When are they conducted[edit]

Performance appraisals (PAs) are conducted at least annually,[25] and annual

employee performance reviews appear to be the standard in most American
orani!ations"[#] $owever, %it has been ac&nowleded that appraisals conducted
more fre'uently (more than once a year) may have positive implications for both
the orani!ation and employee"([)*] +t is suested that reular performance
feedbac& provided to employees may 'uell any une,pected and-or surprisin
feedbac& to year.end discussions"[)/] +n a recent research study concernin the
timeliness of PAs, %one of the respondents even suested that the performance
review should be done formally and more fre'uently, perhaps once a month, and
recorded twice a year"([)/]
0ther researchers propose that the purpose of PAs and the fre'uency of their
feedbac& are continent upon the nature of the 1ob and characteristics of the
employee"[*2] 3or e,ample, employees of routine 1obs where performance
maintenance is the oal would bene4t su5ciently from annual PA feedbac&" 0n the
other hand, employees of more discretionary and non.routine 1obs, where oal.
settin is appropriate and there is room for development, would bene4t from more
fre'uent PA feedbac&" 6on formal performance appraisals may be done more often,
to prevent the element of surprise from the formal appraisal"[#][*2][/7]
8ethods of collectin data[edit]
9here are three main methods used to collect performance appraisal (PA) data:
ob1ective production, personnel, and 1udmental evaluation" ;udmental evaluations
are the most commonly used with a lare variety of evaluation methods"[<]
0b1ective production[edit]
9he ob1ective production method consists of direct, but limited, measures such as
sales 4ures, production numbers, the electronic performance monitorin of data
entry wor&ers, etc"[<] 9he measures used to appraise performance would depend
on the 1ob and its duties" Althouh these measures deal with unambiuous criteria,
they are usually incomplete because of criterion contamination and criterion
de4ciency" =riterion contamination refers to the part of the actual criteria that is
unrelated to the conceptual criteria"[<] +n other words, the variability in
performance can be due to factors outside of the employee>s control" =riterion
de4ciency refers to the part of the conceptual criteria that is not measured by the
actual criteria"[<] +n other words, the 'uantity of production does not necessarily
indicate the 'uality of the products" ?oth types of criterion inade'uacies result in
reduced validity of the measure"[<] @eardless of the fact that ob1ective production
data is not a complete reAection upon 1ob performance, such data is relevant to 1ob
performance"
$appy.productive wor&er hypothesis[edit]
9he happy.productive wor&er hypothesis states that the happiest wor&ers are the
most productive performers, and the most productive performers are the happiest
wor&ers"[/)] Bet, after decades of research, the relationship between 1ob
satisfaction and 1ob performance produces only a wea& positive correlation"
Published in 277) by Psycholoical ?ulletin, a meta.analysis of *)2 research studies
produced an uncorrected correlation of 7")#"[/2] 9his correlation is much wea&er
than what the happy.productive wor&er hypothesis would predict"
Personnel[edit]
9he personnel method is the recordin of withdrawal behaviors (i"e" absenteeism,
accidents)" 8ost orani!ations consider une,cused absences to be indicators of
poor 1ob performance, even with all other factors bein e'ualC[/)] however, this is
sub1ect to criterion de4ciency" 9he 'uantity of an employee>s absences does not
reAect how dedicated he-she may be to the 1ob and its duties" Dspecially for blue.
collar 1obs, accidents can often be a useful indicator of poor 1ob performance,[<] but
this is also sub1ect to criterion contamination because situational factors also
contribute to accidents" 0nce aain, both types of criterion inade'uacies result in
reduced validity of the measure"[<] Althouh e,cessive absenteeism and-or
accidents often indicate poor 1ob performance rather than ood performance, such
personnel data is not a comprehensive reAection of an employee>s performance"[<]
;udmental evaluation[edit]
;udmental evaluation appears to be a collection of methods, and as such, could be
considered a methodoloy" A common approach to obtainin PAs is by means of
raters"[)] ?ecause the raters are human, some error will always be present in the
data" 9he most common types of error are leniency errors, central tendency errors,
and errors resultin from the halo eEect"[)] $alo eEect is characteri!ed by the
tendency to rate a person who is e,ceptionally stron in one area hiher than
deserved in other areas" +t is the opposite of the $orns eEect, where a person is
rated as lower than deserved in other areas due to an e,treme de4ciency in a sinle
discipline"[/*] 9hese errors arise predominantly from social conition and the theory
in that how we 1ude and evaluate other individuals in various conte,ts is
associated with how we %ac'uire, process, and cateori!e information("[)]
An essential piece of this method is rater trainin" @ater trainin is the %process of
educatin raters to ma&e more accurate assessments of performance, typically
achieved by reducin the fre'uency of halo, leniency, and central.tendency errors("
[)] @ater trainin also helps the raters %develop a common frame of reference for
evaluation( of individual performance"[//] 8any researchers and survey
respondents support the ambition of eEectual rater trainin"[)/] $owever, it is
noted that such trainin is e,pensive, time consumin, and only truly functional for
behavioral assessments"[)/]
Another piece to &eep in mind is the eEects of rater motivation on 1udmental
evaluations" +t is not uncommon for ratin inAation to occur due to rater motivation
(i"e" %orani!ationally induced pressures that compel raters to evaluate ratees
positively()"[)] 9ypically, raters are motivated to ive hiher ratins because of the
lac& of orani!ational sanction concernin accurate-inaccurate appraisals, the
raterFs desire to uarantee promotions, salary increases, etc", the raterFs inclination
to avoid neative reactions from subordinates, and the observation that hiher
ratins of the ratees reAect favorably upon the rater"[)]
9he main methods used in 1udmental performance appraisal are:[)]
Graphic @atin Hcale: raphic ratin scales (see scale (social sciences)) are the
most commonly used system in PA"[)] 0n several diEerent factors, subordinates are
1uded on Fhow muchF of that factor or trait they possess" 9ypically, the raters use a
5. or I.point scaleC however, there are as many as 27.point scales"[)]
Dmployee.=omparison 8ethods: rather than subordinates bein 1uded aainst pre.
