-37