Attachment Activity Visit And Read The Importance Of Pe

Attachmente Activity Visithrcomand Read The Importance Of Performan

Attachment e-Activity · Visit hr.com and read “The importance of performance management to employee productivity.†Be prepared to discuss. The Importance of Performance Management to Employee Productivity By: Date: June The primary purpose of performance appraisal is developmental. It is to inculcate in people the desire for continuous improvement. Secondary reasons are administrative in nature; appraisals provide a basis for determining who should receive a bonus, an increase in salary, a promotion, demotion, termination, etc. Despite these laudatory objectives, Herb Meyer, in a seminal study at GE showed that appraisals can have a deleterious effect on an employee´s performance. Moreover, this decrease in performance may last up to 12-13 weeks subsequent to the appraisal. Why does this occur? The answers are at least three-fold. First, G.E. showed that as a result of appraisals, people often become defensive. In doing so they attack the appraisal instrument by asserting that they are appraised on the wrong things. Second, they attack the appraiser by pointing out that the boss is either too biased to evaluate them accurately, or only has a limited opportunity to observe them and thus has a distorted perspective of their performance. Third, the appraisal is given at discreet intervals (e.g., once a year) rather than on a continuous basis. Hence, the shift in emphasis in many organizations from performance appraisal to performance management. In this article, we discuss research that has been conducted on ways to improve the appraisal instrument. In subsequent articles, we will discuss the second and third issue. Appraisal Instrument. Appraisal instruments generally fall into one of the following four categories: a blank sheet of paper, trait scales, outcome measures, or behavioral criteria. In a simulation exercise, involving Domtar Company´s paper products managers in Canada and the United States, the perceptions of fairness regarding assessments by one´s peers was as high when a blank sheet of paper served as the appraisal instrument as was the case when the instrument consisted of behavioral measures. Moreover, the perceptions were higher when a blank sheet of paper served as the appraisal instrument than they were in the condition where trait scales were used as the instrument for assessing a person´s performance. Despite this finding, the problems with using a blank sheet of paper as an appraisal instrument are at least four-fold. First, a blank sheet facilitates errors in observation such as first impressions and recency effects on the part of appraisers. Second, the use of a blank sheet increases the probability of giving feedback that is not based on knowledge, skills, or abilities (KSAs) that are critical to effective performance. Thus the feedback may contain irrelevant or erroneous advice. Third, interobserver reliability is apt to be low. That is, two or more observers may reach very different conclusions in their assessment of an employee´s job performance. As the Conference Board in the United States pointed out a quarter of a century ago: A system that is not standardized in its administration, that uses different forms or procedures from place to place or time to time, raises the probability that at least some difference in the performance measure of different employees are in fact the result of the appraisal system and its administration, rather than real differences in employee performance. Finally, the courts have developed a deep skepticism of appraisals that are subjectively worded. A blank sheet of paper invites such wording. Many organizations use trait scales to evaluate employees. Traits are generally expressed in terms of personality predispositions. Examples include "conscientiousness", "shows initiative", and "courteous". The traits are considered desirable across jobs throughout the organization. In this vein, trait scales are the forerunner of core competencies. The drawbacks of using trait scales are at least three-fold. First, they are perceived by employees as highly subjective. Second, the courts in North America have pointed out correctly that traits are often so poorly defined that appraisals reflect little more than the caprice of the appraiser. Third, they provide little information on what the person must start doing, stop doing, or consider doing differently. And as Peter Drucker noted a quarter of a century ago: An employer has no business with a person´s personality ... Employees owe no ´loyalty´, they owe no ´love´ and no ´attitudes´ - they owe performance and nothing else. Management and manager development should concern themselves with changes in behavior likely to increase an employee´s effectiveness. Drucker´s emphasis on behavior went largely unheeded as practitioners abandoned trait scales in a desire to minimize litigation with disgruntled employees. Instead, of focusing on an employee´s behavior, management by objectives (MBO) was embraced with an emphasis on "bottom line" easily countable measures. The relevance of such measures to an organization´s effectiveness is largely unassailable. But bottom line measures (e.g., revenue generated; costs reduced) are often excessive in that they are affected by factors beyond a person´s control. For example, the value of the dollar to the yen can result in a forest products company executive