Performance Appraisal (Ppt) by p.rai87@Gmail

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Process of obtaining, analyzing, and recording information about the relative worth of an employee to the organization.

An analysis of an employee's recent successes and failures, personal strengths and weaknesses, and suitability for promotion or further training.

Judgment of an employee's performance in a job based on considerations other than productivity alone.

What the Experts Say About Performance

Appraisals

3

A PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IS:One of those special human encounters where the manager gets no sleep the night before, and the employee gets no sleep the night after.

—Thomas B. Wilson

4

STEPS IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL:

Setting goals for the appraisal system Developing criteria for successful

performance Creating metrics for evaluating performance Selecting reviewees and reviewers Considering the timing of feedback Organizing logistics for the report and

meeting Giving candid and constructive feedback Following up to ensure that the system works

AIMS

Gives employees feedback on performance. Identifies employee training needs. Documents criteria used to allocate

organizational rewards. Form a basis for personnel decisions like

salary increases, promotions, disciplinary actions, bonuses, etc.

Provides the opportunity for organizational diagnosis and development.

Facilitates communication between employee and administration.

Validate selection techniques and human resource policies to meet federal Equal Employment Opportunity requirements.

To improve performance through counseling, coaching and development.

METHODS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Traditional Methods

Paired comparison Graphic Rating scales Forced choice Description method Forced Distribution Method Checks lists

Free essay method

Critical Incidents

Group Appraisal Field Review Method Confidential Report Ranking

Modern Methods

Assessment Center Appraisal by Results or Management by Objectives Human Asset Accounting Behaviorally Anchored Rating scales 360 degree

Case Study

DARK SIDE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

A potential for unpleasant results. Can be a way of punishing. Recipients aren't the only victims of

hazardous feedback; so is the organization. Can trigger a recipient to react even more

negatively.

Getting Real About Performance Appraisals

Assumptions Reality

One appraisal process can effectively serve several functions at the same time.

Appraisal is overloaded with too many functions—often one function undercutsthe other

A one size fits all coaching structure works well for all supervisors and employees.

Supervisors have different styles of working with people, and employees have different.

Appraisal processes can objectively and reliably assess individual performance.

Evaluative processes are largely subjective—just-in-time ratings provided for a single purpose are more valid and reliable than multiuse ratings.

Ratings are motivating and let people know where they stand. Ratings typically don’t provide information truly reflective of employees’ status— ratings demoralize because nearly everyone expects to be rated highly and have his or her efforts appreciated.

Feedback, development and performance improvement are annual events.

Feedback and improvement opportunities are available all the time, not once a year.

People withhold effort if special incentives are not dangled in front of them.

People are intrinsically motivated to perform well when the work is meaningful.

Inspecting individuals improves individual and organizational performance.

Improving systems and processes improves the performance—improvement results from identifying the cause of poor performance and planning specific steps for improvement.

Appraisals are required by law or are necessary to assure legal documentation

With a few exceptions, the law does not require appraisals. Appraisal evidence tends to help employees in legal actions at least as much as it helps the employer. Just-in-time, written counseling provides more reliable performance.

CONFRONTING POLITICS IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Managers often use the rating process to help them get results they need.

Accurate performance ratings might conceivably interfere with managers' desires to protect their people, encourage employee loyalty, minimize conflict, and create the "wiggle room" they need to achieve effectiveness through their employees.

Exploring the Politics of Appraisal

What are the primary reasons a manager might intentionally increase or decrease a subordinate's performance rating(s)?

What are the potential problems associated with giving an employee a less than candid, accurate, or honest rating?

What are the primary reasons a manager might

intentionally increase or decrease a subordinate's performance rating(s)?

The rating behaviors can be categorized as follows: Conflict Avoiders -- Managers who inflate employee

ratings if they believe accurate ratings will cause unwanted conflict or confrontation with an employee.

Manipulators -- Managers who inflate or deflate ratings either to try to influence employee behavior, loyalty and/or performance, or to influence employee pay-raise decisions.

