PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

METHODS

What to Evaluate?

Traits Measures

Are an assessment of what the employee is,

not what the employee actually does.

Behavior-based measures

Focus on what an employee does and what the

employee should do differently.

Results-based measures

Focus is on accomplishments or outcomes that

can be measured objectively. Problems occur

when results measures are difficult to obtain,

outside employee control, or ignore the means

by which the results were obtained.

How to Evaluate?

Relative Assessment

Employees are measured against other

employees and ranked on their distance

from the next higher to the next lower

performing employee.

Absolute Measurement

Employees are all measured strictly by

absolute performance requirements or

standards of their jobs.

Appraisal

Methods

• Comparative

– Ranking

– Paired Comparison

– Forced Distribution

• Absolute

– Critical Incident

– Narrative Essay

– Checklist

– Graphic Rating Scale (GRS)

– Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales

(BARS)

– Behavioral Observation Scales (BOS)

– Forced Choice

• Objectives

– Management By Objectives (MBO)

COMPARATIVE METHODS

Ranking

Alternation Ranking

Paired Comparison

Forced Distribution

Alternation ranking

PAIRED COMPARISON:

For the trait “Creativity”

_+++CHRIS

+_++MIKE

_++_CHARLES

____JACK

__++AHMAD

CHRISMIKECHARLESJACKAHMAD

Forced Distribution

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Low Low-

avg

Avg High-

avg

High

Low

Low-avg

Avg

High-avg

High

FREE ESSAY

It is a narrative appraisal method and is

based on absolute standards

It describes an employee's actions rather

than indicating an actual rating

The intent is to allow the rater more

flexibility than other rating methods do.

The Process

A job is broken up into various general

dimensions. Each dimension is followed by

some space where the rater has to write an

essay on that dimension

These essays concentrate on performance

strengths and weaknesses, identify

developmental needs and also suggest

courses of remedial action

These essays can either be composed alone or

in collaboration with the appraisee

Narrative Forms

Final appraisals are frequently written in a narrative form

Supervisor rates employee by describing the behaviour related to each factor

CRITICAL INCIDENT METHOD

Critical incidents are behaviors that result in

good or poor job performance.

The rater records all such incidents and the

ratee‟s involvement in it.

The rater plays the role of „Observer‟ rather

than „Judge‟.

For eg.

“I saw Mike closing the steam line valve at

the instant the pipeline burst. We could

save a lot of lives due to the above factor.”

CRITICALITY OF THE METHOD..

This forms the basis for developing a lot

of the other formats that are used for

performance assessment.

Checklist

GRS

BARS

BOS

Forced Choice Scales

RECORDING CRITICAL INCIDENTS

Should be Specific

Focus on Observable behaviours that

have been exhibited on the job

Describe the Context in which the

behaviour occurred

Indicate the Consequences or

Outcomes of the behaviour

GROUP TASK

1. Identify a JOB that every member of the group knows

well and which has a large component of observable

elements.

2. Identify at least five major dimensions of

performance for that job. You can use or adapt the

dimensions that are already provided or generate

your own.

3. Individually generate incidents for each dimension,

using the four categories that are provided.

4. Ensure that the incidents meet the four

characteristics that were discussed, and are actually

observable behaviors, and not inferred traits.

GROUP TASK (contd.)

RETRANSLATE: Each person is to read out an incident he/she has generated and the others have to state which dimension and which performance level that incident belongs to.

For each incident mark the level of agreement for both „dimension‟ and „performance level‟.

Keep only those items where level of agreement is more than 80%. The others need to be discussed until there is some agreement or else should be discarded.

GROUP TASK (contd.)

ASSIGN EFFECTIVENESS VALUES: for all the incidents that survive retranslation.

Take all the incidents that have remained and individually assign an effectiveness value on a 7 point scale. 1 = not acceptable & 7 = excellent.

Discuss and keep only those incidents where there is agreement on the effectiveness values.

Try to have incidents that define the middle and ends of each scale.

CHECKLIST & WEIGHTED

CHECKLIST

This method requires the rater to select

statements or words that describe the

employees performance or characteristics.

Checklists consist of groups of statements

that pertain to a given job.

Raters check statements most representative

of the characteristics and performance of an

employee.

STEPS IN CONSTRUCTION

Generate a large no. of behavioral statements

relevant to work

These should represent all levels of effectiveness

Rules to follow

• Express only one thought per statement

• Use understandable terminology

• Eliminate double negatives

• Express thoughts simply and clearly

A panel of experts judges how far each statement

represents effective or ineffective behaviour

Expert ratings summarized to identify those

statements consistently placed at some point on

the continuum

RATINGS BY EXPERTS ON

BEHAVIORAL STATEMENTS

Highly Highly

Ineffective Effective

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 3 5 7

2 4 5 4 1 1

3 8 7

4 1 2 6 2 2 1 1

Sta

tem

ents

STEPS IN CONSTRUCTION (contd.)

On the basis of this, the most reliably

rated items are selected for use.

Items are selected so that every point on

the continuum is represented.

Items are randomized on the rating

format.

Weights are decided by discussion.

