This presentation is on an article about performance review. It includes the measures of performance, calibration committee, evaluation process, etc.,

1. PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT
Presentation by : Jaisha K J
Why Managers Shouldn’t Have the Final Say in
Performance Reviews

2. Why Managers Shouldn’t Have the Final Say in
Performance Reviews
Performance evaluation systems are critical for evaluating, motivating, and rewarding employees
Inconsistencies
and biases
Undeserving
employees
Deserving
employees
Employees
dissatisfied and
demotivated
Evaluation process
Will Demeré | Karen L. Sedatole | Alexander Woods

3. What causes inconsistencies and
biases ???
Differences between
supervisors
Favouritism Subjectivity

4. Measures of performance
Objective Measure of Performance
• Independent of the observer
• The measurement is done using
something other than the person
observing.
• It can include: a stop-watch, measuring
tape or record of goals.
• The objectivity of the performance
measure is increased through measures
such as: time, checklists, or established
criteria.
Subjective Measure of Performance
• Dependent on the observer and based on
opinions, feelings, and general
impressions.
• It rely more on the observer than
independent measures.
• Sports such as dance and gymnastics are
more subjective than objective in their
measures.

5. How can inconsistencies and biases be minimized or eliminated?
How can the fairness of the system be improved?
Are there ways of strengthening the link between performance and
rewards?

6. Use calibration committees
• composed of higher-level supervisors
• adjust the ratings supervisors give employees, in an effort to improve
consistency
• To understand the role of these committees in performance evaluation
systems, the authors collaborated with a multinational organization to study
its use of calibration committees over a three-year period.

7. Evaluation Process
Supervisors subjectively rate employees’ performance.
The ratings of employees for each level are passed to a calibration committee.
The calibration committee meets to achieve a common understanding of the
types of achievements and contributions that warrant various performance
ratings.
Based on this understanding, the committee determines whether to adjust
individual performance ratings.
Once the committee has determined the final ratings, supervisors hold
meetings with employees to discuss their ratings

8. Result of the study
• The calibration committee adjusted ratings 25% of the time in the organization
they studied.
• Ratings were decreased four times as often as ratings were increased, which
lowered the overall average rating.
• Downward adjustments were also larger than upward adjustments.
• The calibration process contribute to improved consistency, but supervisors
also modified their rating behavior in response to the process.
- a supervisor’s reaction depended on the direction of the adjustment

9. Drawback of calibration committees
• Decrease in the variation in ratings
• The committees were more likely to adjust ratings that were higher or lower
than average, but did not make as many adjustments to average ratings.
• Such adjustments resulted in a tighter distribution of ratings, with less
differentiation between employees.
• More challenging to identify high performers (for promotion or recognition) and
low performers (for additional training or other remedial action).

10. Perceptions of employees about the fairness
of the performance evaluation system
• Surveyed 220 employees and 47 supervisors
• Higher-performing employees reported higher levels of
perceived fairness and satisfaction with the performance
evaluation system and
• Less perceived favoritism relative to lower-performing
employees
• Supervisors generally believed both that the outcomes
and the process of evaluations were fair and that
favoritism was not an issue

11. • Complex knowledge-based work is difficult to measure, often
forcing companies to use subjective performance evaluation.
• While subjective evaluation incorporates many aspects of job
performance that are hard to capture, it leaves employees
vulnerable to supervisor biases and inconsistencies in rating
standards across supervisors that could affect performance
ratings.
• In the organization, they found the use of calibration
committees overcame many of these challenges, and the
benefits generally outweighed the costs.

12. THANK YOU