Performance appraisal

src: static1.squarespace.com

A performance appraisal ( PA ), also called performance review , performance evaluation , (career) development discussions , or employee appraisal is the method by which an employee's job performance is documented and evaluated. Performance appraisal is part of career development and consists of a regular review of employee performance within the organization.

Video Performance appraisal

Key features

Performance appraisal is a systematic, general, and periodic process that assesses the performance and productivity of individual employees' work in relation to previously defined organizational criteria and objectives. Other aspects of individual employees are also considered, such as organizational citizen behavior, achievements, potential for improvement, future strengths and weaknesses, etc.

To collect PA data, there are three main methods: objective production, personnel, and assessment evaluation. Evaluation assessment is the most commonly used with a variety of evaluation methods. Historically, PA has been done annually (long cycle assessment); however, many companies are moving toward shorter cycles (every six months, every quarter), and some have moved to PA short cycles (weekly, biweekly). Interviews can serve as "giving employees feedback, counseling and developing employees, and delivering and discussing compensation, employment status, or disciplinary decisions." PA is often included in the performance management system. PA helps subordinates answer two key questions: first, "What are your hopes for me?" second, "How do I do it to meet your expectations?"

A performance management system is used "to manage and align" all organizational resources to achieve the highest possible performance. "How performance is managed in an organization determines for most of the success or failure of the organization.Therefore, raising PA for everyone should be one of the highest priorities of contemporary organizations".

Some PA apps are compensation, performance enhancement, promotion, dismissal, validation testing, and more. Although there are many potential benefits from PA, there are also some potential weaknesses. For example, PAs can help facilitate employee-management communication; however, PA may pose legal problems if not properly implemented, as many employees tend to be dissatisfied with the PA process. PAs created and assigned as useful in the United States should not be cross-culturally transferable.

Maps Performance appraisal

Application results

The main reason for the use of performance appraisal (PA) is performance improvement ("initially at the individual employee level, and ultimately at the organizational level"). Other fundamental reasons include "as a basis for employment decisions (eg promotion, termination, transfer), as research criteria (eg validation test), to assist with communication (eg allowing employees to know how they do and expectations of the organization), to set goals personal for training "program, for the transmission of objective feedback for personal development," as a means of documentation to assist in tracking decisions and legal requirements "and in the administration of wages and salaries. In addition, PA can assist in the formulation of job criteria and individual selection "best suited to perform required organizational tasks". PA can be part of guiding and monitoring employee career development. PA can also be used to assist work motivation through the use of reward systems.

Potential benefits

There are a number of potential benefits from organizational performance management that perform formal performance appraisal (PA). There is already a general consensus in the belief that PA leads to positive implications of the organization. Furthermore, PA can be beneficial to organizational effectiveness. One way is the PA can often lead to giving individual workers feedback about their job performance. From this it can spawn some potential benefits as individual workers become more productive.

Other potential benefits include:

• Facilitating communication: communication within the organization is considered an essential function of worker motivation. It has been proposed that feedback from PAs aid in minimizing employee uncertainty perceptions. In essence, employee-feedback and communication communication can serve as a guide in job performance.
• Increased employee focus through increased trust: behavior, thinking, and/or problems can distract employees from their work, and trust issues can be one of these disturbing factors. Factors that consume psychological energy can degrade job performance and cause workers to lose their organizational goals. PA that is built and properly utilized has the ability to degrade distracting factors and encourage trust in the organization.
• Setting the desired goals and performance reinforcement: the organization feels efficient to match the goals and performance of individual workers with organizational goals. PA provides space for discussion in collaboration between individual and organizational goals. Collaboration can also be useful by generating employee acceptance and satisfaction of assessment results.
• Performance improvements: A well-built PA can be a valuable tool for communicating with employees as it relates to how their job performance stands with the organization's expectations. "At the organizational level, many studies have reported a positive relationship between human resource management practices" and improved performance at both the individual and organizational levels.
• Determining training needs: "Employee training and development is an important component in helping organizations achieve strategic initiatives". It has been argued that for PAs to actually become effective, post-assessment opportunities for training and development in problem areas, as determined by assessment, should be offered. PA can be instrumental in identifying new employee training needs. Finally, PA can assist in the establishment and supervision of employee career goals.

