Performance Managemnt

1. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
Managing BehaviorManaging Behavior

2. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
Link between behavior and outcomes is not
obvious
Parties involved in assessing behavior
Peers, Bosses, Subordinates, Customers, and
Technology

3. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
Behavioral Assessment methodBehavioral Assessment method
There are several methods and techniques used for evaluating /
assessing employees behavior. These are classified as
A] Traditional methods
1. Confidential Report –
2. Free from or essay method –
3. Straight ranking -
4. Paired comparisons –
5. Forced Distribution
6. Graphic rating scale
7. Checklist method
8. Critical incidents
9. Group appraisal
10.Field review
B] Modern methods
1. Assessment centre
2. Human Resource
Accounting
3. Behaviorally Anchored
Rating Scale
4. Appraisal through MBO
5. 360 Degree appraisal

4. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
A] Traditional methodsA] Traditional methods :: 1. Confidential Report1. Confidential Report
Prepared by employee’s immediate boss,
covers strength and weakness, achievement
and failure, personality and behavior of the
employee
It involves subjectivity as is based on impression
rather than on data
Its credibility is very low therefore no feedback is
provided to the employee being appraisal.

5. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
2. Free from or essay method –2. Free from or essay method –
Under this method, the evaluator writes a short essay on
the employee’s performance on the basis of over all
impression.
The description is expected to be as factual and concrete
as possible.
This can provide a good deal of information about
employee and evaluator can explain with the help of
examples.
This method suffers from several drawbacks –
1. The appraisal may be loaded with flowery language
2. The quality of appraisal depends on the writing ability
of evaluator
3. It is very time consuming
4. Difficult to compare two essay appraisal

6. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
3. Straight ranking -3. Straight ranking -
Here evaluator assigns relative rank to the employees in
the same work unit doing the same job.
Employees are ranked from the best to the poorest on the
basis of performance.
The ‘whole person’ is compared with the other ‘whole
person’ without analyzing performance.
Employee - A B C D E
Rank - 2 1 5 4 3
It is one of the oldest and simple methods, it has several
weaknesses:
It involves bias and snap Judgement
Difficult to rank as having varying behavior pattern
it indicate only how a person stands in relation to
other in the group but not how much better or worse

7. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
4. Paired comparisons –4. Paired comparisons –
Here each employee is compared with all the others in
pairs one at a time.
The number of times an employee is judged better than
the others determines his rank.
But, it becomes very cumbersome when the number of
employees to be rated is large.

8. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
5. Forced Distribution -5. Forced Distribution -
In this method, the rater is required to distribute his rating
in the form of a normal frequency distribution as in fig.
The purpose is to eliminate the rater’s bias or central
tendency.
The rater does not explain why an employee is placed in a
particular category. Specific job related criteria is not used
in rating

9. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e

10. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
6. Graphic rating scale6. Graphic rating scale
It is numerical scale indicate different degree of a
particular trait.
The rater distributes a printed forms for each employee to
be rated.
The form contains several characteristics relating to the
personality and performance of employees - Intelligence,
quality of work, leadership skills, Judgement etc.
The rater records his Judgement about employees traits
on the scale.
The numerical points given to an employee are added up
to find out his overall performance.
Rating scale is of two types – continuous and
discontinuous.
In continuous scale the degree of traits are measured in
number ranging from 0 to 5 where as in a discontinuous
scale appropriate boxes are used.

11. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
Continuous scale
0 1 2 3 4 5
Discontinuous scale
Poor Average good Excellent
It is easy to understand and use
It is economical to design and administer and rating scale
Drawbacks:
It is arbitrary and subjective – specific job related
performance criteria are not considered
It is assumed that each trait is equally important for all job
Descriptive word are used in rating scale
It imposes heavy burden on rater

12. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e

13. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
7. Checklist method7. Checklist method
It is list of statement that describes the characteristics and
performance of employees on the job.
The rater checks to indicate if the behavior of an employee
is positive or negative to each statement.
The performance of employee is rated on the basis of
number of positive checks.

14. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
8. Critical incidents8. Critical incidents
In this method the supervisor keeps a written record of
critical events (good/ bad) and how different employee
depends upon on his positive / negative behaviors during
these events.
These critical incidents are identified after thorough study
of the job and discussion with the staff e.g. a fire, a sudden
breakdown of machinery, a serious accidents etc. may be
identified as critical incidents for the working of a factory
This method helps to avoid vague impression and general
remark as the rating is based on actual records of behavior
performance. The feedback from actual events can be
discussed with the employee to allow improvements.

15. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
worker Reactions Score
A Informed the supervisor
immediately
5
B Became anxious of loss of out
put
4
C Tried to repair the machine 3
D Complained of poor
maintenance
2
E Was happy to get forced rest 1

16. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
9. Field review -9. Field review -
In this method, a training officer from the personnel
department interviews line supervisor to evaluate their
subordinates.
The supervisors prepares questionnaire in advance to be
asked.
By answering these questions a supervisor give his
opinions about the behavior of his subordinates, the
subordinates work process, his strengths and
weaknesses, promotional potential etc.
These are then placed in the employees personal
service file.
The supervisor’s personal bias is reduced due to active
involvement of the personnel officer.
The ratings are usually classified in to three categories-
outstanding, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory.
This is time consuming method and success depends
upon the competence and sincerity of interviewer.

17. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
B] Modern methodsB] Modern methods
1. Assessment centre-
An assessment centre is group of employee drawn from different work
unites.
These employees work together on an assignment similar to the one
they would be handling when promoted.
Evaluators observe and rank the performance of all the participants.
Experienced manager with proven ability serve as evaluator.

18. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
2. Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale2. Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale
This method combines graphic rating scales with critical incidents
method.
BARS are descriptions of various degree of behavior relating to
specific performance dimensions.
Critical areas of job performance are determined in advance.
The rater records the observable job behavior of an employee and
compares these observations with BARS.
In this way employee’s actual performance is judged against the
desired behavior.
The steps involved in constructing BARS are-
01.Identifying critical incidents:
A person to be appraised, describes with specific examples of both
effective and ineffective job behavior
02. Select performance dimensions:
Cluster the behavior incident into a smaller set of performance
dimensions
03. Retranslate the incidents
Another group of experts assign each incident to the dimension that
it best describes if there is 75% agreement with the first group

19. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
04. Assign scale to incidents
The second group rates each incident on a seven or nine point
scale. Rating is done on the basis of how well the behavior described
in the incident represents performance on the appropriate dimensions.
Means and standard deviations are then calculated for the scale value
assigned to each incident. Incidents that have standard deviations of
1.5 or less (on seven point scale) are included in the final anchored
scale
05.Develop final instrument
A subset of the incidents that meets both the retranslation and
standard deviation criteria is used as a behavioral anchor for the final
performance dimensions. A final BARS instruments typically
comprises a series of vertical scale that are endorsed by the included
incidents. Each incident is positioned on the scale according to its mean value

20. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e

21. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
05. Appraisal through MBO05. Appraisal through MBO
This concept of management by objective MBO was developed by
Peter Drucker in 1954.
He called it ‘management by Objective and self control’.
It is also known as “work planning and review” or “goal setting
approach” to appraisal.
It has been defined as “ a process whereby the superior
and subordinate managers of an organization jointly
identify its common goals, define each individual’s major
areas of responsibility in terms of results expected of
him and use these measure as guides for operating the
unit and assessing the contributions of each of its
members”
MBO Process:
1. The main steps involved in MBO are as-
2. Set organizational goals
3. Define performance targets
4. Performance reviews
5. feedbacks

22. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
360 Degree appraisal360 Degree appraisal
Appraisal by
colleague,
superior,
subordinate, and
friends

23. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
Errors in assessing behaviorErrors in assessing behavior
Halo effect -
It is the tendency to rate an employee consistently high or low on the basis of overall
impression. One trait of the employee influences the rater’s appraisal on all other traits.
Stereotyping –
This implies forming a mental picture of a person on the basis of his age, sex, cast or religion
central tendency –
it means assigning average rating to all the employees in order to avoid commitment or
involvement. The ratings are clustered around the mid-point.
constant error-
Some evaluators tend to be lenient while other are strict in assessing performance
personal bias –
Occurs because of the rater’s likes and dislikes about an employee; religious beliefs and
habits, regional, conflicts etc.
Others
Similar-to-me
Recency
First Impression

24. Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McShane/ Von Glinow 2/e
Thank you