Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
29 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Accountabilities |
Broad areas of a job for which an employee is responsible for producing results |
|
|
Objectives |
Statements of important and measurable outcomes |
|
|
Performance Standards |
Yardstick used to evaluate how well employees have achieved objectives |
|
|
Determining Accountabilities |
- collect information about the job (job description) - determine importance of task or cluster of tasks - % of employee's time spent performing tasks - impact on the unit's mission if performed inadequately - consequences of error |
|
|
Determining Objectives |
Purpose: to identify outcomes - limited number - highly important When achieved: - dramatic impact on overall organization success |
|
|
10 Characteristics of Good Objectives |
1. Specific and Clear 2. Challenging 3. Agreed Upon 4. Significant 5. Prioritized 6. Bound by Time 7. Achievable 8. Fully Communicated 9. Flexible 10. Limited in Number |
|
|
Determining Performance Standards |
Standards refer to aspects of performance objectives: - 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) |
|
|
Standards MUST Include |
1. A verb 2. The desired result 3. A due date 4. Some type of indicator - quality or quantity |
|
|
6 Characteristics of Good Performance Standards |
1. Related to the position 2. Concrete, specific, and measurable 3. Practical to measure 4. Meaningful 5. Realistic and achievable 6. Reviewed regularly |
|
|
Identify Competencies |
Measurable clusters of KSAs that are critical in determining how results will be achieved |
|
|
Types of Competencies |
1. Differentiating - distinguish between superior and average performance 2. Threshold - needed to perform to a minimum standard |
|
|
Identify Indicators |
- observable behaviours - used to measure the extent to which competencies are present or not |
|
|
Necessary components for describing competencies |
1. Definition 2. Description of specific behaviours - when demonstrated - when not demonstrated 3. Suggestions for developing the competency |
|
|
Measurement Systems |
1. Comparative System
- compare employees with one another 2. Absolute System - compare employees with pre-specified performance standards |
|
|
Advantages of Comparative Systems |
1. Easy to explain 2. Straightforward 3. Indentifies top as well as underperformers 4. Better control for biases and errors found in absolute systems - leniency - severity - central tendency |
|
|
Disadvantages of Comparative Systems |
1. Rankings may not be specific enough for useful feedback or protection from legal challenge 2. No information on relative distance between employees 3. Specific issues with forced distribution method |
|
|
Comparative Systems |
1. Simple rank order 2. Alternation rank order 3. Paired comparisons 4. Relative percentile 5. Forced distribution |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Paired Comparisons |
Advantages: - thorough - final rankings are more accurate Disadvantages: - very time consuming - may encounter problem of comparing apples to oranges |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Absolute Systems |
1. Essays 2. Behaviour checklists 3. Critical incidents 4. Graphic rating scales |
|
|
Absolute Systems |
Advantages: - can be used in large and small organizations - evaluations more widely accepted Disadvantages: - higher risk of leniency, severity, and central tendency biases - more time consuming |
|
|
Behaviour 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 |
|
|
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 supervisor's writing skills - comparisons virtually impossible - lack of quantitative information; difficult to use in personnel decisions |
|
|
Critical Incidents |
Advantages: - focus on actual job behaviour - provides specific examples - employees identify with rating Disadvantages: - collecting critical incidents can be time consuming - quantification is difficult |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Graphic Rating Scales: BARS Improvement |
Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) - uses critical incidents as anchors - involves multiple groups of employees in development - identify important job elements - describes critical incidents at various levels of performance - check for inter-rater reliability |