Potential complications

Apart from all the potential benefits of formal performance appraisal (PA), there are also potential drawbacks. It has been noted that determining the relationship between individual job performance and organizational performance can be a difficult task. Generally, there are two overall problems that cause some complications to arise. One of the problems with a formal PA is that it can have an adverse effect on the organization (s) involved if the assessment is not being used properly. The second problem with formal PAs is that they can become ineffective if the PA system is incompatible with the culture and organizational systems.

Complications derived from this are:

• Adverse quality upgrading: it has been proposed that the use of PA systems in the organization negatively impacts the organization's pursuit of quality performance. It is believed by some experts and practitioners that the use of PA is more than unnecessary if there is total quality management.
• Subjective appraisal: Subjectivity relates to judgments based on subjective impressions and opinions of supervisors, which can be expressed through the use of subjective performance measures, flexibility ex post in weighting of objective performance measures, or ex post discretional adjustments, all of which are based on factors other than the performance measures specified ex ante . Traditional performance assessments are often based on managers' perceptions or superiors about employee and employee performance evaluated subjectively rather than objectively. Therefore, review may be affected by many non-performance factors such as employee 'visibility', personal prejudice, ease of management, and/or previous errors or successes. Instead, the review should be based on behavior and results that are backed up by data that can be measured in player control.
• Negative perception: "Quite often, the individual has a negative perception of PA". Accepting and/or anticipating receiving a PA may become uncomfortable and troublesome and potentially cause "tension between supervisor and subordinate". If people who are deemed not to trust their boss, assessor, or believe they will benefit from the process, they can be a "check box" exercise.
• Errors: Performance appraisals should provide accurate and relevant ratings of employee performance against predefined criteria/goals (ie organizational expectations). However, supervisors sometimes judge employees better than their actual performance to please employees and avoid conflict. "Increase in rank is a common illness associated with formal" PA.
• Legal issues: when PA is not done properly, legal issues can lead to risky organizations. PA is used in organizational discipline programs as well as for promotional decisions within the organization. Improper application and PA utilization may negatively affect employees and lead to legal action against the organization.
• Performance goals: performance goals and PA systems are often used in associations. Negative results about the organization can occur when goals are too challenging or over-emphasized to the extent that they affect ethics, legal requirements, or quality. In addition, challenging performance goals can hamper an employee's ability to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. Especially in the early stages of the training, it is more useful to instruct employees on the outcome objectives than on performance goals.
• Derived rewards or performance-based payments: some researchers argue that deficits in payroll and performance-based pay are linked to the underlying problem coming from the PA system.

Repair

Although performance appraisals can be very easily biased, there are certain steps that can be taken to improve the evaluation and reduce the margin of error through the following:

• Training - Creating awareness and acceptance for those who do the assessment that within the workgroup they will find different skills and skills.

• Provide Feedback to Assessors - Trained assessors provide managers who evaluate their subordinates with feedback, including information about ratings from other managers. This reduces the leniency error.

• Subordinate Participation - By allowing employee participation in the evaluation process, there are reciprocal employee-supervisors in the discussion for each distinction between self-rank and supervisor rank, thereby increasing job satisfaction and motivation.

Opposition

Not everyone supports a formal performance appraisal system. Many employees, especially those most affected by the rankings, are not very enthusiastic about them. There are many critics of this assessment including unions and managers.

Unions

Trade unions represent 11% (7% in the private sector) of the labor force in the United States. In some cases they may require that seniority be taken as one of the main criteria for promotion. However, the length of work experience may not always be a reliable indication of the ability to perform higher level work. That is why some entrepreneurs give senior people the first opportunity for promotion, but employers may strive to better qualify employees for the promotion because of their ability (not merely because of the length of service). Performance appraisals can provide the basis for an employee performance appraisal as a component of this decision.

