Psychology and Work Today 10th Edition by Duane Schultz - Test Bank

Psychology and Work Today 10th Edition by Duane Schultz – Test Bank

Instant Download – Complete Test Bank With Answers

Sample Questions Are Posted Below

CHAPTER 5
Performance Appraisal
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After reading and studying Chapter 5, students should be able to:
• Define performance appraisal and specify the related HR functions.
• Describe how to ensure appraisal systems comply with EEOC guidelines.
• Understand the nature of opposition to appraisal systems from labor unions, employees, and managers.
• Explain and provide examples of the two approaches to measuring performance.
• Identify the techniques used to evaluate managerial performance.
• Describe and control for sources of rater error.
• Understand how to improve the effectiveness of performance appraisal systems and how to best
conduct the post-appraisal interview.
LECTURE OUTLINE
What Is Performance Appraisal?
Performance Appraisal (PA) is the periodic, formal evaluation of employee performance for the
purpose of making career decisions
Fair Employment Practices
EEOC guidelines apply to any selection procedure used for making employment decisions
Hiring
Promotion
Demotion
Transfer
Layoff
Discharge
Early retirement
Performance appraisal procedures must be validated
Protecting Against Bias Claims
Personnel decisions should be based on a well-designed performance review program that includes
formal appraisal interviews
Examples:
Racial bias
Age bias
Copyright © 2010, 2006, 2002 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Schultz & Schultz 10e Chapter 5101
Criteria for Compliance
Performance appraisals should be based on job analyses to document specific critical incidents and
behaviors related to job performance
Appraisers should focus on actual job behaviors rather than personality characteristics
Supervisors should be well trained
Notes, records, and documentation should be retained
Why Conduct PA?
Validation of selection techniques and criteria
Make decisions about that person’s future with the organization
Identify training requirements
Employee improvement
Pay, promotion, and other personnel decisions
Critics of Performance Appraisal
Labor unions
Represent approximately 11% of workforce
Prefer seniority rather than assessment
Employees
Prefer not to be told of deficiencies
Managers
Dislike playing the role of judge
Professors
See “Newsbreak” on p. 108
Performance Appraisal Techniques
Objective Methods
Output measures
Computerized performance monitoring
Job-related personal data
Subjective (Judgmental) Methods
Written narratives
Merit rating techniques
Output Measures
Quantity, quality, job experience, and other environmental factors must be considered
Job-related personal data
Computerized performance monitoring
Computers can be programmed to monitor employee’s on the job activities
Attitudes toward computer monitoring depend on how the data are used
Favorable if used for development
Found to be stressful
Copyright © 2010, 2006, 2002 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Schultz & Schultz 10e Chapter 5102
Computerized Monitoring
Advantages
Immediate and objective feedback
Reduces rater bias
Helps identify training needs
Facilitates goal setting
May contribute to increases in productivity
Disadvantages
May be considered an invasion of privacy
May increase stress
May reduce job satisfaction
May lead to focus on quantity at the expense of quality
Written Narratives
Subjective (judgmental) PA technique
Brief essays describing employee performance
More prone to personal bias than merit rating techniques
Can be ambiguous and misleading
Sometimes this is intentional to avoid giving negative appraisal
Merit Rating Techniques
Performance rating scales
Ranking
Paired-comparison
Forced distribution
Forced choice
Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS)
Behavioral observation scales (BOS)
Management by objectives (MBO)
Performance Rating Scales
Most frequently used technique
Supervisors indicate how or to what degree a worker possesses a relevant job characteristic
Ranking Technique
Supervisors list the workers in order from highest to lowest
Simple to do
Difficult when there are many employees to evaluate
Provides less evaluative data than rating
Doesn’t allow for listing of similarities
Doesn’t indicate the extent of difference between best and worst ratees
Copyright © 2010, 2006, 2002 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Schultz & Schultz 10e Chapter 5103
Paired-Comparison Technique
Compares the performance of each worker with that of every other person in the group
Number of comparisons
(N * (N – 1)) / 2
Advantage
Accurate and judgmental process is simple
Disadvantage
Many comparisons when dealing with a large number of employees
Forced-Distribution Technique
Supervisors rate employees according to a prescribed distribution of ratings, similar to grading on a
curve
Superior 10%
Better than average 20%
Average 40%
Below average 20%
Poor 10%
Predetermined categories may not be fair if there is small range of scores
All ratees in group may be above average for their job
Hard to compare across groups
Forced-Choice Technique
Raters are presented with groups of descriptive statements and are asked to select the phrase in each
group that is most descriptive of the worker being evaluated.