GRAPHIC RATING SCALE (GRS)

In a Graphic Rating Scale, the rater assesses a

ratee on performance-related characteristics

and personality characteristics,

ie. factors like quantity of work, dependability,

job knowledge, cooperativeness, ability to lead,

interpersonal skills, etc. by using a rating

scale.

Issues in constructing GRS

Selecting the characteristics to evaluate

Deciding the number of points on the scale

Scaling the characteristics

Providing descriptions for each criteria and

each point on the scale

BEHAVIORALLY ANCHORED RATING SCALES

(BARS)

Developed by Patricia Cain Smith and Lorne

Kendall

A series of continuous graphic rating scales

arranged vertically

Behavioural descriptions exemplifying various

degrees of each dimensions serve as anchors

on the scale

Designed to allow superiors to be more

comfortable while giving feedback

BARS Dimension: Quality of Group Member

Input

Group member does little work and offersno valuable ideas or feedback

Effective

Ineffective

Group member has read all agreed-uponmaterial

Group member participates in discussions,though not always prepared

5

4

3

2

1

Group member has read some agreed-upon material

Group member does not attend any meeting

The Steps in BARS development

GENERATE CRITICAL INCIDENTS : Ask

persons who know the job (job holders,

supervisors) to describe specific illustrations

of effective and ineffective performance.

DEVELOP PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS :

Have them cluster the incidents into a smaller

set of 5 or 10 performance dimensions, and

define each dimension.

The Steps in BARS development (contd.)

REALLOCATE INCIDENTS : Another group of

people who also know the job then reallocate

the original critical incidents.

They get the cluster definitions and the critical

incidents in a jumbled manner

They reassign each incident to the cluster they think

it fits best.

A critical incident is retained if some percentage

(usually 50% to 80%) of this second group assigns it

to the same cluster as did the first group.

The Steps in BARS development (contd.)

SCALE THE INCIDENTS : the second group

then rates the behavior described by the

incident as to how effectively or ineffectively

it represents performance on the dimension (

7- to 9-point scales are typical)

DEVELOP A FINAL INSTRUMENT : choose

about 6 or 7 of the incidents as the

dimension‟s behavioral anchors.

Behavioral Observation Scale

(BOS)

Based on critical incidents

like BARS

Rating of frequency of critical incident

based on recollection of rater

Concentrates on critical behaviors that are

actually performed

Critical incident frequency ratings are

summed for an overall rating

FORCED CHOICE SCALE

THE NEED

Despite the sophisticated methods of

new rating formats (e.g BARS), deliberate

distortion of ratings still remains. Such

distortion , undermine the purpose of the

appraisal system.

What is the Forced Choice Method ?

A rating technique specially designed to

increase objectivity and to decrease biasing

factors in ratings.

It comprises of the use of statements that are grouped into sets according to certain statistical properties.

Rater is “forced” to select from each group of statements a subset (usually 2) of those statements that are “most descriptive” of each ratee.

For eg.

Aim of lesson is clearly presented

Repeats questions to whole class before answering

Conducts class in orderly manner

At ease before class

Is patient with slow learners

Lectures with confidence

Keeps interest and attention of class

Acquaints class with lesson objective in advance

Forced-Choice Format

Items for forced-choice scales are arranged

according to two statistical properties of each

of the statement.

Favourability Index (FI)

Discriminability Index (DI)

Discriminability Index – DI

Favorability Index - FI

FI = Indicates the extent to which a statement

reflects the niceness, attractiveness, or social

desirability of the behaviour or characteristic it

describes.

DI = Reflects the extent to which a statement

describes a behaviour or a characteristic that

distinguishes superior employees from others.

Forced Choice Scale

A tetrad of four statements is provided

In the tetrad all the 4 statements have equal

favourability

2 statements have significantly greater

discriminating power than the other 2.

DI & FISTATEMENT DI FI

At ease before class 0.53 2.35

Conducts class in orderly manner 1.20 2.22

Repeats questions to whole class before

answering0.57 2.29

Aim of lesson is clearly presented 1.14 2.38

STATEMENT DI FI

Is patient with slow learners 1.15 2.82

Lectures with confidence 0.54 2.75

Keeps interest and attention of class 1.39 2.89

Acquaints class with lesson objective in

advance0.79 2.85

Advantages of the method

Difficulty in deliberately distorting ratings in

favour of or against particular individuals

because raters have no idea which

statements of each group will ultimately result

in higher (or lower) ratings.

Research has proved that ratings from this method were a more valid measure of real worth than ratings from other formats used earlier.

Why is it not popular among raters?

Raters prefer other methods as with this

method they cannot determine whether they

are rating their best people high or their worst

people low.

Inability to make an evaluation or a direct rating

can be frustrating to raters.

MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES

The use of Management By Objectives was

first widely advocated in the 1950s by the

noted management theorist Peter Drucker.

MBO methods of performance appraisal are

results-oriented i.e., they seek to measure

employee performance by examining the

extent to which predetermined work objectives

have been met.

THE PROCESS Determination of KPAs

Setting Objectives under each KPA

Observing and Documenting Performance

Periodic Review

Performance Analysis

Facilitating Factors Inhibiting Factors

Individual FI II

Reporting Officer FRO IRO

Org & Systems FOS IOS

Environment FE IE

Subordinate FS IS

Performance Rating

Performance Feedback & Further Goal Setting