Manager

Managers who have unsatisfactory experiences with inadequate or poorly designed scoring programs may be skeptical about their usefulness.

• Some managers may not like to play the role of judge and are responsible for the future of their subordinates.
• They may be uncomfortable giving negative feedback to employees.
• This trend can lead them to improve their judgment on employee job performance, rank higher than is feasible.

src: i.ytimg.com

Do

Human Resource Management (HRM) performs performance management. The performance management system consists of activities and/or processes adopted by the organization in anticipation of improved employee performance, and therefore, organizational performance. As a result, performance management is done at the organizational level and individual level. At the organizational level, performance management oversees organizational performance and compares current performance with organizational performance goals. Achieving this organization's performance goals depends on the performance of each member of the organization. Therefore, measuring individual employee performance can prove to be a valuable performance management process for HRM and for the organization. Many researchers argue that "performance appraisal is one of the most important processes in Human Resource Management".

The process of performance management begins with leadership in organizations that create performance management policies. Basically, management regulates performance by influencing employee performance feedback (eg training programs) and by providing feedback through output (ie performance appraisal and assessment). "The ultimate goal of the performance management process is to align individual performance with organizational performance". A very general and central process of a performance management system is performance appraisal (PA). The PA process should be able to inform employees about "organizational goals, priorities, and expectations and how well they contribute to them".

src: upraise.io

When done

Performance appraisal (PA) is done at least annually, and an annual employee performance review seems to be the standard in most American organizations. However, "it has been recognized that more frequent assessments (more than once a year) may have positive implications for organizations and employees." It is recommended that regular performance feedback provided to employees can quell any unexpected and/or surprising feedback for year-end discussions. In a recent research study on punctuality of the PA, "one of the respondents even suggested that performance reviews should be done formally and more frequently, perhaps once a month, and recorded twice a year."

Other researchers propose that the purpose of the PA and the frequency of their feedback depends on the nature of the work and the characteristics of the employee. For example, employees of routine jobs where performance maintenance is the goal will benefit considerably from annual PA feedback. On the other hand, employees with more discretionary and non-routine jobs, where goal setting is appropriate and there is room for development, will benefit from more frequent PA feedback. Non-formal performance assessments can be made more frequently, to prevent the element of surprise from formal assessments.

src: nulubox.com

Data collection methods

There are three main methods used to collect performance appraisal data (PA): objective production, personnel, and assessment assessment. Evaluation assessment is the most commonly used with a variety of evaluation methods.

Production destination

Objective production methods consist of direct, but limited actions, such as sales figures, production numbers, electronic performance monitoring of data entry workers, etc. The steps used to assess performance will depend on the job and its task. Although these measures relate to unambiguous criteria, these criteria are usually incomplete due to criteria of contamination and deficiency criteria. Contamination criteria refer to part of the actual criteria not related to conceptual criteria. In other words, variability in performance can be caused by factors outside the employee's control. Criteria deficiency refers to part of conceptual criteria that is not measured by actual criteria. In other words, the quantity of production does not necessarily indicate the quality of the product. Both types of deficiency criteria result in reduced size validity. Despite the fact that objective production data is not a complete reflection of job performance, the data is relevant to job performance.

Hypothesis of happy-productive workers

A happy and productive working hypothesis states that the happiest worker is the most productive, and the most productive is the happiest worker. However, after decades of research, the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance results in only a weak positive correlation. Published in 2001 by Bulletin of Psychology , a meta-analysis of 312 studies yielded an un-corrected correlation of 0.18. This correlation is much weaker than what the worker-happy-productive hypothesis predicts.

