Performance Evaluation

Cards (32)

  • Performance evaluation system
    A systematic way to examine how well an employee is performing in their job
  • Performance evaluation system
    • Encourages positive performance and behavior
    • Satisfies employee curiosity about their performance
    • Can be used as a tool to develop employees
    • Can provide a basis for pay raises, promotions, and legal disciplinary actions
  • 360-degree performance appraisal
    A way to appraise performance by using several sources to measure the employee's effectiveness
  • Performance appraisal system errors include halo effects, comparing employees to each other instead of job standards, and validity and reliability issues
  • Validity
    The extent to which the performance appraisal tool measures the relevant aspects of performance
  • Reliability
    How consistent the performance appraisal method works throughout the organization or job title
  • Acceptability
    How well members of the organization, managers and employees, accept the performance evaluation tool as a valid measure of performance
  • Reliability in performance appraisals
    If two raters were to rate an employee, how close would the ratings be?
  • If the ratings would be far apart from one another, the method may have reliability issues
  • Acceptability
    How well members of the organization, manager and employees, accept the performance evaluation tool as a valid measure of performance
  • If managers don't think the tool is useful because they take too much time, and spend minimal time on the evaluation, the current process is flawed because of acceptability error
  • Specificity
    Tells employees the job expectations and how they can be met
  • If specificity is not specific enough, the tool is not useful to the employee for development or to the manager to ensure the employee is meeting expectations
  • After developing the performance appraisal process
    Create a timeline and educate managers and employees on the process through formal training and communication
  • Teaching people how to receive benefit from the feedback they receive can be an important part of the process
  • Brito v. Zia case questioned the legality of performance appraisals

    1973
  • The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 set new standards for performance evaluation in the public sector
  • Criteria for performance appraisals in government agencies
    • All agencies were required to create performance review systems
    • Appraisal systems would encourage employee participation in establishing the performance standards they will be rated against
    • The critical elements of the job must be in writing
    • Employees must be advised of the critical elements when hired
    • The system must be based exclusively on the actual performance and critical elements of the job, not a curve
    • They must be conducted and recorded at least once per year
    • Training must be offered for all persons giving performance evaluations
    • The appraisals must provide information that can be used for decision making
  • Early performance appraisal research showed that cases won by defendants had similar characteristics: appraisers were given written instructions, job analysis was used to develop performance measures, the focus was on actual behaviors instead of personality traits, and upper management reviewed the ratings before the interview
  • Considerations when developing a performance appraisal process
    • Performance standards should be developed using job analysis and change as the job changes
    • Provide employees with a copy of the evaluation when they begin working, and consider having them sign off
    • All raters and appraisers should be trained
    • When rating, give examples of observable behavior rather than personality characteristics
    • Develop a formal process for employees to disagree with a performance review
  • The first step in designing a performance appraisal process is to determine how often the appraisals will be given
  • Many companies offer pay increases as part of the performance evaluation system, while some companies prefer to separate the process
  • Goals of the performance evaluation should be discussed before the process is developed
  • After determining frequency, pay, and goals, the next step is to develop the process and determine what forms will be used
  • After determining forms, the next step is to determine who will be the source of information, such as managers, peers, or customers
  • Errors that can occur in the process include halo effects, comparing employees to each other, and issues with validity, reliability, acceptability, and specificity
  • Performance evaluations should always be based on the actual job description
  • The final step is to communicate the process and train employees and managers, including training on how to best use feedback
  • the word systematic in PES implies the performance evaluation process should be a planned system that allows feedback to be given in a formal—as opposed to informal—sense.
  • Performance evaluations can also be called performance appraisals, performance assessments, or employee appraisals.
  • There are four reasons why a systematic performance evaluation system should be implemented. First, the evaluation process should encourage positive performance and behavior. Second, it is a way to satisfy employee curiosity as to how well they are performing in their job. It can also be used as a tool to develop employees. Lastly, it can provide a basis for pay raises, promotions, and legal disciplinary actions.
  • tions should be met when developing our performance appraisal process: Performance standards should be developed using the job analysis and should change as the job changes. Provide the employees with a copy of the evaluation when they begin working for the organization, and even consider having the employees sign off, saying they have received it. All raters and appraisers should be trained. When rating, examples of observable behavior (rather than personality characteristics) should be given. A formal process should be developed in the event an employee disagrees with a performance review