Example: Choose one of the following:
Is reliable
Is agreeable
One statement is desirable, but the other is disguised in its appeal
More costly to develop than other merit rating methods because each item must be validated
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)
Evaluate performance on basis of behaviors important to success or failure on job
Appraisers rate critical employee behavior
Critical-incident behaviors are established
These behaviors are used as standards for appraising effectiveness
The BARS items can be scored objectively by indicating whether the employee displays that
behavior
Meet federal fair employment guidelines
BARS for a CEO – Fig. 5-3, p. 117.
Copyright © 2010, 2006, 2002 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Schultz & Schultz 10e Chapter 5104
Behavioral Observation Scale (BOS)
Appraisers rate the frequency of critical employee behaviors
The ratings are assigned on a five point scale
The evaluation yields a total score
As with BARS, BOS meets federal fair employment standards because it is based on actual behaviors
required for performance
Research has not found consistent support for the superiority of either BARS or BOS
Management By Objective (MBO)
Involves mutual agreement between employee and manager on goals to be achieved in a given period
Two phases
Goal setting
Performance review
Employees may feel pressured to set higher goals
MBO technique satisfies fair employment guidelines
Has been found to increase motivation and productivity
Evaluating Managers
Assessment centers
Evaluation by superiors
Evaluation by colleagues
Peer ratings tend to be more favorable for career development than for promotion decisions
Self-evaluation
Self-ratings suffer from leniency
Subordinate evaluation
Effective in developing leadership & leads to improved performance
360 degree feedback (multisource)
Common Sources of Rating Error
Halo effect
Constant or systematic bias
Most-recent-performance error
Inadequate information error
Average rating or leniency error
Rater’s cognitive processes
Rater personality
Role conflict
Impression Management
Copyright © 2010, 2006, 2002 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Schultz & Schultz 10e Chapter 5105
Halo Effect
The tendency to judge all aspects of a person’s behavior or character on the basis of a single attribute
Positive or Negative
Solution: Use multiple raters
Research indicates halo may not be as pervasive as originally thought
Does not appear to reduce overall rating
Often undetectable
May be illusory
Constant or Systematic Bias
Based on the different standards used by raters
Hard rater
Easy rater
Solution: Require distribution of ratings according to the normal curve
Most-Recent-Performance Error
A rater evaluates a worker’s most recent job behavior rather than behavior throughout the period since
last appraisal
False high rating
False low rating
Solution: Require more frequent performance appraisals
Inadequate Information Error
Supervisors rate subordinates even though they don’t know enough about them to rate them fairly or
accurately
Solution: Train raters and allow them to decline to rate those they don’t know well
Average Rating or Leniency Error
Average rating error – The rater is unwilling to assign a very high or very low score
Leniency error – Rater is unwilling to assign other than a favorable score
Problem: Does not reflect the range of differences that exist among workers and provides no useful
data
Solution: Maintain a record of supervisor rating tendencies
Rater’s Cognitive Processes
Four cognitive variables can influence performance evaluations:
Category structures
How workers are categorized – e.g., team player; similar to halo effect
Beliefs about human nature
Interpersonal affect
One’s feelings toward the other person
Susceptible to impression management techniques
Attribution – Raters attribute positive or negative explanations of employee behavior
Copyright © 2010, 2006, 2002 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Schultz & Schultz 10e Chapter 5106
Rater Personality
High self-monitors present themselves in whatever ways they believe best fits the social situation
around them
High self-monitors gave more lenient and less accurate ratings than did low self-monitors (Jawahar,
2001)
When both members of a peer rating team scored high on conscientiousness, they gave each other