Personnel

The personnel method is the recording of the withdrawal behavior (ie absenteeism, accident). Most organizations consider unacceptable absence as an indicator of poor job performance, even with all other factors being equal; However, this is subject to criteria deficiency. The number of employee absentees does not reflect how dedicated he or she is to his work and duties. Especially for grunt work, accidents can often be useful indicators for poor job performance, but these can also be categorized as contamination because the situational factors also contribute to accidents. Again, both types of deficiency criteria result in reduced measurement validity. Although absenteeism and/or accidents often show poor work performance rather than good performance, such personnel data is not a comprehensive reflection of employee performance.

Evaluation assessment

Evaluation of the assessment appears to be a collection of methods, and as such, can be considered a methodology. The general approach to getting a PA is through an appraiser. Since the appraiser is human, some errors will always be present in the data. The most common types of errors are lightening errors, central tendency errors, and errors resulting from halo effects. The Halo effect is characterized by a tendency to judge a very strong person in one area higher than that in another. This is the opposite of the Horn effect, in which a person is judged to be inferior to that in another area due to extreme shortcomings in one discipline. These errors arise primarily from social cognition and the theory that how we assess and evaluate other individuals in different contexts is linked to how we "acquire, process, and categorize information".

An important part of this method is the assessment training. Assessor training is "the process of educating assessors to make more accurate performance assessments, usually achieved by reducing the frequency of halo, leeway, and central trends". Assessor training also helps assessors "develop a common frame of reference for evaluation" of individual performance. Many researchers and survey respondents support an effective assessor training ambition. However, it should be noted that such training is costly, time consuming, and only really works for behavioral assessment.

Another area to keep in mind is the motivational effect of the evaluator on evaluation evaluation. Not infrequently the inflation rating occurs due to the motivation of the appraiser (ie "pressure induced by the organization that forces the appraiser to evaluate the positive rate"). Typically, the appraiser is motivated to rank higher due to the lack of organizational sanctions regarding accurate/inaccurate assessments, the appraisal appraisal to warrant promotion, salary increases, etc., The tendency of the assessor to avoid negative reactions from subordinates, and higher observations of rankings the rate reflects both the top of the appraiser.

The main methods used in assessing judgmental performance are:

• Graphical Rating Scale: the scale of the graphic assessment (see scale (social science)) is the most commonly used system in PA. On several different factors, subordinates are judged on the 'how many' factors or traits they have. Typically, the appraiser uses a 5 point or 7 point scale; however, there are as many as 20 scale points.
• Comparison Methods-Employees: rather than subordinates who are judged on predetermined criteria, they are compared against each other. This method eliminates central tendencies and errors of leniency but still allows the occurrence of halo effect errors. The ranking method has the rank assessor rating from "best" to "worst", but how really good or bad is the performance dimension will be known. The paired-comparison method requires an appraiser to select two of the "best" subordinates of a group in each dimension then rank individuals according to the number of times each subordinate is selected as one of the "best". Forced distribution methods are good for large group levels. Assessors evaluate each subordinate to one or more dimensions and then place (or "force-fit", if you want) each subordinate in a normal distribution of 5 to 7 categories. Top-grading methods can be applied to forced distribution methods. This method identifies 10% of the lowest-performing subordinates, corresponding to forced distribution, and refuses to leave their subordinates with a performance of 90% higher.
• Behavior Checklist and Scale: Behavior is more certain than properties. The critical incident method (or critical incident technique) involves "specific behavior that signifies good or bad job performance". Bosses record the behavior of what they perceive as relevant job performance, and they keep a running count of good and bad behavior. Discussions about performance can then follow. The scale of anchored behavior assessment (BARS) combines critical incident methods with a ranking scale method by assessing performance on a scale but with scale points anchored by behavior incidents. Note that BARS is job specific. In the behavioral observation approach (BOS) approach to performance appraisal, employees are also evaluated in terms of critical incidents. In that case, it's similar to a BAR. However, the BOS level of judgment decreases at the frequency of the critical incidents observed over a given period. Ratings are awarded on a five-point scale. Behavior incidents for ranking scales are developed in the same way as for BARS through identification by supervisors or other subject matter experts. Similarly, the BOS technique fulfills the same job opportunities as they relate to the actual behavior required for successful job performance.