CYA Raters -- Managers who are cautious about employee ratings because they constitute a long-term record with legal implications that is accessible to review by others. Also includes managers who give lenient ratings be cause they are unsure of an employee's actual performance.

Go-With-The-Flow Raters - Managers who carefully assess an organization's current rating climate and adjust employee ratings accordingly.

(Bad year -> lower ratings; Good year -> higher ratings)

Feeling Types -- Managers who intentionally rate employees higher or lower on the basis of personal liking and disliking.

PR Types - Managers who consciously use the performance ratings to make themselves or their employees look good.

Godfathers - Managers who use the rating process to protect valued employees who are struggling for various reasons. Inflated ratings provide cover.

What are the potential problems associated with giving an employee a less than candid, accurate,

or honest rating?Political ratings negatively affect employees in a number

of significant ways. They tend to reward the wrong behaviors. They discourage high performers. They raise everyone's expectations for higher ratings.

Undermine employee development. Create an organizational culture based on the exchange

of favors instead of performance. Breeds widespread cynicism not only in the appraisal

system but the organization more generally. Subordinate performance ultimately declines as a result

of politics.

AN APPRAISER MUST:

BE AWARE OF THE OBJECTIVES & REQUIREMENTS OF THE EMPLOYEE’S JOB.

HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FREQUENTLY OBSERVE THE EMPLOYEE OR HIS/HER WORK.

BE CAPABLE OF EVALUATING AND RECORDING OBSERVED WORK BEHAVIOR OR PERFORMANCE.

AVOID OR MINIMIZE POTENTIAL APPRAISAL ERRORS AND BIAS.

PROBLEMS IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Appraiser discomfort Lack of objectivity

Halo/horn error Leniency/strictness Central tendency

Recent behavior bias Personal bias

Manipulating the evaluation Employee anxiety

APPRAISER DISCOMFORTPerformance appraisal process cuts into manager’s time

Experience can be unpleasant when employee has not performed well

LACK OF OBJECTIVITY In rating scales method, commonly used

factors such as attitude, appearance, and personality are difficult to measure

Factors may have little to do with employee’s job performance

Employee appraisal based primarily on personal characteristics may place evaluator and company in untenable positions

HALO/HORN ERROR Halo error - Occurs when manager

generalizes one positive performance feature or incident to all aspects of employee performance resulting in higher rating

Horn error - Evaluation error occurs when manager generalizes one negative performance feature or incident to all aspects of employee performance resulting in lower rating

LENIENCY/STRICTNESS

Leniency - Giving undeserved high ratings

Strictness - Being unduly critical of employee’s work performance

Worst situation is when firm has both lenient and strict managers and does nothing to level inequities

CENTRAL TENDENCY Error occurs when employees are incorrectly

rated near average or middle of scale May be encouraged by some rating scale

systems requiring evaluator to justify in writing extremely high or extremely low ratings

RECENT BEHAVIOR BIAS Employee’s behavior often improves and

productivity tends to rise several days or weeks before scheduled evaluation

Only natural for rater to remember recent behavior more clearly than actions from more distant past

Maintaining records of performance

PERSONAL BIAS (STEREOTYPING) Managers allow individual differences such as

gender, race or age to affect ratings they give

Effects of cultural bias, or stereotyping, can influence appraisals

Other factors – Example: mild-mannered employees may be appraised more harshly simply because they do not seriously object to results

MANIPULATING THE EVALUATION Sometimes, managers control virtually every

aspect of appraisal process and are in position to manipulate system

Example: Want to give pay raise to certain employee. Supervisor may give employee a undeserved high performance evaluation

EMPLOYEE ANXIETY Evaluation process may

create anxiety for appraised employee

Opportunities for promotion, better work assignments, and increased compensation may hinge on results

SPILLOVER EFFECT

Past performance appraisal ratings influence current ratings.

Past ratings, good or bad, result in similar rating for the current period although the demonstrated behavior does not deserve the rating good or bad.