established criteria, they are compared with one another" 9his method eliminates
central tendency and leniency errors but still allows for halo eEect errors to occur"
[)] 9he ran&.order method has raters ran&in subordinates from %best( to %worst(,
but how truly ood or bad one is on a performance dimension would be un&nown"[)]
9he paired.comparison method re'uires the rater to select the two JbestJ
subordinates out of a roup on each dimension then ran& individuals accordin to
the number of times each subordinate was selected as one of the JbestJ"[)] 9he
forced.distribution method is ood for lare roups of ratees" 9he raters evaluate
each subordinate on one or more dimensions and then place (or (force.4t(, if you
will) each subordinate in a 5 to I cateory normal distribution"[)] 9he method of
top.radin can be applied to the forced distribution method"[/5] 9his method
identi4es the )7K lowest performin subordinates, as accordin to the forced
distribution, and dismisses them leavin the 27K hiher performin subordinates"
?ehavioral =hec&lists and Hcales: behaviors are more de4nite than traits" 9he
critical incidents method (or critical incident techni'ue) concerns %speci4c behaviors
indicative of ood or bad 1ob performance("[)] Hupervisors record behaviors of what
they 1ude to be 1ob performance relevant, and they &eep a runnin tally of ood
and bad behaviors" A discussion on performance may then follow" 9he behaviorally
anchored ratin scales (?A@H) combine the critical incidents method with ratin
scale methods by ratin performance on a scale but with the scale points bein
anchored by behavioral incidents"[)] 6ote that ?A@H are 1ob speci4c" +n the
behavioral observation scale(?0H) approach to performance appraisal, employees
are also evaluated in the terms of critical incidents" +n that respect, it is similar to
?A@H" $owever, the ?0H appraisal rate subordinates on the fre'uency of the critical
incidents as they are observed to occur over a iven period" 9he ratins are
assined on a 4ve.point scale" 9he behavioral incidents for the ratin scale are
developed in the same way as for ?A@H throuh identi4cation by supervisors or
other sub1ect matter e,perts" Himilarly, ?0H techni'ues meet e'ual employment
opportunity because they are related to actual behavior re'uired for successful 1ob
performance"
Peer and self assessments[edit]
While assessment can be performed alon reportin relationships (usually top.
down), net assessment can include peer and self.assessment" Peer assessment is
when assessment is performed by colleaues alon both hori!ontal (similar
function) and vertical (diEerent function) relationship" Helf.assessments are when
individuals evaluate themselves"[)] 9here are three common methods of peer
assessments" Peer nomination involves each roup member nominatin who he-she
believes to be the %best( on a certain dimension of performance" Peer ratins has
each roup member rate each other on a set of performance dimensions" Peer
ran&in re'uires each roup member ran& all fellow members from %best( to
%worst( on one or more dimensions of performance"
Helf.assessments: for self.assessments, individuals assess and evaluate their own
behavior and 1ob performance"[)]
Peer assessments: members of a roup evaluate and appraise the performance of
their fellow roup members"[)] 9here +t is common for a raphic ratin scale to be
used for self.assessments" Positive leniency tends to be a problem with self.
assessments"[<]
*<7.deree feedbac&: *<7.deree feedbac& is multiple evaluations of employees
which often include assessments from superior(s), peers, and one>s self"[)]
6eotiated Performance Appraisal: 9he 6eotiated Performance Appraisal (6PA) is
an emerin approach for improvin communication between supervisors and
subordinates and for increasin employee productivity, and may also be adapted to
an alternate mediation model for supervisor.subordinate conAicts" A facilitator
meets separately with the supervisor and with the subordinate to prepare three
lists" What employees do well, where the employee has improved in recently, and
areas where the employee still needs to improve" ?ecause the subordinate will
present his or her lists 4rst durin the 1oint session, this reduces defensive
behaviors" 3urthermore, the subordinate comes to the 1oint session not only
prepared to share areas of needed improvement, but also brins concrete ideas as
to how these improvements can be made" 9he 6PA also focuses very stronly on
what employees are doin well, and involves a minimum of twenty minutes of
praise when discussin what the employee does well" 9he role of the facilitator is
that of a coach in the pre.caucuses, and in the 1oint sessions the supervisor and
subordinate mostly spea& to each other with little facilitator interference"[/<][/I]
+n eneral, optimal PA process involves a combination of multiple assessment
modalities" 0ne common recommendation is that assessment Aows from self.
assessment, to peer.assessment, to manaement assessment . in that order"
Htartin with self.assessment facilitates avoidance of conAict" Peer feedbac&
ensures peer accountability, which may yield better results than accountability to
manaement" 8anaement assessment comes last for need of reconition by
authority and avoidance of conAict in case of disareements" +t is enerally
recommended that PA is done in shorter cycles to avoid hih.sta&es discussions, as
is usually the case in lon.cycle appraisals"[citation needed]