Friends and self ratings

Although the assessment can be done along the reporting link (usually top-down), the net assessment may include peer ratings and self-assessment. Peer appraisal is when the assessment is done by co-workers along horizontal connections (similar functions) and vertical relations (different functions). Self-assessment is when individuals evaluate themselves. There are three common peer assessment methods. Peer nomination involves each member of the group nominating whom he believes to be "best" in a particular performance dimension. Peer ratings have each group member rate each other on a set of performance dimensions. Fellow ranking requires each group member to rank all of the "best" members to "worst" in one or more performance dimensions.

• Self-assessment : for self-assessment individuals assess and evaluate the behavior and performance of their own work.
• Peer assessment : group members evaluate and rate the performance of other group members. There is a general case for the scale of the graphic ratings that will be used for self-assessment. Positive tenderness tends to be a problem with self-assessment. Peer assessment of some group members is often called a crowd-based performance review, and solves many problems with peer assessment from only one member.
• 360 degree feedback : 360 degree feedback is some employee evaluations that often include ratings from your boss, peers, and yourself.
• Negotiated performance appraisal : Negotiated performance appraisal (NPA) is an emerging approach to improve communication between superiors and subordinates and to improve employee productivity, and may also be tailored to alternative mediation models for conflict supervisors -subordinate. A facilitator meets separately with supervisors and with subordinates to prepare three lists. What employees do well, where employees have improved recently, and areas where employees still need to improve. Because the subordinate will present the list first during a shared session, this reduces the defensive behavior. Furthermore, subordinates come to a shared session not only ready to share the areas needed improvement, but also bring concrete ideas on how these improvements can be made. The NPA also strongly focuses on what employees do well, and involves a minimum of twenty minutes of praise when discussing what employees are doing well. The role of the facilitator is the pre-caucus trainer, and in the sessions with the supervisors and subordinates are mostly talking to each other with fewer facilitator's disturbances.

In general, the optimal PA process involves a combination of various assessment modalities. One general recommendation is that assessment flows from self-assessment, peer assessment, management judgment - in that order. Starting with self-assessment facilitates conflict avoidance. Peer feedback ensures peer responsibility, which results better than accountability to management. Management judgments come last for the need for recognition by authorities and avoidance of conflicts in the event of a dispute. It is generally recommended that the PA be performed in shorter cycles to avoid high-risk discussions, as is usually the case in long-cycle assessments.

=

src: i.ytimg.com

Organizational citizenship behavior

Also referred to as contextual behavior, prosocial behavior, and extra-role behavior, the organization's citizenship behavior (OCB) consists of employee behavior that contributes to the well-being of the organization but is outside the scope of the employee's job duties. This extra-role behavior can help or hinder the achievement of organizational goals. Research supports the five dimensions of OCB: altruism, conscience, courtesy, sportsmanship, and citizenship virtue. Researchers have found that the OCB dimension of altruism and the virtue of citizenship can have much influence on the subjective evaluation of managers on employee performance as an objective level of employee productivity. The extent to which OCB can influence the assessment of job performance is relatively high. There is controversy over whether the OCB should be formally regarded as part of a performance appraisal (PA).

src: mms.businesswire.com

Interview

Interview appraisal (PA) is usually the last step of the assessment process. Interviews were held between subordinates and supervisors. Interviews PA can be considered very important for the organization's PA system. This is very beneficial when both the boss and the subordinate participate in the interview discussion and set a common goal. Three factors consistently contribute to effective PA interviews: the superior knowledge of the job and the performance of subordinates in it, the superior support of subordinates, and the welcome of subordinate participation. The purpose of performance appraisal is to assess the development needs of employee training.

