Dr Sanyukta Jolly

4/21/2012

Performance management is an important concept to understand for academic study and began in late 1980s and it has been undertaken in several fields such as logistics management, marketing, human resources management and operations management to name a few. The idea of managing both individual and organizational performance is not new and the exact date when a formal method of reviewing performance was first introduced is not known.
4/21/2012 2

Koontz (1971) mentioned the role of imperial rater whose task was to evaluate the performance of official family of the Wei dynasty (AD 221-265) in China. The first formal system evolved before World War I (WWI) with the pioneering work of Fredrick Taylor with the ratings of officers in the U.S. armed services which took place in early 1950s. It began with personality based appraisals, shifting towards goal-setting and assessment of performance related abilities in 1960s. Beginning 1980 to 1990 the organizations underwent a rapid and successive change and performance appraisal became a central theme for managing people and business in general.

4/21/2012

By the end of 1990, performance management came to be seen as a core management process and a well integrated strategic tool. Broadly speaking, in the 1950-1960s the focus was on merit rating in USA and UK and known as performance appraisal. 1960s to 1970s was the period of management by objectives (MBO), critical incidents technique and use of behaviourally anchored scales (BARS), which are used extensively even now by various organizations.

4/21/2012

The word performance management was first used in 1970s but did not become a recognized process until the later half of 1980s.

The performance management literature can be traced in three major phasesfrom performance measurement to performance management from individual to collaborative performance measurement from lagging to leading performance management.
4/21/2012 5

1.

2.

3.

Performance measurement is universal.

In the work setting especially performance measurement goes beyond annual review and can be used for many purposes:
Criterion data Employee development Motivation/satisfaction Promotion Transfer Rewards Layoffs
4/21/2012 6

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Supervisors

360-Degree Appraisals
Customers

Sources for Employee Appraisals

SelfAppraisal
Peers

Subordinates
4/21/2012 7

Graphic Rating Scale

Trait Methods

Mixed Standard Scale

Forced-Choice

Essay

4/21/2012

Graphic Rating-Scale Method

A trait approach to performance appraisal whereby each employee is rated according to a scale of individual characteristics.

Mixed-Standard Scale Method

An approach to performance appraisal similar to other scale methods but based on comparison with (better than, equal to, or worse than) a standard.

4/21/2012

Graphic Rating Scale with Provision for Comments

4/21/2012

10

Example of a Mixed-Standard Scale

4/21/2012

11

Forced-Choice Method
Requires the rater to choose from statements designed to distinguish between successful and unsuccessful performance.
1. ______ a) Works hard 2. ______ a) Shows initiative 3. ______ a) Produces poor quality _____ b) Works quickly _____ b) Is responsive to customers _____ b) Lacks good work habits

Essay Method
Requires the rater to compose a statement describing employee behavior.

4/21/2012

12

Critical Incident

Behavioral Checklist

Behavioral Methods

Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS)

Behavior Observation Scale (BOS)

4/21/2012

13

Critical Incident Method

Critical incident
An unusual event that denotes superior or inferior employee performance in some part of the job The manager keeps a log or diary for each employee throughout the appraisal period and notes specific critical incidents related to how well they perform.

Behavioral Checklist Method

The rater checks statements on a list that the rater believes are characteristic of the employees performance or behavior.
4/21/2012 14

 Consists of a series of vertical scales, one for each dimension of job performance; typically developed by a committee that includes both subordinates and managers. Originally conceived by Smith & Kendall (1963) are graphic-performance rating scales with specific behavioral descriptions defining points against each scale (i.e. Behavioral anchors), which represents a dimension, factor or work function considered important for performance

4/21/2012

15

BARS Example

4/21/2012

16

 A performance appraisal that measures the frequency of observed behavior (critical incidents). Preferred over BARS for maintaining objectivity, distinguishing good performers from poor performers, providing feedback, and identifying training needs. Developed by Latham & Wexley (1977) are summated scales based on statements about desirable & undesirable work behavior.

4/21/2012

17

BOS Example

4/21/2012

18

Productivity Measures
Appraisals based on quantitative measures (e.g., sales volume) that directly link what employees accomplish to results beneficial to the organization.
Criterion contamination

Focus on short-term results

Management by Objectives (MBO)

A philosophy of management that rates performance on the basis of employee achievement of goals set by mutual agreement of employee and manager.

4/21/2012

19

The appraisal focuses on four related categories

Financial, customer, processes, and learning

Ensuring the methods success:

Translate strategy into a scorecard of clear objectives. Attach measures to each objective. Cascade scorecards to the front line. Provide performance feedback based on measures. Empower employees to make performance improvements. Reassess strategy.

4/21/2012

20

4/21/2012

21

Tool
Graphic rating scale BARS Alternation ranking

Advantages
Simple to use; provides a quantitative rating for each employee. Provides behavioral anchors. BARS is very accurate. Simple to use (but not as simple as graphic rating scales). Avoids central tendency and other problems of rating scales. End up with a predetermined number or % of people in each group. Helps specify what is right and wrong about the employees performance; forces supervisor to evaluate subordinates on an ongoing basis. Tied to jointly agreed-upon performance objectives.

