Performance EvaluationJuan I. Sanchez, Ph.D.

Evaluation

Judging the Worth of Observed Performance

Evaluation is usually subjective– Relies on use of “mental yardstick”

• What characteristics are being measured?

• How is the yardstick calibrated?

– Comparability problem

Developing Consensus: What’s Performance?

• Development & Implementation– Participative approach is recommended

• Training– What are the criteria?– What is relevant performance?

• Job Aids– Lists, signs, reminders, etc.

Developing Common Standards

Perception of incomparability can undermine the system.• Frame-of-Reference Training

– Extension of CIT• Discuss criteria

• Evaluate performance

• Feedback

• Evaluate Performance

• Outcome System– Comparability can still be an issue

Goals of Rater Training in Performance Appraisal

• Ensure understanding of the competencies or dimensions under evaluation. Make sure raters understand the behaviors associated with different points on the scale (they use the same frame of reference in evaluating employees).• Ensure that raters have sufficient opportunities to observe the employee’s performance on the specified competency.• Be aware of tendency to rely excessively on SALIENT and UNREPRESENTATIVE events.

Goals of Rater Training (cont’d)• Ensure that the variability in the ratings mirrors the differences in the level of performance among employees.• Be aware of one’s tendency to contrast employees with each other, rather than judge them on their job performance. Also, be aware of the manner in which the ORDER of evaluation affects the evaluations (CONTRAST EFFECTS).• Be aware of HALO (your overall impression of the employee does not let you see his/her strengths and weaknesses) and LENIENCY effects.• Be aware of the need to monitor/document performance.

Frame of Reference Training Example

This type of training helps raters use similar standards, so that a particular rater would not hold a very idiosyncratic view of what constitutes good performance, or be much more lenient (or harsh) than other raters. This is done through exercises such as:

Rank-order the following behaviors (1 = worst performance, 4 = best performance) in terms of what level of the competency “oral communication” (defined as the effectiveness of expression in individual and group situations) they represent:

___ A. The employee does not get to the point.

___ B. The employee speaks too softly.

___ C. The employee is often asked to repeat himself.

___ D. The employee frequently interrupts others before they finish their sentences.

LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENTDo Don’t

Competencies based on job analysis

Competencies based on abstract terms.

Standardized administration and scoring

Differential standards or administration

Document poor performance

Poorly specified or subjective performance standards

LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Do Don’t

Rater training. Raters did not understand the appraisal system.

Sufficient opportunity to observe employees.

Raters based their evaluations on “what they heard.”

Employees have an opportunity to discuss evaluation.

Employees do not understand why they received a poor evaluation.

LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Do Don’t

Rater is not afraid of giving negative evaluations when necessary.

Rater inflated evaluation to avoid conflict with employee, and decided to terminate employee for poor performance later on.

Class ExercisesSickness or Weakness?

Causal Attributions and Evaluation

a. Provide examples of sin and sickness in workplace performance. For example, consider poor work performance that was largely caused by a drug dependency. Is it something that you think is under control of the person (a "sin") or is it something beyond the control of the person (a "sickness"). Does everyone on your team agree on assessments of personal controllability?

b. Why does the judgment of personal controllability have such an effect on evaluation? Should it?