src: clipartstation.com

Employee reactions

Many researchers have reported that many employees are dissatisfied with their performance appraisal system (PA). Studies have shown that subjectivity and assessment bias are often a perceived problem by as many as half the employees. Subjectivity has been associated with subordinate-subordinate conflicts, psychological empowerment and subordinate performance. The assessment bias, however, seems to be perceived as more of a problem in government and public sector organizations. Also, according to some studies, employees want to see changes in PA systems by making "systems more objective, improving the feedback process, and increasing the frequency of review." Given the defects of traditional PA surgery, "organizations are now increasingly combining practices that can improve the system, especially in areas such as elimination of subjectivity and bias, appraisal training, improved feedback processes and performance review discussions."

According to a meta-analysis of 27 field studies, employee participation in general in its own assessment process is positively correlated with employee reactions to PA systems. More specifically, employee participation in the appraisal process is strongly related to employee satisfaction with the PA system. Regarding the reliability of employee reaction measures, researchers have found employee-scale reactions audible with some concerns through using confirmatory factor analysis that represents employee reactions scales.

The researchers suggest that employee reactions to PA studies are important for two main reasons: employee reactions that symbolize the criteria appealing to PA practitioners and employee reactions have been linked through theories for determinants of acceptance and assessment success. Researchers translate these reasons into the researcher-gap context or the "lack of alignment between research and practice."

Schultz & amp; Schultz notes that opposition to performance appraisal generally does not receive a positive assessment of anyone involved. "So the employees who will be directly affected by the Performance Appraisal are less than enthusiastic to participate in it". When an employee knows that their work performance is less than perfect, it is very stressful to be evaluated. Employees tend to be hostile to know they can be given bad news on their performance.

Most managers prefer to start with positive information and then add bad news or suggestions for improvement at the end. However, employees are very satisfied when bad news is addressed early in the interview and positive information is kept to the end, so the meeting ends with positive feelings.

src: previews.123rf.com

Legal implications

There are federal laws that deal with fair employment practices, and this is also about performance appraisal (PA). Discrimination can occur in performance prediction and behavioral evaluation. The revision of many court cases has revealed the involvement of alleged discrimination that is often associated with an assessment of employee performance. Some of the laws that protect individuals against discrimination are "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act 1991, Age Discrimination in Labor Law (ADEA), and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)." The lawsuit can also be caused by allegations of employer's negligence, defamation, and/or misinterpretation. Some of the assessment criteria to keep in mind for legitimate PAs is to keep the content of assessment objectives, work-related, behavior-based, in ratee control, and related to specific functions rather than global assessments. Some legal assessment suggestions for legitimate PAs are to standardize operations, communicate formally with employees, provide information on performance deficits and provide employee opportunities to improve the deficit, give employees access to assessment results, provide written instructions for assessment training, and using multiple, diverse and unbiased evaluators. This is a valuable but incomplete recommendation list for PA. The Work Opportunities Guide (EEOC) applies to any selection procedure used to make employment decisions, not only for hiring, but also for promotion, demotion, transfer, layoffs, dismissals, or early retirement. Therefore, the job appraisal procedure should be validated like a test or other election device. Entrepreneurs who base their personnel decisions on the results of a well-designed performance review program that includes formal assessment interviews are far more likely to succeed in defending against discrimination claims.

src: c8.alamy.com

Cross-cultural implications

The performance appraisal system (PA), and the place where they are based, which has been established and considered effective in the United States may not have the transferability for effective utilization in other countries or cultures, and vice versa. The performance of "assessment is considered to be deeply rooted in community norms, values, and beliefs". "The assessment reflects attitudes toward motivation and performance (self) and relationships (eg colleagues, subordinates, supervisors, organizations), all of which vary from country to country". Therefore, the assessment must be in accordance with cultural norms, values, and beliefs to be operative. The deep norms, values ​​and beliefs in different cultures influence employee motivation and perceptions about justice and organizational justice. As a result, PA systems that are created and considered effective in one country may not be an appropriate assessment in other cultural areas.

For example, some countries and cultures assess the nature of assertiveness and personal achievement while others place more benefits on cooperation and interpersonal relationships. High-ranking countries on assertiveness consider PA as a way to ensure fairness among employees so that high-performance employees receive higher rewards or higher salaries. Countries that are rated low on assertiveness but higher in interpersonal relationships may dislike social segregation and pay higher and lower employee inequalities; employees from a more cooperative rather than an individualistic place pay more attention to interpersonal relationships with other employees than to individual interests. High assertive countries value performance feedback for self-management goals and effectiveness while low states in assertive view view performance feedback as "threatening and prominent". In this case, PAs from high assertive countries are unlikely to benefit the lower-ranked countries in the firmness to be employed. However, lower assertive states can use PA for the purpose of promoting long-term communication development within organizations such as clarifying job goals, guiding training and development plans, and reducing the gap between job performance and organizational expectations.

src: mms.businesswire.com

The development of information technology

Computers have played an increasing role in PA for some time (Sulsky & Keown, 1998). There are two main aspects to this. The first is related to electronic performance monitoring, which provides the ability to record large amounts of data on various dimensions of work performance (Stanton, 2000). Not only does it facilitate the collection of more sustainable and detailed performance data across multiple jobs, such as call centers, but has the capacity to do so in an unclear and covert manner. The second aspect is mediating the feedback process, by recording and collecting performance ratings and written observations and making information available on-line; many software packages are available for this. The use of IT in these ways undoubtedly helps in making the assessment process more manageable, especially where some rating sources are involved, but also raises many questions about the assessor's reactions and possible effects on PA outcomes. Mostly, the evidence so far has been positive.

src: httpsak-a.akamaihd.net

Appraiser error

Errors made by the reviewer are the main sources of problems in performance appraisals. There is no simple way to completely eliminate these errors, but making the appraiser aware of them through training is helpful. Error assessors are based on feelings and have consequences at the time of assessment.

Varying standards

• Problem: When a manager assesses (evaluates) his or her employees and managers use different standards and expectations for employees who do similar work.
• Example: A professor does not judge all students' tests in the same standard, sometimes depending on the affections the professor has for others. This affection will make the professor give students a higher or lower grade.
• Solution: Valuers must use the same standards and weights for each employee. Managers must be able to show a coherent argument to explain the difference. Therefore, it will be easier to know if it is done, because the employee has performed a good performance, or if it is because the manager's perception is distorted.

Update effects

• Issue: When the manager, only according to recent performance, is good enough, the price is higher.
• Example: When a professor gives a grade grade based only on student performance, only in the last week.
• Solution: To avoid that, managers can use methods that track dominant traits and small traits to understand adaptation over time. The total strength can be understood as the sum of relative strengths.

Effect of virtue

• Problem: When the person evaluating gives greater weight according to the manager's information first.
• Example: This can be a silly example. When we watch TV quiz and conquest must remember the list of things, they only remember the first. This applies also in the recall of human performance.
• Solution: performance. When a manager has to make some decisions, it is better not to do so as he or she remembers. Better is based on concrete actions that have occurred and recorded.

Central Trend

• Issue: When a manager evaluates each employee in a narrow range, it is as average as he/she rejects the difference in performance that an employee has performed.
• Example: When a professor because the average class tends to assess harder. Therefore, if average grade performance is high enough, the professor will evaluate them higher. Conversely, if the average class is lower, he will rate lower.

Disadvantages

• Issue: The value of all employees is at the top of the scale.
• Example: When a professor tends to judge harder, because of the average class.

Constancy

• Problem: When a manager uses only the bottom of the scale to assess employees.
• Example: When the professor tends to score lower, because of the grade average.
• Solution: try to focus more on each employee's individual performance regardless of average results.

