Module 8 - Ii

Front 1

This method provides a comparison of the relative qualities of performance among all the employees in a group or unit.

Back 1

Ranking

Front 2

T/F

The employees to be rated are ranked from the most efficient to the less capable in each traits or quality used judging the employees’ performance.

Some of the traits or qualities are: quality of work, dependability, judgment, attendance and attitude toward the job.

Back 2

TRUE

Front 3

The employees are ranked for each trait and as many times as there are traits on which the employees are to be rated.

Thus the employee may be ranked first- in quality of

second- in

third in _ and so on.

Back 3

work accomplished

reliability

Judgment

Front 4

this system uses a five point job performance scale in rating employees who are doing similar jobs.

Back 4

Forced Distribution Technique

Front 5

Under this method, it is assumed that a normal group or workers doing similar jobs fall into some such levels as Superior, Above Average, Average, Below Average and Poor.

Back 5

Forced Distribution Technique

Front 6

under this method the name of each employee who is to be rated is written on the card.

Each employee to be rated is then off paired with every other employee in the same unit.

Back 6

Paired Comparison Method

Front 7

In the process, the person rating the-employee determines which of the two employees in each pair is superior in terms of the trait being considered.

The pairing may be made for such traits as quantity of work output, quality of work done, cooperation, and job attitude.

Back 7

Paired Comparison Method

Front 8

To determine the ranking of the employee, a tally is scale. The employees are evaluated individually and the rater circles the number that signifies how many traits or characteristics the individual has.

Back 8

Paired Comparison Method

Front 9

The highest: point is

five (5) representing superior,

four (4) above average,

three (3) average

two (2) below average and

one (1) as poor.

Back 9

Paired Comparison Method

Front 10

this rating method provides a number of traits or factors with corresponding definitions for evaluating the employees written in the left hand column of the form such as quantity of work done, ‘quality of work, attitude towards work, judgment, reliability, cooperation, punctuality and others.

Back 10

The Checklist Method

Front 11

making a combination of the descriptive phase and the numerical scale. Each statement may be given a corresponding weighted point.

The sum of these weighted points corresponding to the staterients checked constitutes the employees’ scores.

Back 11

The Checklist Method

Front 12

approach of performance management attempts to define the behavior an employee exhibits to be effective in the job.

Back 12

The behavioral approach

Front 13

approach requires managers to keep a record of specific examples of effective and ineffective performances on me the part of each employee.

Back 13

The Critical Incident

Front 14

Itis a narrative report of incidents or occurrences that involve the employee. These incidents are used to give feedback on employees about what they do very well and those that they do poorly.

Back 14

The Critical Incident

Front 15

The problem related to this technique is that managers have to log weekly or daily the incidents and compare employees with one another.

Back 15

critical incident

Front 16

This builds on the critical incidents approach. It is designed to specifically define performance dimensions by developing behavioral anchors associated with different levels of performance.

Back 16

The Behavioral Anchored Rating Scale

Front 17

This entails managing the behavior of the employees through a formal system of behavioral feedback and reinforcement

Back 17

The Organizational Behavior Modification

Front 18

focuses on managing the objectives, measurable results of a job or work group.

This approach assumes that subjectivity can be eliminated from the measurement process and that results are the closest indicators of one’s contribution to the organizational effectiveness.

Back 18

The result approach

Front 19

is used in most companies who believe in results as bases of performance management.

Back 19

Management by Objectives (MBO)

Front 20

Under this system, the top management defines the companys’ strategic goals and objectives and passes it on to the next level of management and down the line.

Back 20

Management by objectives

Front 21

the goal of this system of measurement is to motivate the employees to go for a higher level of productivity.

It is a means of measuring and feeding back productivity information to personnel.

Back 21

Productivity Measurement and Evaluation System (PROMES)

Front 22

The manager should avoid using different standards among employees performing similar jobs. This could trigger anger from employees.

Back 22

Problems of Varying Standards

Front 23

the error in which the rater gives greater weight to recent events when appraising an individual performance.

This is very true when employees are about to be evaluated; they are early in coming to work and are more prudent in the performance of the assigned tasks.

Back 23

Recent Effect

Front 24

occurs when employees are incorrectly rated near the average or middle scale.

The supervisors who play safe in giving performance ratings usually commit this error.

Back 24

Central Tendency

Front 25

occurs when the rater’s value distorts the rating. It may be unconsciously or quite unintentionally.

If a manager has a strong dislike of a certain ethnic group, this bias is likely the result.

Regional groupings, age, sex and other arbitrary classifications may be reflected in appraisal if they are not properly designed. Review of the next level manager may help correct this problem.

Back 25

Rater’s Bias

Front 26

occurs when a manager rates an employee high or low on all items because of one characteristic.

For example, if a worker has few absences, the supervisor might give her a high rating in all other areas of work including quantity and quality of.output because of her attendance. The manager may not really think about the employee’s other characteristics separately.

Back 26

Halo Effect

Front 27

it is the tendency to rate people relatively with other people rather than the performance standards.

The rating should reflect performance against the job requirement not against other people.

Back 27

Contrast Error

Front 28

are factual information regarding observed actions or consequences a of actions. These are facts that report what happened.

Back 28

data

Front 29

is the way the feedback system reacts to the fact and requires performance standards.

Back 29

Evaluation

Front 30

a system in which data and evaluation influence action.

The manager gives specific suggestions regarding future actions the employee must take.

Back 30

Action

Front 31

presents an opportunity for the manager to talk. about the employees’ potential and also their weaknesses.

It could be an emotional experience for the manager and the employees because manager must ‘communicate both the praises and the constructive criticisms in the evaluation.

Back 31

The appraisal interview

Front 32

In this process, the manager should emphasize more on counselling and development rather than the poor performance of the employees.

It should be handled tactfully as employees may feel resentment and conflicts may result which could be reflected in future work relationship.

Back 32

appraisal interview

Front 33

In this process, the manager should emphasize more on counselling and development rather than the poor performance of the employees.

It should be handled tactfully as employees may feel resentment and conflicts may result which could be reflected in future work relationship.

Back 33

appraisal interview