Implementing a Performance Management System: Overview

Preparation Communication Plan Appeals Process Training Programs Pilot Testing Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Preparation
Need to gain system buy-in through:
Communication plan regarding Performance Management system
Including appeals process

Training programs for raters Pilot testing system

Ongoing monitoring and evaluation

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Communication Plan answers:

What is Performance Management (PM)? How does PM fit in our strategy? Whats in it for me? How does it work?

What are our roles and responsibilities?

How does PM relate to other initiatives?

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Cognitive Biases that affect communications effectiveness

Selective exposure Selective perception Selective retention

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

To minimize effects of cognitive biases: A. Consider employees:

Involve employees in system design Show how employee needs are met

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

To minimize effects of cognitive biases: B. Emphasize the positive

Use credible communicators Strike first create positive attitude Provide facts and conclusions

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

To minimize effects of cognitive biases: C. Repeat, document, be consistent

Put it in writing Use multiple channels of communication Say it, and then say it again

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Appeals Process
Promote Employee buy-in to PM system
Amicable/Non-retaliatory Resolution of disagreements

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Appeals Process
Employees can question two types of issue:
Judgmental
(validity of evaluation)

Administrative
(whether policies and procedures were followed)

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Appeals Process
Level 1
HR reviews facts, policies, procedures HR reports to supervisor/employee HR attempts to negotiate settlement

Level 2
Arbitrator (panel of peers and managers) and/or High-level manager final decision

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Rater Training Programs

Content Areas to include
Information Identifying, Observing, Recording, Evaluating How to Interact with Employees

Choices of Training Programs to implement

RET FOR BO SL
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Content
A. Information - how the system works
Reasons for implementing the performance management system Information
the appraisal form system mechanics

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Content
B. Identifying, observing, recording, and evaluating performance
How to identify and rank job activities How to observe, record, and measure performance How to minimize rating errors

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Content
C. How to interact with employees when they receive performance information
How to conduct an appraisal interview How to train, counsel, and coach

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Choices of Training Programs

Rater Error Training (RET) Frame of Reference Training (FOR) Behavioral Observation Training (BO) Self-leadership Training (SL)

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Rater Error Training (RET) Goals of Rater Error Training (RET)

Make raters aware of types of rating errors Help raters minimize errors Increase rating accuracy

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Intentional rating errors Leniency (inflation) Severity (deflation) Central tendency

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Unintentional rating errors

Similar to Me Halo Primacy First impression Contrast Stereotype Negativity Recency Spillover

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Possible Solutions for Types of Rating Errors

Intentional
Focus on motivation Demonstrate benefits of providing accurate ratings

Unintentional
Alert raters to different errors and their causes

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Frame of Reference Training (FOR) Goal of Frame of Reference Training (FOR)*

Raters develop common frame of reference
Observing performance Evaluating performance

*Most appropriate when PM appraisal system focuses on behaviors

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Expected Results of Frame of Reference Training (FOR)

Raters provide consistent, more accurate ratings Raters help employees design effective development plans

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Behavioral Observation Training (BO) Goals of Behavioral Observation Training (BO)

Minimize unintentional rating errors Improve rater skills by focusing on how raters:
Observe performance Store information about performance Recall information about performance Use information about performance

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Self-leadership Training (SL) Goals of Self-leadership Training (SL)

Improve rater confidence in ability to manage performance Enhance mental processes Increase self-efficacy

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Pilot Testing
Provides ability to
Discover potential problems Fix them

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Pilot Testing - benefits

Gain information from potential participants Learn about difficulties/obstacles Collect recommendations on how to improve Understand personal reactions Get early buy-in Get higher rate of acceptance

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Implementing a Pilot Test

Roll out test version with sample group
Staff and jobs generalizable to organization

Fully implement planned system

All participants keep records of issues encountered Do not record appraisal scores Collect input from all participants

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation

When system is implemented, decide:
How to evaluate system effectiveness How to measure implementation How to measure results

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Evaluation data to collect:

Reactions to the system Assessments of requirements
Operational Technical

Effectiveness of performance ratings

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

Indicators to consider
Number of individuals evaluated Distribution of performance ratings Quality of information Quality of performance discussion meetings System satisfaction Cost/benefit ratio Unit-level and organization-level performance

Prentice Hall, Inc. 2006

Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver