Performance Appraisal Instrument - Essay Example

Performance Appraisal Instrument Name Tutor’s Name Course 21 April 2013 Performance appraisal is an urgent tool of management. Human resource managers focus on ways of improving the performance of an organization. Performance management requires managers to identify areas and resources that will enable their employees to continue being productive over a period. Human resources form part of the crucial tools that will keep an organization competitively. Therefore, the managers of an organization must monitor the performance of works if they are to continue earning profits. This essay focuses on performance appraisal instruments and their importance. There are several tools of performance appraisal. These include behavioral checklist, ranking, forced distribution, graphic rating scale and behavioral anchored rating scales. This paper will give an overview of behavioral anchored ratings scale as an instrument of performance appraisal. Performance appraisal is the evaluation of an employee’s performance based on the responsibilities assigned (Cardy & Dobbins, 1994). The personality traits of the employees should be a consideration during the evaluation. Managers use performance appraisal as a technique to enhance professional growth among the staff. Most organization require that employees receive a carefully and thoughtful appraisal. The review on performance of employees helps managers to identify their abilities. The purpose of the review is to evaluate the progress of work assigned and acknowledge the efforts of hard working employees. Performance appraisal can be either informal or formal. It provides a platform for formal communication between managers and employees. Formal appraisal is the most commonly used instrument by human resource managers. For a performance appraisal system to be effective, it must promote fairness and equity. The distribution of rewards and punishment should be in accordance with the policies set by the organization. It is of concern for the appraisal methods to be documented. This is because the employee’s view of a method of performance appraisal has a link to motivation. Decisions by the personnel department are achievable through review of employee’s past records on performance (Cardy & Dobbins, 1994). In the past, courts referred to documented performance appraisal technique to ascertain the validity of personnel decisions. The process of performance appraisal is continuous (Akaah & Lund, 1994). Managers need to analyze and identify a good method of performance appraisal for their organizations. The managers must do a job analysis in order to find out what the job consists of and the suitable ways of performance appraisal. Secondly, the manager’s nuts identify suitable standard methods of performance appraisal. The other step entails conducting of informal appraisals by managers. This includes individual performance appraisal through couching and disciplining. The final step is to conduct formal appraisals. The performance of employees should be accurately evaluated so that the employees are aware of areas that they need to improve. The need to know areas where employees must improve on creates room for training and development (Akaah & Lund, 1994). The performance management tools must be reliable and valid. This fosters fairness and equity in the performance appraisal process. The managers and employees of an organization must accept the method of appraisal implemented for it to be effective. It should also conform to the mission and objectives of the organization. There are two general forms of evaluations. These are rating and ranking (Trevino, 1990). The latter relates to comparing the performance of employees against each other. This helps managers to analyze the overall performance of their workers. The methods used in ranking are straight, alternative and paired comparison ranking. Straight ranking entails relating an employee’s relative performance against the performance of others. Alternative ranking requires the raters to identify the best and worst performing employees. This simplifies the rating system since the scale involves two categories. The pair-comparison methods simplify the rankling further. This is because the raters identify pairs with similar behaviors and compare with other groups. This helps in identifying the top performer of a group. Ratings are the other category of appraisal formats (Trevino, 1990). This popular method compared to ranking. However, it is not evident whether rating is a valid method of evaluation of performance. The major limitation of rating is that it is not an applicable method when using non-behavioral traits to evaluate the performance. An absolute standard is effective in rating the performance of employees. Afterwards, the raters compare the behaviors on a scale to find where the category in which they belong (Akaah & Lund, 1994). Behavioral anchoring rate scales are the common used formats for rating performance. The employees rated at the bottom ignore views and advice from their colleagues. The employees also do not accept duties assigned to them by their managers and supervisors. They provide fellow employees with false information relate to the policies procedures of the organization (Akaah & Lund, 1994). On the other hand, those rated as top performers are always in charge no matter the