Rater Bias

• Problem: Rater's when the manager judges according to the values ​​and prejudices that at the same time distort (distorsionar) the rating. The differences can be made because of ethnic groups, gender, age, religion, gender, appearance...
• Example: Sometimes it happens that a manager treats a different person, because he thinks that the employee is homosexual.
• Solution: If later, checks are performed by higher level managers, this kind of assessment can be improved, as it should be more partial.

Halo effect

• Problem: When a manager ranks high on all items because of one characteristic he likes.
• Example: If a worker has little absence but the supervisor has a good relationship with that employee, the employer may give employees high rankings in all other areas of work, to balance judgments. Sometimes it happens because of emotional dependence based on the good relationship they have.
• Solutions: Training assessors to identify problems and differentiate people by the performance they perform.

Horn effect

• Problem: This is the opposite of the Halo effect and the Horn effect occurs when a manager judges an employee low on all items because of one characteristic that he does not like.
• Example: If a worker is performing well but at certain times, he likes to tell jokes, but his boss does not like jokes, bosses may give employees lower rankings in all other areas of work. Sometimes it happens when they do not have a close relationship and the manager does not like the employee.
• Solution: Same with Halo Effect. Training assessors to recognize problems and differentiate people by the performance they perform.

Contrast

• Problem: The tendency to judge people relative to others rather than to the performance of the individual he or she performs.
• Example: In school, if you sit where everyone is nag and you are silent but you do not pay attention and you do not do your homework, because you draw; when the teacher is upset with the group, you may be excluded from the bad behavior they have just because you are silent; but not because you are doing a good job. Therefore, according to the group, you are not very talkative, but you perform the right performance. But the appraiser will only get the idea that your behavior is not as bad as others, so you will rate higher.
• Solutions: Ratings should reflect performance of task requirements, not in accordance with the attitudes of others.

Similar-to-Me/Different-from-Me

• Problems: Sometimes, ratters are affected by some of the characteristics that people show. Depending on whether these characteristics are similar or different from others, they will be evaluated differently.
• Example: A manager with a college degree may provide subordinates with a higher degree of higher education than those who have only a bachelor's degree.
• Solution: Try to focus on performance performed by employees irrespective of the common characteristics you have

Sampling

• Problem: When the appraiser evaluates the performance of an employee who rely solely on a small percentage of the amount of work performed.
• Example: An employee must perform 100 reports. Then, the manager took five of them to check how the work had been done, and the manager found the error in the five reports. Therefore, managers will assess the employment of employees as "poor", regardless of the other 95 reports that have not been seen by the manager, which has been made correctly.
• Solution: To follow the entire performance track, not just a small part.

We have searched for each possible solution for each situation, which is also complicated to practice, so here we have a workable general solution for all possible assessment errors. It is difficult to minimize the mistake of the assessor, because we are human and we are not objective. In addition, sometimes, we do not realize our behavior has preference for people but there are some tools to have more objective information because it uses the technology available to track the show and record it which allows the manager to have some objective information about the process.

Consultant Marcus Buckingham and executive Ashley Goodall, reporting on Deloitte's large-scale performance management survey at the Harvard Business Review, went so far as to say that, contrary to the underlying assumptions of performance appraisals, the ratings mainly measure the unique rating tendency of assessors and thus reveal more much about the appraiser than about the person judged. They call it the idiosyncratic rater effect . Given this effect, they advocate a very different approach to performance management. In their scenarios, 360-degree feedback and similar time-intensive exercises are replaced by "team performance" leaders who focus on what they will do with each team member rather than what they think of the individual, and the annual appraisal of past performance replaced by weekly check-ins between team leaders and team members, should be initiated by team members, focusing on current and future work.

src: upraise.io

See also

• Organizational socialization
• Performance paradox
• Performance rating (work measurement)
• Psychology of personnel
• Personnel options
• Quality of working life
• System psychology
• Work motivation

src: www.diverseo.com

References

Source of the article : Wikipedia