Types of Criteria:

qualitative

attitudinal or perceptual measures

"subjective"

types of criteria

quantitative

results criteria 

results criteria:

production data

quantity: # of units produced

quality: # of defects or mistakes

ex: sales - # of orders vs # of canceled orders or returns

results criteria

absenteeism

turnover

accidents

promotions

• absenteeism: total days absent
• turnover: voluntary vs involuntary
• accidents: injuries or damage to equipment
• promotions: vertical job changes

• individualization
• controllability
• relevance
• measurability
• variance
• practicality

characteristics of evaluating criteria

individualization

the job performance measure must be a measure of the individual

_ team or group task where work is shared -> output measure may be innapropriate for assessment of individuals

characteristics for evaluating criteria

controllability

the job performance measure should allow for differences in KSAs to be reflected in individual's performance

ex.  Sales performance is influenced by many factors beyond the control of the employee

the job performance measure should reflect critical or important parts of the job

ex. punctuality or attendance not critical for many professional jobs

is the criterion quantifiable?

ex. regional sales manager in charge of advertising -- what is the goal?  what is measuable?

the job performance measure is conceptually useless if it has no variability

if everyone performs at the same level, the amount of KSA is irrelevant

costs and logistics of gathering data

ex. customer service

what is best criterion measure?

what's the cheapest and most efficient?

behaviorally anchored rating scales

rating scales that provide detailed definitions of what represents low, average, and high degree of performance

common rating errors

halo (or horn) effect

tendency to rate the present factor of the job based on rating of prior factors

not rating the factors independently

tendency to weigh information from the beginning or end of the performance appraisal period more heavily

information can take on unwarranted importance

tendency to compare an employee against other employees instead of according to the documented performance standards

to avoid constrast effect, maintain consistency in observing, recording, classifying, and rating each employee

manager's tendency to be generous and restrict performance ratings to the upper end of the rating scale for all employees

associated with managers who want to be perceived favorably

manager's tendency to restrict performance ratings to the lower end of the rating scale for all employees

associated with managers who feel they could do better or have substantial experience on the job

manager's tendency to restrict performance ratings to the center of the scale for all employees

associated with managers who are uncomfrotable making decisions about employee performance

avoiding rating errors

two main approaches

rater training: rater training or frame of reference training

manage variability: ranking, paired comparison, forced distribution

goal: to reduce common rater errors:

incorrect focus

comparison

rater standards

watch video or reviews performance

assigns ratings

trainer compares assigned ratings to "true scores"

trainer identifies and discusses rater errors

goal: to increase rater accuracy

define performance dimensions

establish a common frame of reference

use the frame of reference to evaluate performance

frame of reference training (FOR)

research

increased inter-rater agreement

significantly improvements in rater accuracy

may improve recall of specific behaviors

managing variability

ranking (rank order)

employees are ranked from best to worst on each competenecy or on overall performance

difficult job for raters (hard to use with larger #s)

managing variability

paired comparison

rater compares all possible pairs of employees, then examine the number of time each employee is chosen as the best performer

easier than ranking

better suited for small numbers of incumbents

managing variability

forced distribution (rank and yank)

rater is forced to assign a certain percentage of employees to each level of performance

employees and supervisors hate it

quotas may not represent the true distribution of performance