29
Prentice Hall, Inc. Herman Aguinis, University of Colo at Denver Implementing a Performance Implementing a Performance Management System: Management System: Overview Overview • Preparation • Communication Plan • Appeals Process • Training Programs • Pilot Testing • Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Implementing a Performance Implementing a Performance Management System: OverviewManagement System: Overview

• Preparation• Communication Plan• Appeals Process• Training Programs• Pilot Testing• Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation

Page 2: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

PreparationPreparation

• Need to gain system buy-in through:– Communication plan regarding

Performance Management system• Including appeals process

– Training programs for raters– Pilot testing system

• Ongoing monitoring and evaluation

Page 3: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Communication Plan answers:Communication Plan answers:

• What is Performance Management (PM)?• How does PM fit in our strategy?• What’s in it for me?• How does it work?• What are our roles and responsibilities?• How does PM relate to other initiatives?

Page 4: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Cognitive Biases that affect Cognitive Biases that affect communications effectiveness communications effectiveness

• Selective exposure• Selective perception• Selective retention

Page 5: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

To minimize effects of cognitive biases:To minimize effects of cognitive biases:

A. Consider employees:• Involve employees in system design• Show how employee needs are met

Page 6: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

To minimize effects of cognitive biases:To minimize effects of cognitive biases:

B. Emphasize the positive• Use credible communicators• Strike first – create positive attitude• Provide facts and conclusions

Page 7: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

To minimize effects of cognitive biases:To minimize effects of cognitive biases:

C. Repeat, document, be consistent• Put it in writing• Use multiple channels of communication• Say it, and then – say it again

Page 8: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Appeals ProcessAppeals Process

• Promote Employee buy-in to PM system– Amicable/Non-retaliatory – Resolution of disagreements

Page 9: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Appeals ProcessAppeals Process

• Employees can question two types of issue:– Judgmental

• (validity of evaluation)

– Administrative• (whether policies and procedures were followed)

Page 10: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Appeals ProcessAppeals Process

• Level 1– HR reviews facts, policies, procedures– HR reports to supervisor/employee– HR attempts to negotiate settlement

• Level 2– Arbitrator (panel of peers and managers) and/or– High-level manager – final decision

Page 11: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Rater Training ProgramsRater Training Programs

• Content Areas to include– Information– Identifying, Observing, Recording, Evaluating– How to Interact with Employees

• Choices of Training Programs to implement– RET– FOR– BO– SL

Page 12: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

ContentContent

A. Information - how the system works– Reasons for implementing the

performance management system– Information

• the appraisal form• system mechanics

Page 13: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

ContentContent

B. Identifying, observing, recording, and evaluating performance– How to identify and rank job activities– How to observe, record, and measure

performance– How to minimize rating errors

Page 14: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

ContentContent

C. How to interact with employees when they receive performance information– How to conduct an appraisal interview– How to train, counsel, and coach

Page 15: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Choices of Training ProgramsChoices of Training Programs

• Rater Error Training (RET)• Frame of Reference Training (FOR)• Behavioral Observation Training (BO)• Self-leadership Training (SL)

Page 16: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Rater Error Training (RET)Rater Error Training (RET)

• Goals of Rater Error Training (RET)– Make raters aware of types of rating errors– Help raters minimize errors– Increase rating accuracy

Page 17: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Intentional rating errorsIntentional rating errors

• Leniency (inflation)• Severity (deflation)• Central tendency

Page 18: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Unintentional rating errorsUnintentional rating errors

• Similar to Me• Halo• Primacy • First impression• Contrast

• Stereotype• Negativity• Recency• Spillover

Page 19: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Possible Solutions for Types of Rating ErrorsPossible Solutions for Types of Rating Errors

• Intentional– Focus on motivation– Demonstrate benefits of providing accurate

ratings• Unintentional

– Alert raters to different errors and their causes

Page 20: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Frame of Reference Training (FOR)Frame of Reference Training (FOR)

• Goal of Frame of Reference Training (FOR)*– Raters develop common frame of reference

• Observing performance• Evaluating performance

*Most appropriate when PM appraisal system focuses on behaviors

Page 21: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Expected Results of Frame of Reference Training (FOR) Expected Results of Frame of Reference Training (FOR)

• Raters provide consistent, more accurate ratings

• Raters help employees design effective development plans

Page 22: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Behavioral Observation Training (BO)Behavioral Observation Training (BO)

• Goals of Behavioral Observation Training (BO)– Minimize unintentional rating errors– Improve rater skills by focusing on how

raters:• Observe performance• Store information about performance• Recall information about performance• Use information about performance

Page 23: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Self-leadership Training (SL)Self-leadership Training (SL)

• Goals of Self-leadership Training (SL)– Improve rater confidence in ability to

manage performance– Enhance mental processes– Increase self-efficacy

Page 24: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Pilot TestingPilot Testing

• Provides ability to – Discover potential problems– Fix them

Page 25: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Pilot Testing - benefitsPilot Testing - benefits

• Gain information from potential participants• Learn about difficulties/obstacles• Collect recommendations on how to improve • Understand personal reactions• Get early buy-in • Get higher rate of acceptance

Page 26: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Implementing a Pilot TestImplementing a Pilot Test

• Roll out test version with sample group– Staff and jobs generalizable to organization

• Fully implement planned system– All participants keep records of issues encountered– Do not record appraisal scores– Collect input from all participants

Page 27: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Ongoing Monitoring and EvaluationOngoing Monitoring and Evaluation

• When system is implemented, decide:– How to evaluate system effectiveness– How to measure implementation– How to measure results

Page 28: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Evaluation data to collect:Evaluation data to collect:

• Reactions to the system• Assessments of requirements

– Operational– Technical

• Effectiveness of performance ratings

Page 29: Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Indicators to considerIndicators to consider

• Number of individuals evaluated• Distribution of performance ratings• Quality of information• Quality of performance discussion meetings• System satisfaction• Cost/benefit ratio• Unit-level and organization-level performance