circumstances. They are responsible, and they operate within their scope of work. They follow all polices and procedures of the organization. Behavioral anchored rating scale is an instrument of performance appraisal. Kendall and smith introduced this model of performance appraisal (Jacobs, 1980). The model combines the use of adjectives such as good, bad, excellent, and quantified ratings to measure the performance of employees. The limitations of traditional rating scales led to the development of this method. The performance dimensions influence the reliability of this method. An additional behavioral scale enhances the scales of traditional methods. The method does not rely on the behaviors of employees that need to be apprised. Instead, it identifies and evaluates the behaviors required by employees in order to perform. The development of the scales requires that managers have knowledge on the key tasks of each position. They should also know the behaviors displayed by individuals while performing the tasks (Gatewood & Carroll, 1991). Managers rate the behaviors of employees and later assign points on a rating scale. The result of the evaluation is a scale rating the task. The scales developed need to be reliable and valuable for them to be effective. Both the directors and employees must accept this method of appraisal before its implementation. The development of the first scale used to measure ethical behavior was by Ruch and Newstrom (Newstrom & Ruch, 1975). The scale consisted of 17 items that value the performance of sales managers and marketing professionals. Examples of behaviors identified were employees used the resources of the organization for personal use. The employee will then not admit the “wrongs” but instead accuse other employees. The dimensions used include bribery, falsification, and blaming co-workers (Akaah & Lund, 1994). The identified dimensions helped generate critical incident basis. The critical incident technique enables managers to identify the behaviors related to a job. Analysis of data from a recent task assigned to employees can be used to identify their behaviors. The data acquire undergoes a conversion to performance dimensions (Trevino, 1990). The Q-sort techniques help managers to group similar behaviors identified in groups. Subject matter experts translate the grouped behaviors in to their own dimensions. The behaviors that have a great variation from the views of experts are discarded using the Q-sort technique (Jacobs, 1980). This is because the behaviors must be identifiable to their performance dimensions. The experts rate the retained behaviors on a scale. The most commonly used scale is a scale from 1-5. The scaled behaviors of the employees help to form anchors. they are assigned rates in correspondence to their conformity of the policies and procedures of an organization. For example, if the task of a sales manager of employees is to record all sales transactions and submit sales receipts to the accountant. The behavioral anchored rating scale bars that can be used are as follows: 5- Aberrant performance: employee accurately records all sales transaction and submits receipts within the stipulated time. 4- Excellent performance: verifies all the receipts with the managers before submitting to the accountant. 3- Fully capable performance: completes all records of sales transaction by the end of the day. 2-marginal performance: employee argues when asked to record sales transactions and submit sales receipt to the accountant. 1- Unsatisfactory performance: employees say that he or she has submitted the receipts and recorded the transactions when they have not. The behaviorally anchored rating scales are a good method of performance appraisal because it meets the objectives of a firm. However, different organizations have various ways of ascertaining the effectiveness of a tool of appraisal (Akaah & Lund, 1994). For example, small companies are likely to be conscious on the costs related to the tool. On the other hand, the concern of large organizations with strong affirmative actions will be the validity of the method. There have been different arguments as to the effectiveness of behavioral anchored rating scale as a method appraisal. There are provisions as to the justifications of this method. The scale is in line with the goals and objectives of a firm. The needs of the employees are identifiable in this method. This is explainable through the details provided on the behaviors of an employee before the assigning of a rate. Example, rate-1, employees are absent over the whole week. The employees rated can have a background to the reasons for the numbers. The management also identifies the problems of their employees (Newstrom & Ruch, 1975). The method provides critical feedback to the mangers and employees. Managers find ways of responding to the problems outplayed by their workers. The results from this method can be easily used to make managerial decisions. For example, managers can decide on which employees should receive a higher salary. It is logical for employees with a higher rate and has positive behaviors, to receive higher wages that bottom rated employees (Jacobs, 1980). The method can be used to predict the performance of an employee in the future. This is achievable through checking of rates from previous reviews of an employee. The quantities nature of the results