Disadvantages
Standards may be unclear; halo effect, central tendency, leniency, bias can also be problems. Difficult to develop. Can cause disagreements among employees and may be unfair if all employees are, in fact, excellent. Employees appraisal results depend on your choice of cutoff points. Difficult to rate or rank employees relative to one another.

Forced distribution method Critical incident method

MBO

Time-consuming.

4/21/2012

22

Summary of Various Appraisal Methods

4/21/2012

23

Rating Error
Contrast Effect First Impression Error Halo or Horn Effect Similar-to- me Effect Central Tendency Negative & Positive Skew Attribution Bias Recency Effect Stereotyping

What does it mean?

The tendency of the rater to evaluate people in comparison with other individuals rather than against the standards for the job The tendency of a manager to make an initial positive or negative judgment of an employee and allow that first impression to color or distort later information Inappropriate generalizations from one aspect of an individuals performance to all areas of that persons performance. The tendency of individuals to rate people who resemble themselves more highly than they rate others. The inclination to rate people in the middle of the scale even when their performance clearly warrants a substantially higher or lower ratings The opposite of central tendency: the rating of all individuals as higher or lower than their performance actually warrants. The tendency to attribute performance failings to factors under the control of the individual & performance successes to external causes The tendency to minor events that have happened recently to have more influence on the rating than major events months ago The tendency to generalize across groups and ignore individual 4/21/2012 differences.
24

360 degree feedbck is also known as a multisource assessment Ward (1997) defined 360 degree feedback as the systematic collection and feedback of performance data on individul or group derived from a number of stakeholders

4/21/2012

25

Developmental purpose For appraisal For pay

4/21/2012

26

Define objectives Define recipients Decide on who will give the feedback Decide how feedback will be given Decide on areas of work and behavior on which feedback will be given Decide on the method of collecting the data Decide on data analysis and presentation Decide how the data will be used Plan the initial implementation program Analyze the outcome of the pilot scheme Plan and implement full program Monitor and evaluate

4/21/2012

27

Fit Design Skill Communication Administration

4/21/2012

28

Broader perspective Individuals know their strengths & weakneses More reliable feedback is provided New insights get highlighted Critical performance & competency requirements are clarified People given more rounded view of their performance Key development areas are identified Managers are more aware on how they impact

4/21/2012

29

People may not give frank or honest feedback People put under stress in receiving or giving feedback Lack of action following feedback Over-reliance on technology Too much bureaucracy

4/21/2012

30

When there is active support of top management When there is commitment Real determination by all to use feedback data Questionnaire items fit or reflect typical and significant aspects of behaviour Items relate to actual events Comprehensive & well delivered communication, followed by training No one is threatened by the process Questionnaire easy to complete Bureaucracy is minimized

4/21/2012

31

The problem is that not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts The origin of the Balance Scorecard can be traced back to 1990, when the research arm of KPMG sponsored a study on measuring performance in organizations.

4/21/2012

32

Is a strategic approach and a performance management system that enables the organization to translate its vision and strategy into implementation. It is a conceptual framework for translating organizations vision into a set of performance indicators distributed among four perspectives

4/21/2012

33

Financial: measures reflecting financial performance, for example number of debtors, cash flow, or ROI Customer Perspective: captures the ability of the organization to provide quality goods and services, effective delivery and overall customer satisfaction for both internal & external customers. For example, time to process a phone call, results of customer survey, number of complaints or competitive rankings.
4/21/2012 34

Business Process Perspective: provides data regarding the internal business results against measures that lead to financial success and satisfied customers. To meet organizational objectives and customer expectations, organizations must identify the key business processes at which they must excel. For example, the time spent in prospecting new customers, number of units that required rework or process cost.
4/21/2012 35

Learning & Growth Perspective: captures the ability of employees, information systems and organizational alignment to manage business and adapt to change.
In order to meet changing requirements and customer expectations, employees are being asked to take on dramatically new responsibilities that may require skills, capabilities, technologies, and organizational designs that were not available before. It measures the organizations learning curve, for example, number of employee suggestions or total hours spent on staff training.

4/21/2012

36

Clarify and update strategy Communicate strategy throughout the company Align unit and individual goals with strategy Link strategic objectives to long term targets and annual budgets Identify and align strategic initiatives Conduct periodic performance reviews to learn about and improve strategy

4/21/2012

37

Translation of strategy into measurable parameters Communication of strategy to all stakeholders Alignment of individual goals with organizations strategic objectives. Feedback of implementation results to strategic planning process Preparing the organization for a change

4/21/2012

38

Lack of well defined strategy Using only lagging measures Use of generic metrics Failure at all levels Failure to follow through completion

4/21/2012

39