The formal procedure for measuring and documenting a person’s work perfor- mance is often called performance appraisal or performance assessment. As might be expected, there are a variety of alternative performance measurement methods. They each have strengths and weaknesses that make them more appro- priate for use in some situations than others.13
Comparative Methods Comparative methods of performance measure- ment seek to identify one worker’s standing relative to others. Ranking is the simplest approach and is done by rank ordering each individual from best to worst on overall performance or on specifi c performance dimensions.
Although relatively simple to use, this method can be diffi cult when there are many people to consider. An alternative is the paired comparison in which each person is directly compared with every other person being rated. Each person’s fi nal ranking is determined by the number of pairs for which they emerged the “winner.” This method also gets quite complicated when there are many people to compare.
Another alternative is forced distribution. This method forces a set percent- age of all persons being evaluated into predetermined performance categories such as outstanding, good, average, and poor. For example, it might be that a team leader must assign 10 percent of members to “outstanding,” another 10 percent to
“poor,” and another 40 percent each to “good” and “average.” This method elimi- nates tendencies to rate everyone about the same.
Rating Scales Graphic rating scales list a variety of performance dimen- sions that an individual is expected to exhibit. The scales allow the manager to assign the individual scores on each dimension. The example in Figure 6.3 shows
• Output measures of performance assess achievements in terms of actual work results.
• Activity measures of performance assess inputs in terms of work efforts.
• Ranking in performance appraisal orders each person from best to worst.
• Paired comparison in performance appraisal compares each person with every other.
• Forced distribution in performance appraisal forces a set percentage of persons into pre- determined rating
categories.
• Graphic rating scales in performance appraisal assigns scores to specifi c performance dimensions.
c06MotivationandPerformance.indd Page 128 7/21/11 7:45 PM ff-446
c06MotivationandPerformance.indd Page 128 7/21/11 7:45 PM ff-446 Schermerhorn_OBSchermerhorn_OB
Motivation and Performance Management 129
that the primary appeal of graphic rating scales is ease of use. But, because of generality they may lack real performance links to a given job.
The behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS) adds more sophistication by linking ratings to specifi c and observable job-relevant behaviors. These include descriptions of superior and inferior performance. A sample BARS for a customer service representative is shown in Figure 6.4. Note the specifi city of the behaviors and the scale values for each. Similar behaviorally anchored scales would be developed for other dimensions of the job. Even though the BARS approach is detailed and complex, and requires time to develop, it can provide specifi c behav- ioral information useful for both evaluation and development purposes.14
Critical Incident Diary Critical incident diaries are written records that give examples of a person’s work behavior that leads to either unusual performance
• The behaviorally anchored rating scale links performance ratings to specifi c and observable job-relevant behaviors.
• Critical incident diaries record actual examples of positive and negative work behaviors and results.
Employee: Supervisor:
Department: Date:
Work Quantity Work Quality Cooperation
Far below average Below average Average Above average Far above average
Far below average Below average Average Above average
Far below average Below average Average Above average Far above average Far above average
✓ ✓ ✓
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. 5.
Figure 6.3 Sample six-month performance reviews using graphic rating scale.
Figure 6.4 Sample performance appraisal dimension from the behaviorally anchored rating scale for a customer service representative.
Outstanding performance
5
If a customer has defective merchandise that is not the responsibility of the store, you can expect this representative to help the customer arrange for the needed repairs elsewhere.
4 You can expect this representative to help a customer by sharing complete information on the store’s policies on returns.
3 After fi nishing with a request, you can expect this representative pleasantly to encourage a customer to “shop again” in the store.
2 You can expect this representative to delay a customer without explanation while working on other things.
1 You can expect this representative to treat a customer rudely and with disrespect.
Unsatisfactory performance
c06MotivationandPerformance.indd Page 129 7/21/11 7:45 PM ff-446
c06MotivationandPerformance.indd Page 129 7/21/11 7:45 PM ff-446 Schermerhorn_OBSchermerhorn_OB
130 6 Motivation and Performance
success or failure. The incidents are typically recorded in a diary-type log that is kept daily or weekly under predetermined dimensions. This approach is excellent for employee development and feedback. But because it consists of qualitative statements rather than quantitative ratings, it is more debatable as an evaluation tool. This is why the critical incident technique is often used in combination with one of the other methods.