of this method enables statistical test done in personnel research. The costs associated with this method are minimal. The time require to assess employees using the method is relative small. This is because managers identify the behaviors of their employees each day. Therefore, it is easy for managers to draw a conclusion on the performance of employees. This method portrays minimal chances of making errors. This is because other experts apart from the managers give their on views on the rates assigned to behaviors of employees (Newstrom & Ruch, 1975). Later, the traits are finally assigned other ranks based on the new views of the experts. In addition, there are claims that there was no background research done before the development of behaviorally anchored ratings scales as a method of appraisal (Jacobs, 1980). The choice of form at an organization uses for appraisal varies. the task being performed influenced the choice of the format. Most of the formats define the various assumptions, which the behaviors are based. This is necessary in order to complete a certain task. the format that managers chose should match the assumptions used. A good example is the behavioral performance rating. There is a specification of the expected performance by the behavioral anchors. It should be noted that there are limitations of using this appraisal method. The most common limitation is the issue of errors might arise. The errors are possible because of rating scale. For example, the halo error or effect explains the possibility of mangers rating an employee in the same way in all areas reviewed because of their perception of those employees. Logical error could occur where a rate is assigned to the employees because there is a possible relationship between the rates and logic (Newstrom & Ruch, 1975). Errors due to personal biases could also occur. For example, if a manager has a friend who is an employee of the organization there are high chances that those employees will be assigned a higher rate. Lack of errors does not necessarily imply that the method is accurate. This is because other factors like delay of observations and feedback could lead to errors. Organizations should not use the rates of one manager to evaluate the performance (Gatewood & Carroll, 1991). This is because of the possibility of errors arising, and hence the method will not be effective. The organization should also ensure that the resources needed to measure and evaluate performance are available. This will enable the mangers to produce accurate rates based on the employee’s behavior. It is also possible that managers need to report inflating results on the performance. This cause the information and rates assigned to be incorrect. Forms for measuring performance using behavioral anchored rating scale should be developed. Departments in an organization require a different form of appraisal. This make behaviorally anchors rating scales a time-consuming system. This is because the management must develop the various form to suite the many departments. The dimensions used in the reviews should be incorporated in the forms (Trevino, 1990). The cognitive process in performance appraisal requires that the scales use is accurate and represent the correct score of an employee. Training and development can help invent a strong performance appraisal system in an organization. All raters including the managers require to be trained. This is because the procedure for gathering, observing and processing behavioral information will be effective. The process of training the raters aims at equipping the raters with the background knowledge of what traits they will look for in the employee’s behavior. The raters will also understand the procedure of observation of behavior until assigning of rates is complete. This training helps to prevent the occurrence of errors during the reviews (Harris, 1988). The training program should offer the raters with opportunities to exercise the skills they acquired. There after, feedback should be provided to the trained raters on their performance appraisal practices. The raters should be trained continuously on areas of monitoring performance and goal setting. This will enable managers to accept performance appraisal practice as part of their duties. Performance appraisal can be incorporated into the organizational culture of the firm in order to promote its effectiveness. All trained individual must fulfill the conditions required for training. Training needs to be frequently updated, and monitoring of the various aspects of training is possible. These aspects include personal biases, approaches to solving conflicts, good listening skills and two-way feedback. Training helps both managers and employees. It provides them with knowledge on the importance of performance appraisal. Several training methods can be used before implementing behaviorally anchored rating scales as a performance appraisal technique in the business (Hedge & Kavanagh 1988). An example is frame-of-reference training. This helps mangers to identify and develop  detailed performance scripts. According to research, this method of training produces accurate training. The other form of training is the error rater training. This training focuses on providing the raters with ways of preventing the occurrence of errors while using behaviorally anchored rating scales. However, the