significantly higher ratings than those pares who shared low conscientiousness scores (Antonioni &
Park, 2001)
Role Conflict
Disparity between job demands and the employee’s personal standards for right and wrong
Those high in role conflict tend to rate employees higher than justified evaluations to
Establish control over work situation
Avoid confrontation with subordinates
Obtain subordinate gratitude and goodwill
Impression Management
Involves behaving in ways designed to present ourselves to others in a positive way
Ingratiation (ch. 3)
Self-promotion (ch. 3)
Political Skill – The ability to understand others and to use that understanding to influence them in
ways designed to support the attainment of our goals
Harris, Kacmar, Zivnuska, & Shaw (2007) found that those high in political skill were much more
likely to be perceived by their supervisors as not using ingratiation behaviors to curry favor for
personal gain
Improving Performance Appraisals
Training
Create awareness of normal distribution of abilities and skills
Develop ability to define objective criteria for work behaviors
Providing feedback to raters
90% of managers said feedback influenced second set of ratings (Davis & Mount, 1984)
Subordinate participation
Led to increased employee trust and perceptions of accuracy of evaluation system (Mayer &
Davis, 1999)
Postappraisal Interviews
Offers feedback related to appraisal to help employee improve performance
Meta-analysis by DeNisi & Kluger (2000) found that employees preferred computer- vs.
supervisor-provided postappraisal information
Provides employee opportunity to react to criticism
Negative feedback can make employees angry
Workers react to criticism differently
Copyright © 2010, 2006, 2002 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Schultz & Schultz 10e Chapter 5107
Improving Postappraisal Interviews
Allow employees to participate actively in the appraisal process
Interviewer should adopt a supportive attitude
Focus on specific job problems, not personal characteristics
Establish specific goals jointly
Allow the employee to rebut
Discussions of changes in salary and rank should be linked directly to performance criteria
Poor Ratings for PA Programs
Managers
Lack the time to make other than hasty appraisals
90% of HR managers dissatisfied with their organization’s PA system
Employees
Don’t like appraisals
Uninformed about the criteria (criteria appear biased)
Correlations between ratings and results-oriented criteria are low due to poor implementation
KEY TERMS (p. 129)
Attribution – a source of error in performance appraisal in which raters attribute or assign positive or
negative explanations to an employee’s behavior. (p. 124)
Average rating (leniency) error – a source of error in performance appraisal in which a rater is
unwilling to assign very good or very poor ratings. Consequently, most ratings fall in the middle of the
rating scale. (p. 123)
Behavioral observation scales (BOS) – a performance appraisal technique in which appraisers rate the
frequency of critical employee behaviors. (p. 118)
Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) – a performance appraisal technique in which
appraisers rate critical employee behaviors. (p. 117)
Constant (systematic) bias – a source of error in performance appraisal based on the different standards
used by raters. (p. 122)
Forced-choice technique – a performance appraisal technique in which raters are presented with groups
of descriptive statements and are asked to select the phrase in each group that is most descriptive or least
descriptive of the worker being evaluated. (p. 116)
Forced-distribution technique – a performance appraisal technique in which supervisors rate
employees according to a prescribed distribution of ratings, similar to grading on a curve. (p. 116)
Halo effect – the tendency to judge all aspects of a person’s behavior or character on the basis of a single
attribute. (p. 122)
Inadequate information error – a source of error in performance appraisal in which supervisors rate
their subordinates even though they may not know enough about them to do so fairly and accurately.
(p. 123)
Interpersonal effect – our feelings or emotions toward another person. In performance appraisal, the
emotional tone of the relationship between manager and employee, whether positive or negative, can
influence the assigned ratings. (p. 123)