HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Global Edition 12e
Chapter 9
Performance Management
and Appraisal
9–1
GARY DESSLER
COMPARING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Performance appraisal
Evaluating an employee’s current and/or past performance
relative to his or her performance standards.
Performance management
The process employers use to make sure employees are working
toward organizational goals.
9–2
WHY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT?
Increasing use by employers of performance
management reflects:
The popularity of the total quality management (TQM)
concepts.
The belief that traditional performance appraisals are often
not just useless but counterproductive.
The necessity in today’s globally competitive industrial
environment for every employee’s efforts to focus on helping
the company to achieve its strategic goals.
9–3
TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT (TQM
Total Quality Management (TQM) is a management approach that
originated in the 1950s.
It has steadily become more popular since the early 1980s.
Total quality is a description of the culture, attitude and organization
of a company that strives to provide customers with products and
services that satisfy their needs.
9–4
AN INTRODUCTION TO APPRAISING
PERFORMANCE
Why appraise performance?
Appraisals play an integral role in the employer’s performance
management process.
Appraisals help in planning for correcting deficiencies and
reinforce things done correctly.
Appraisals, in identifying employee strengths and weaknesses,
are useful for career planning
Appraisals affect the employer’s salary raise decisions.
9–5
REALISTIC APPRAISALS
Motivations for soft (less-than-candid) appraisals
The fear of having to hire and train someone new
The unpleasant reaction of the appraisee
A company appraisal process that’s not encouraging the
authenticity
Hazards of giving soft appraisals
Employee loses the chance to improve before being forced to
change jobs.
Lawsuits arising from dismissals involving inaccurate
performance appraisals.
9–6
STEPS IN APPRAISING PERFORMANCE
Defining the job
Making sure that you and your subordinate agree on his or
her duties and job standards.
Appraising performance
Comparing your subordinate’s actual performance to the
standards that have been set; this usually involves some type
of rating form.
Providing feedback
Discussingthe subordinate’s performance and progress, and
making plans for any development required.
9–7
DESIGNING THE APPRAISAL TOOL
What to measure?
Work output (quality and quantity)
Personal competencies
Goal (objective) achievement
How to measure?
Graphic rating scales
Alternation ranking method
MBO
9–8
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL METHODS
Graphic rating scale
A scale that lists a number of traits and a range of
performance for each that is used to identify the score that
best describes an employee’s level of performance for each
trait.
9–9
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL METHODS
(CONT’D)
Alternation ranking method
Ranking employees from best to worst on a particular trait,
choosing highest, then lowest, until all are ranked.
Paired comparison method
Ranking employees by making a chart of all possible pairs of
the employees for each trait and indicating which is the better
employee of the pair.
9–10
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL METHODS
(CONT’D)
Forced distribution method
Similar to grading on a curve; predetermined percentages of
ratees are placed in various performance categories.
Example:
15% high performers
20% high-average performers
30% average performers
20% low-average performers
15% low performers
Narrative Forms
9–11
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL METHODS
(CONT’D)
Behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS)
An appraisal method that uses quantified scale with specific
narrative examples of good and poor performance.
Developing a BARS:
Generate critical incidents
Develop performance dimensions
Reallocate incidents
Scale the incidents
Develop a final instrument
9–12
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL METHODS
(CONT’D)
Advantages of using a BARS
A more accurate gauge
Clearer standards
Feedback
Independent dimensions
Consistency
9–13
POTENTIAL RATING SCALE APPRAISAL
PROBLEMS
Unclear standards
An appraisal that is too open to interpret.
Halo effect
Occurs when a supervisor’s rating of a subordinate on one
trait biases the rating of that person on other traits.
Central tendency
A tendency to rate all employees the same way, such as rating
them all average.
9–14
POTENTIAL RATING SCALE APPRAISAL
PROBLEMS (CONT’D)
Strictness/leniency
The problem that occurs when a supervisor has a tendency to
rate all subordinates either high or low.
Bias
The tendency to allow individual differences such as age, race,
and sex to affect the appraisal ratings employees receive.
9–15
WHO SHOULD DO THE APPRAISING?
The immediate supervisor
Peers
Rating committees
Self-ratings
Subordinates
360-Degree feedback
9–16
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF
APPRAISAL TOOLS
9–17
Table 9–3
THE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW
Types of appraisal interviews
Satisfactory—Promotable
Satisfactory—Not promotable
Unsatisfactory—Correctable
Unsatisfactory—Uncorrectable
How to conduct the appraisal interview
Talk in terms of objective work data.
Don’t get personal.
Encourage the person to talk.
Don’t tiptoe around.
9–18
THE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW (CONT’D)
How to handle a defensive subordinate
Recognize that defensive behavior is normal.
Never attack a person’s defenses.
Postpone action.
Recognize your own limitations.
9–19
THE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW (CONT’D)
How to criticize a subordinate
Do it in a manner that lets the person maintain his or her
dignity and sense of worth.
Criticize in private, and do it constructively.
Avoid once-a-year “critical broadsides” by giving feedback
on a daily basis, so that the formal review contains no
surprises.
Never say the person is “always” wrong
Criticismshould be objective and free of any personal biases
on your part.
9–20
THE APPRAISAL INTERVIEW (CONT’D)
How to handle a formal written warning
Purposes of the written warning
To shake your employee out of bad habits.
Help you defend your rating, both to your own boss and (if needed)
to the courts.
Written warnings should:
Identify standards by which employee is judged.
Make clear that employee was aware of the standard.
Specify deficiencies relative to the standard.
Indicates employee’s prior opportunity for correction.
9–21