360⬚ Evaluation To obtain as much performance information as possible, many organizations now use a combination of evaluations from a person’s bosses, RESEARCH INSIGHT
That is a conclusion of a research study by Joseph M. Stauffer and M. Ronald Buckley reported in a recent Journal of Applied Psychology. The authors point out that it is important to have performance criteria and supervisory ratings that are free of bias. They cite a meta-analysis by Kraiger and Ford (1985) that showed White raters tended to rate White employees more favorably than Black employees, while Black raters rated Blacks more favorably than Whites.
They also cite a later study by Sackett and DuBois (1991) that disputed the fi nding that raters tended to favor members of their own racial groups.
In their study, Stauffer and Buckley reanalyzed the Sackett and DuBois data to pursue in more depth the possible interactions between rater and ratee race.
The data included samples of military and civilian workers, each of whom was rated by Black and White supervisors. Their fi ndings are that in both samples White supervisors gave signifi cantly higher ratings to
White workers than they did to Black workers, while Black supervisors also tended to favor White workers in their ratings.
Stauffer and Buckley advise caution in interpreting these results as meaning that the rating differences are the result of racial prejudice; instead they maintain that the data aren’t suffi cient to address this issue. The researchers call for additional studies designed to further examine both the existence of bias in supervisory ratings and the causes of such bias. In terms of workplace implications, however, the authors are quite defi nitive: “If you are a White ratee then it doesn’t matter if your supervisor is Black or White. If you are a Black ratee, then it is impor- tant whether your supervisor is Black or White.”
Racial Bias May Exist in Supervisor Ratings of Workers
Do the Research These fi ndings raise questions that certainly deserve answering. Can you design a research study that could discover whether or not racial bias affects instructor ratings of students? Also, when you bring this issue up with family and friends, do their experiences seem to support or deny the fi ndings reported here?
Source: Joseph M. Stauffer and M. Ronald Buckley, “The Existence and Nature of Racial Bias in Supervisory Ratings,” Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (2005), pp. 586–591. Also cited: K. Kraiger and J. K. Ford, “A Meta-analysis of Ratee Race Effects in Perfor- mance Ratings,” Journal of Applied Psychology 70 (1985), pp. 56–65; and, P. R. Sackett and C. L. Z. DuBois, “Rater-Ratee Race Effects on Performance Evaluations: Challenging Meta-Analytic Conclusions,” Journal of Applied Psychology 76 (1991), pp. 873–877.
White Supervisor
Black Supervisor
Supervisory Rating
White Worker Black Worker c06MotivationandPerformance.indd Page 130 7/21/11 7:45 PM ff-446
c06MotivationandPerformance.indd Page 130 7/21/11 7:45 PM ff-446 Schermerhorn_OBSchermerhorn_OB
Motivation and Job Design 131
When it comes to motivation, we might say that nothing beats a good person–job fi t. This means that the job requirements fi t well with individual abilities and needs.
By contrast, a poor person–job fi t is likely to cause performance problems and be somewhat demotivating for the worker. You might think of the goal this way:
Person 1 Good Job Fit 5 Motivation
Job design is the process through which managers plan and specify job tasks and the work arrangements that allow them to be accomplished.17 Figure 6.5 shows three major alternative job design approaches, and also indicates how they differ in how tasks are defi ned and in the availability of intrinsic rewards. The
• Job design is the process of specifying job tasks and work
arrangements.
LEARNING ROADMAP Scientifi c Management / Job Enlargement and Job Rotation / Job Enrichment / Job Characteristics Model
Motivation and Job Design
peers, and subordinates, as well as internal and external customers and self- ratings. Such a comprehensive approach is called a 360⬚ evaluation, and it is very common now in horizontal and team-oriented organization structures.15 The 3608 evaluation has also moved online with software that both collects and organizes the results of ratings from multiple sources. A typical approach asks the jobholder to do a self-rating and then discuss with the boss and perhaps a sample of the 3608 participants the implications from both evaluation and coun- seling perspectives.