receiving a large bonus when it is undeserved, or being penalized inappropriately, for log exports to Japan. à‚ à‚ In addition, cost related measures are often deficient in that they exclude factors for which a person should be held accountable. For example, focusing primarily on dollars generated by a managing partner in a consulting firm fails to take into account the behaviors necessary to attract, develop and retain staff by that manager. Moreover, measuring only dollars generated fails to assess the behaviors necessary to attract new business from new customers, or to increase revenue from present customers. Further, a primary focus on bottom-line measures can encourage a ''results at all costs'' mentality. Hence ethical, if not legal, problems can occur. And as is the case with trait scales, such measures in and of themselves do not indicate what a person must start doing, stop doing or consider doing differently to influence the organization´s bottom line positively. At most, they reveal "the score". Three milestones in psychology provided solutions to this problem. The first is a job analysis, namely, the critical incident technique (CIT). It enables human resource managers to identify the behaviors critical for influencing desired performance outcomes. Job analysis requires systematic data collection from subject matter experts, namely job incumbents, supervisors, peers, subordinates and customers as to the behaviors critical for attaining desired outcomes. The second milestone is a theory of rating developed by Robert Wherry. Among his theorems and corollaries for controlling bias in appraisals were: appraisal scale items that refer to observable behavioral categories will result in more accurate evaluations than will categories that refer to traits; the appraiser will make more accurate evaluations when forewarned as to the types of behaviors to be observed, hence the appraiser should be given an appraisal instrument consisting of observable behaviors for the evaluation of an employee´s performance; and the keeping of a written record of specifically observed behaviors will improve the appraiser´s objectivity. The third milestone is the recognition of the need to focus and assess an employee´s behavior. Behavioral observation scales (BOS) are developed from a job analysis, namely the critical incident technique. Hence, this appraisal instrument mitigates occurrences similar to those in General Electric where employees claimed that they were assessed on the "wrong things." Behavioral criteria derived from a job analysis are developed by the people for the people. The process emphasizes employee participation in decisions that will affect them. BOS facilitate coaching of self and colleagues. They define core competencies such as "team playing" in terms of observable, hence verifiable, behavior. They make clear what a person must start doing, stop doing, or be doing differently to enhance an organization´s effectiveness to implement its strategy or business plan with excellence. A series of studies conducted by the American Pulpwood Association showed empirically that there is a direct relationship between what people do (behavior) and the attainment of the organization´s strategic goals to increase the productivity of loggers, increase their attendance, and decrease the injury rate. Recently, we developed behavioral criteria for UNICON, the worldwide association of Assistant Deans and Directors of University Executive Education. We found that there is a high correlation between what the Executive Education staff do (behavior) and the attainment of four of a business school´s strategic objectives, namely to increase revenue, generate repeat business, achieve organizational sponsor satisfaction, as well as increase the individual participant´s satisfaction. The product was an assessment instrument that UNICON member business schools can use for self-appraisal. The self-appraisal instrument makes clear what executive education staff must do to attain these four strategic objectives. The practicality of using BOS has also been investigated. Managers, computer programmers, and attorneys evaluated BOS versus trait appraisals on seven criteria concerning administrative and motivational aspects of appraisal: ability to give feedback, ability to differentiate among employees, objectivity, ability to suggest training needs, setting corporate-wide standards, and overall ease of use. These criteria were developed to address complaints that a company´s senior management had with their existing appraisal instrument. The results showed that BOS were preferred to trait scales on five of the seven criteria. There were no significant differences between BOS and trait scales on ease of use and ability to differentiate among positions. In a subsequent study, managers and computer programmers in the Netherlands appraised the performance of a subordinate or peer, using BOS and trait scales. They then evaluated the two appraisal instruments on ability to give feedback, ability to differentiate employees´, appraiser objectivity, position differences, ability to provide training, setting corporate-wide standards, ability to set goals, and overall ease of use. Similar to what was found in the United States, they preferred the BOS to the trait scales. The importance of the appraisal instrument to the goal setting process has been shown in a series of studies by Aaron Tziner and Richard Kopelman at the Israel Airport