method produces new forms of appraisal that are in appropriate (Bernardin & Pence, 1980). This is because when focusing on preventing errors, methods that seem to be suitable for performance appraisal may be created. According to research conducted by (Hedge & Kavanagh 1988), this method is not suitable when using behavioral rating scales. This is because they provide ready-made decisions to the trainees and recommend behaviors to them. This could cause problems in the rating accuracies. Lack of opportunity for the raters to observe behaviors cannot be compensated by training. The raters must be trained so that they understand the method of appraisal. The trained raters must be able to use the instrument of appraisal as required (Bernardin & Pence, 1980). For example in behaviorally anchored rating scales, the raters must be capable of using the scales and interpreting the standards. The raters should manage to give feedback including goal setting within the required time. After the fulfillment of these conditions, the raters will efficiently execute their duties free from any forms of biases. The employees should be trained so that they have knowledge on performance appraisal. This will enable them to accept and rely on the appraisal system. Managers and raters should pay attention to issues that arise while using behaviorally anchored rating scales. the forms used should not report on the negative influences but on production efficiencies. The rating scales should concentrate on appraising the performance of employees. the forms used to design this method should not be complex. This is because if they are complex, there could be delays in payrolls and feedback. The rating of employees should be realistic. The behaviors used to describe a rate should be achievable in order to avoid the issues of complexities. the employee’s participation is a requirement for the rating system to be effective. Managers should be careful that the rating does not provoke conflicts among the employees that could lead to loss of talents (Harris, 1988). Critical incidents form the basic step of this method. It is possible to notice negative incidents of an employee than the positive incidents. The review procedures could create room for managers to outline the complaints on an incident. The employees might feel that mangers are monitoring them too much. Therefore, raters need to be carefully when identifying critical incidents. Preferably, the incidents chosen by the raters should be related to any encounter with the employees. the mangers should record all incidents. This will serve as evidence when an employee complains of the rater been biased (Hedge & Kavanagh 1988). Most organizations rate the employees annually. It is of note for raters to keep track of an employee’s behavior throughout the rating process. Managers who do not recall all the behaviors experience ‘memory decay’ (Trevino, 1990). It is obvious that memory decay would lead to errors in the evaluation. Rating should represent recent events that managers can easily remember. The recent event helps the managers to represent the correct performance of employees at given time. For example, it is wrong for an employee to be rated a poor performer based on the incidents of this month yet he or she had been performing well in the previous months. In conclusion, management should listen to the views of the employees on performance appraisal. The rating systems should be designed to motivate the workers. Motivation of the employees will foster the achievement of the organizational goals and objectives. This instrument of performance appraisal discussed in the essay is appropriate for performance appraisal. Accuracy of the methods of performance appraisal depends on the raters influence and knowledge of the systems. Managers should come up with ways of preventing errors in the appraisal systems. References Akaah, I. & Lund, D. (1994). The influence of personal and organizational values on marketing professionals' ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(1), 417-430. Bernardin, J. & Kane, J. (1982). Behavioural Observation Scales and the Evaluation of Performance Appraisal Effectiveness. United States of America: Cornell University Press. Bernardin, J. & Pence, E. (1980). Rater training: Creating new response sets and decreasing accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6(5), 60-66. Cardy, L. & Dobbins, H. (1994). Performance appraisal: A consideration of alternative perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern Publishers. Carroll, B & Gatewood, R. (1991). Assessment of ethical performance of organization members: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 16 (4), 667-690. Harris, C. (1988). A Comparison of Employee Attitude towards Two-Performance Appraisal Systems. Public Personnel Management, 17 (4), 443-456. Hedge, J. & Kavanagh, J. (1988). Improving the Accuracy of Performance Evaluations: Comparison of Three Methods of Performance Appraiser Training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (1), 63-73. Jacobs, R. (1980). Expectations of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales. Personnel Psychology, 3(3), 595-640. Newstrom, J. & Ruch, A. (1975). The ethics of management and management of ethics, MSU Business Topics, 3(1), 14-35. Trevino, L. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7(5), 378-385. Read More