Copyright Paul E.
Spector, All rights reserved, March 15, 2005
Determination and Documentation of Individual's
Performance
Should be tied directly to criteria
USES
◦ Administrative decisions (promotion, firing, transfer)
◦ Employee development and feedback
◦ Documentation for legal action
◦ Training
Criterion: Standard of judging; a rule or test by which
anything is tried in forming a correct judgment respective
it.
Single Criterion: Global measure to represent performance
Multidimensional
◦ Each person gets multiple scores that aren’t combined
Theoretical criterion: Conceptual definition of
performance
Actual criterion: How performance is assessed
Relevance: Actual assesses the theoretical
Contamination: Actual measures something other
than the theoretical
Deficiency: Actual fails to capture the theoretical
Think about the job of an athlet (high jump),
a gymnast and a customer service staff.
what could be the actual criteron/ criteria for
winning the competition/ job?
should actual criteria focus quality or quantity
aspect?
Counts of behaviors or outcomes of behaviors
Advantages
Consistent standards within jobs
Not biased by judgment
Easily quantified
Disadvantages
Not always applicable (teacher)
Performance not always under individual's control
Too simplistic
Performance unreliable--Dynamic
Criterion
People’s judgments about performance
Trait based graphic rating scale
Behavior based: Critical incidents
Mixed Standard Scale
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale
Behavior Observation Scales
Problems:
Rating errors: Leniency, Severity, Halo
Supervisor subversion of system--leniency as a strategy
Mixed purposes (feedback vs. administrative)
Negative impact of criticism
Let's think for 3 minutes!
Halo errors
Distributional errors
◦ leniency errors
◦ severity errors
◦ central tendency errors
Separate purposes
◦ Raises dealt with separately from feedback
Consistent feedback, everyday
Limit criticism to one item at a time
Praise should be contingent
Supervisors should be coaches
Appraisal should be criterion related, not personal
Technology helpful for performance appraisal
Employee performance management systems
◦ Web-based
◦ Automated—reminds raters when to rate
◦ Reduces paperwork
◦ Provides feedback
360-degree feedback systems
◦ Ratings provided by different people
Peers
Subordinates
Supervisors
Self
◦ Big clerical task in large organizations to track/process ratings
◦ Web makes 360s easy and feasible
◦ Consulting firms available to conduct 360s
Error resistant rating forms
◦ Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale, BARS
◦ Behavior Observation Scale, BOS
◦ Mixed Standard Scale, MSS
◦ Research does not show these forms to be successful in
eliminating errors
Rater training
◦ Rater error training: instructs raters in how to avoid errors
Reduces halo and leniency error
Less accuracy in some studies
◦ Frame of reference training: Give raters examples of
performance and correct ratings
Initial research promising in reducing errors (Day & Sulsky, 1995)
Separate purposes
◦ Raises dealt with separately from feedback
Consistent feedback, everyday
Limit criticism to one item at a time
Praise should be contingent
Supervisors should be coaches
Appraisal should be criterion related, not personal
Technology helpful for performance appraisal
Employee performance management systems
◦ Web-based
◦ Automated—reminds raters when to rate
◦ Reduces paperwork
◦ Provides feedback
360-degree feedback systems
◦ Ratings provided by different people
Peers
Subordinates
Supervisors
Self
◦ Big clerical task in large organizations to track/process ratings
◦ Web makes 360s easy and feasible
◦ Consulting firms available to conduct 360s