Authority. Goal clarity and goal commitment was significantly higher when BOS rather than trait scales were used. This is because BOS provide a comprehensive list of explicit and specific behaviors to be performed. Goal setting derived from the trait scale, however, required that generic performance dimensions be translated into specific behaviors. Many managers were either unwilling or unable to do this. In a follow-up study at the Israel Airport Authority, Tziner found that the use of BOS increased work satisfaction significantly more than the use of trait-based appraisals. In summary, BOS, derived from the critical incident technique that takes into account Wherry´s principles facilitates the goal setting process. Case study The influence of psychological theory and research is evident in the practice of performance appraisal at J.P. Morgan. Morgan, like most organizations, spends considerable time on the performance appraisal process. Historically, this process was often implemented in isolation from other interrelated systems, in particular the organization´s strategic plan. Often appraisals were used primarily as an aid to compensation decisions and human resource record keeping. Consequently, the document that described the strategic plan disappeared into employees´ bottom desk drawers so that people could continue to pursue "business as usual". This occurred because little or no time was spent on considering what employees must actually do to implement the strategic plan with zeal. No consideration was given to using performance management systems to evaluate the employees´ contribution to the achievement of the organization´s strategic goals. Few people realized that much could be done to facilitate and accelerate the implementation of the business plan through effective performance management processes. This is no longer true in Morgan where practice is informed by theory and research. The late Mason Haire is often quoted for the truism: "that which gets measured gets done". At J.P. Morgan, in recognition of this truism, performance appraisal is a three-fold process. Individuals are evaluated against a) global core competencies (observable behaviors) thus ensuring a sustainable enduring corporate culture, b) business criteria that are directly linked to the company´s multi-year business strategy, and c) their own individual performance objectives. The latter are intended to increase the individual´s knowledge, skills, and abilities in ways that will enhance both the individual´s and Morgan´s effectiveness in implementing the organization´s strategy. They are set jointly by the appraisee and the appraiser during a year end performance discussion, adjusted during the year as necessary, and formally reviewed in mid-year. For example, an individual is evaluated against a core competency, leadership, as well as revenue generated from new as well as present clients, and a developmental objective such as increasing his/her communication skills that will facilitate the attainment of the former two criteria. The respective behavioral definitions of the relevant assessment criteria are provided to employees in the form of a Role Skill Grid. The appraisers and appraisees use the grid as a point of reference in rating self as well as another individual´s performance. Consequently, few people at J.P. Morgan dare state that the appraisal instrument assesses them on the wrong criteria or that there is ambiguity in the appraisal instrument. Few people dare to ignore Morgan´s business strategy as everyone is measured on the extent to which it is implemented. The individual at J.P. Morgan is the unit of analysis, and the strategic plan provides the basis for developing the appraisal instrument for the assessment of an individual´s behavior. Adherence to and implementation of the strategic plan is the ultimate core competency at Morgan. Action Steps: The steps to developing BOS include: (1) Ask subject matter experts or stakeholders to read the company´s strategic plan. (2) Generate critical incidents regarding the behaviors necessary for implementing the business plan. (3) Group behaviors that are similar under an overall category or performance criterion (e.g., team playing). (4) Use statistical procedures such as item analysis or factor analysis to eliminate behavioral items that are redundant. An example of a BOS is given below: Team player 1.Gets the input of people who will be affected by a decision before it is implemented. Almost never-- ---- --Almost Always 2. Actively looks for ways to hurt his/her bottom-line for the overall good of the division´s bottom-line. Almost never-- ---- --Almost Always 3. Supports the group´s decision after it has been made even if originally did not advocate it Almost never-- ---- --Almost Always Total score = Suggested Readings Latham, G.P. & Wexley, K.N. (1994). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal . Reading, MA: Addison-Wexley. Determine three reasons that employees may leave and three reasons employees may stay with an organization. Outline a retention strategy to your CEO that provides guidance in decreasing the three reasons you mentioned that employees may be leaving. Create an acronym to explain the key objectives of your performance management plan, and define and discuss each letter of the acronym. Evaluate three reasons employees may react negatively to performance appraisals and discuss the validity of the employees’ position from your perspective.