STATUS EFFECT

It refers to overrating of employees in higher- level jobs or jobs held in high esteem, and underrating employees in lower level job or jobs held in low esteem.

STEREOTYPING

Stereo typing is a standard mental picture that a rater holds about a subordinate because of that person’s sex, caste, age, physical characteristics or place of origin, etc.

Stereo typing results in an oversimplified view of the individual and may blur the rater’s assessment of the person’s performance on the job.

SAME AS ME

Giving the subordinate a rating higher than deserved because the person has qualities or characteristics similar to those of rater (or similar to those held in high esteem)

DIFFERENT FROM ME

Giving the subordinate a rating lower than deserved because the person has qualities or characteristics different from the rater (or similar to those held in low esteem)

REASONS FOR INTENTIONALLY INFLATING RATINGS

Believe accurate ratings would damage subordinate’s motivation and performance.

Improve employee’s eligibility for merit raises.

Avoid creating negative permanent record that might haunt employee in future.

Protect good workers whose performance suffered because of personal problems.

Reward employees displaying great effort even when results were relatively low.

Avoid confrontation with hard-to-manage employees.

Promote a poor or disliked employee up and out of department.

REASONS FOR INTENTIONALLY LOWERING RATINGS

Scare better performance out of employee.

Punish difficult or rebellious employee.Encourage problem employee to quit.Create strong record to justify planned

firing.Minimize amount of merit increase a

subordinate receives.Comply with organizational edict that

discourages managers from giving high ratings.

RATEE’S CONCERNS

Non-performance-related influences

Rater will be unfair and subjective due to considerations other than job-related aspects like sex, race, state of origin, age, religion, old association or even on physical or psychological makeup.

The average issue

An “average” rating is perceived as “mediocre”, or less than acceptable for promotions and good assignments. This in turn, means that raters are faced with an emotional problem when rating their subordinates’ as “average” and then with a mathematical incongruency when rating the majority of their subordinates as “above average”.

Exploitation by rater

A superior could exploit a subordinate in many ways with promises or indications of higher ratings.

Some other rate concerns

These concerns could be due to many unanswered questions in the minds of rates regarding his superior. These are:

Will my superior be fair? Does he fully know the requirements and constraints

in my job? Will he recall all my achievements or will he

remember only my shortcomings and failures? Does he know me sufficiently? What does he expect from me? What are his standards?

Negative outcomes of ineffective

performance appraisal

When an organization does not do an effective job of appraising managerial performance a host of negative outcomes can occur at both

Individual level

Organizational level.

At individual level ineffective appraisals can cause:

Ineffective performance planning and goal setting;

Managers to be demotivated and frustrated;Added tension in the working relationship with a superior;

A loss of confidence on the part of the subordinate manager;

Management performance improvement to be stifled; and

Subordinate managers to develop a “second- guessing mentality” in trying to anticipate

What they think their superiors really want from them (which breeds paranoia in the long run).

At organizational level ineffective appraisals can cause :

Breeds cynicism and low morale among managers;

Cause managers to lose focus on both the goals they are pursuing and the means they are employing;

Cause pay for performance system to breakdown;

Set a poor example for the rest of the organization;

Damage the development of managerial talent;

Cause human resource departments to lose credibility.

Salient problems in performance appraisal in INDIA

Inadequacy of quantifiable and measurable criterion. Assumption that one psychological configuration makes the

best executive. Relation between traits assessed and performance doubtful. Appraisers have no or little responsibility for development of

subordinates. Inadequate formal training to appraisers in appraising. Reporting officer’s ability to judge subordinates is taken for

granted. Attributes for appraisal generally too many. Credibility of system often suspect. Appraisal forms lengthy and time consuming. Performance counseling is poor. Involvement of ratees is minimal. Scarcity of job opportunities and unemployment leads to

abuse of system. Difficulties connected with negative appraisal are too many. Majority ask for an open system-yet mentally neither prepared

nor trained for it.