Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
28 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
definition of performance appraisal
|
review and evaluate employee's job performance
provide performance feedback |
|
|
use of P.A/
|
administrative decisions
-promotions, fire, raises, etc -documentation details support 'just cause' dev't purposes -strengths/weaknesses -performance management research -assessments predict job performance? -less bias, more accurate |
|
|
Risks of not doing PA well
|
wrong person promoted, fired, etc
feelings of inequity legal suits disgruntled, unmotivated employees |
|
|
Barriers to effective PA
|
organizational
-no reward political -attempts by raters to enhance or protect self interests interpersonal -face to face encounters to explain why rated that way |
|
|
Rating Process
|
cognitive processes model to slow down tendency to immediately begin to form an impression
observe beh-->record info--> classify info-->evaluate individual |
|
|
rating formats
|
terms:
rating scale: continuum for each aspect rated anchors: labels for points on scale graphic rating scale: anchor only ends of continuum, very ineffective and very effective anchors are adjectives (poor, satisfied, etc) for maximum control to raters |
|
|
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales
|
1. identify dimensions (job analysis and theory)
2. SMEs generate behavioral examples of performance (range of performance) 3. SMEs sort examples into dimensions (examples scrambled, SMEs reassign examples to original performance dimensions, agreement standard 50-80%) 4. SMEs rate effectiveness (standard deviation must meet standard) 5. Choose examples and place on rating scale (each based on average effectiveness rating) |
|
|
Behavioral Checklists
|
raters check off beh statements for employees
statements weighed based on effectiveness overall: sum the weightings of selected statements |
|
|
Employee comparison
|
rank ordering
-promotion decisions -only known relative job performance paired comparisons -each compared w/ every other -potential for huge # of judgments -n(n-1)/2 |
|
|
Forced Distribution
|
potential to create artificial distinctions
force rater to put people in distribution, but maybe everyone is good? |
|
|
Halo
|
same/similar ratings for each ratee on all performance dimensions
high (positive halo) low (negative halo) moderate (neutral halo) due to: global evaluation unwillingness/inability to discriminate true halo (intercorrelations among related dimensions) |
|
|
Leniency
|
only high end of rating scales for ratees
avoid confrontation look good as supervisor |
|
|
Central Tendency
|
only middle of rating scales
too lazy to discriminate dont know ratee's performance |
|
|
Severity
|
low end of rating scales
attempt to motivate keep ratees humble |
|
|
Rater Error Training
|
describe errors so know how to avoid
accuracy not necessarily improved halo and distribution may be accurate |
|
|
Frame of Reference Training
|
develop common FOR and Calibrate raters
known what each point on each scale means results in improved accuracy |
|
|
FOR training steps
|
1. review dimension definitions and scale anchors
2.trainer discusses which beh relate to each scale and level of effectiveness 3.raters view video of someone performing job 4.raters provide ratings 5.trainer charts ratings, asks which beh ratings based on 6.trainer gives feedback |
|
|
Immediate supervisor assessment
|
most common source of PA ratings
most highly related to administrative decisions |
|
|
Self assessment
|
egocentric bias: 75% of employees though were in top 25%
leniency common but halo not internal and external attribution |
|
|
Peer assessment
|
very high agreement among peers
|
|
|
Meta Analysis results
|
peer and supervisor ratings highly correlated (.62)
self and peer not (.36) self and supervisor not (.37) evidence of egocentric bias |
|
|
subordinate assessment
|
accountability important
|
|
|
360 Feedback
|
ratings fro supervisor, peers, self, subordinates
good for dev't helpful for self-awareness bias of any single rater can be overcome, ratees more satisfied due to participation |
|
|
distributive justice
|
percieved fairness of allocation of outcomes or rewards
|
|
|
procedural justice
|
percieved fairness of process of rewards distributed
voice: having possibility of challenging, influencing or expressing objection to a process or outcome |
|
|
interactional justice
|
sensitivity and respect with which employees are treated
|
|
|
enhance perceptions of PA fairness..
|
strong correlation, .61, b/w participation and satisfaction PA process
|
|
|
why providing feedback important?
|
contributes to self-awareness
reduces uncertainty about others perceptions says which organizational goals most important |
