Rater training programs have the overall objective of providing raters with tools that will allow them to implement the performance management system effectively and efficiently.
These training programs also help prevent rating distortion. Table 6.3 summarizes the reasons discussed earlier for why raters are likely to inflate or deflate ratings.
How can training programs help mitigate the reasons causing intentional rating distortion listed in Table 6.3? Remedial programs include content related to informa- tion, motivation, and skills. Recall that, in addition to intentional errors, raters are likely to make unintentional errors in rating performance. Training programs, therefore, must address both types of errors and essentially, the goal is to align the goals of the rater with the goals of the performance management system so that raters are partners and active contributors to the process.45 Specifically, training programs may cover the following topics:
• Reasons for implementing the performance management system. This includes an overview of the entire system, its purpose, and benefits for all employees.
TABLE 6.3 Reasons for Rating Distortion
Rating Inflation Rating Deflation
Maximize the merit raise/rewards Shock employees
Encourage employees Teach a rebellious employee a lesson
Avoid creating a written record Send a message that employee should Avoid a confrontation with employees consider leaving
Promote undesired employees out of unit Build a record of poor performance Make manager look good to his or her supervisor
• How to identify and rank job activities. This includes information about how to conduct a job analysis and understand the most important accountabilities and competencies.
• How to observe, record, and measure performance. This may include observational skills such as how to observe the behaviors that really matter and not be distracted by behaviors not related to the performance dimensions to be measured. It also includes skills needed to fill out the appraisal form.
• Information on the appraisal form and system mechanics. This includes a detailed description of the content of the appraisal form and what each section is intended to measure. It also includes information about the number of recommended meet- ings and the expectations regarding each participant.
• How to minimize rating errors. This includes steps that can be taken to minimize unintentional errors caused by the cognitive demands associated with the observation and evaluation of performance.
• How to conduct an appraisal interview. This includes listening skills and communication skills and how to provide feedback during the appraisal interview. It also includes skills on how to help the employee create a develop- ment plan.
• How to train, counsel, and coach. This includes skills that the supervisor needs to help employees improve their performance on an ongoing basis.
For example, consider the training program used by the city of Aurora, Colorado.
This program includes many of the issues listed here. First, it addresses general considerations about the performance management system, including the reasons performance management is important. Second, it covers the difference between results and job-oriented (i.e., behavior-based) performance dimensions. Third, the trainer discusses how to weigh properly the various performance dimensions. Fourth, training includes a definition of the different levels of performance along several sample job-oriented dimensions. For example, it includes an explanation of the dimen- sion “problem solving” and examples of unacceptable, acceptable, and exceptional performance. Next, it teaches managers how to develop individual performance objec- tives and gives examples of good objectives. Finally, it teaches managers different ways to monitor performance and the benefits of doing so. Overall, Aurora’s rater training program is fairly thorough and covers many of the subjects discussed here. It does not, however, seem to include steps that can be taken to minimize unintentional errors or the way to conduct the appraisal interview or the way to train, counsel, and coach employees. These important components of rater training programs are discussed in subsequent chapters.
In sum, raters are likely to make both intentional and unintentional errors in rating performance. Training programs that address motivational issues, demon- strate how the system works, and provide a clear answer to the “What’s in it for me?” question can help minimize intentional errors. In addition, training programs that include information on and skills regarding how to observe and rate per- formance can help minimize the presence of unintentional errors. We discuss the content of various types of training programs in more detail as we continue to describe the operational details of implementing a performance management system in Chapters 7, 8, and 9.
Chapter 6 • Gathering Performance Information 155
Summary Points
• Appraisal forms are the key instruments used to measure performance. Care and attention are required to ensure that the forms include all the necessary compo- nents. Most forms include a combination of the following: (1) basic employee infor- mation; (2) accountabilities, objectives, and standards; (3) competencies and indi- cators; (4) major achievements and contri- butions; (5) developmental achievements;
(6) developmental needs, plans, and goals; (7) stakeholder input; (8) employee comments; and (9) signatures. Note, how- ever, that one size does not fit all, and different components are appropriate based on the purposes of the appraisal.
• Regardless of the specific components included in the appraisal form, there are several characteristics that make appraisal forms particularly effective.
These are (1) simplicity, (2) relevancy, (3) descriptiveness, (4) adaptability, (5) comprehensiveness, (6) definitional clarity, (7) communication, and (8) time orientation. Before it is used, each form needs to be evaluated based on the extent to which it complies with each of these characteristics.
• For administrative purposes, it is usu- ally desirable to compute an employee’s overall performance score. Two ap- proaches are available: judgmental and mechanical. The judgmental procedure consists of considering every aspect of performance and then arriving at a fair and defensible summary. The mechani- cal procedure consists of combining the scores assigned to each performance dimension, usually taking into account the relative weight given to each dimension. The mechanical procedure is recommended over the judgmental procedure, which is more prone to biases. Rounding of overall scores can be implemented (upward or downward)
based on the information included in the “comments” section of the appraisal forms. However, for this to happen, there must be a systematic analysis of this text-based information and raters must be provided clear guidelines regarding what to include in these
“comments” sections.
• It is recommended that the period for review be six months (i.e., semiannual) or three months (i.e., quarterly). This provides fairly frequent opportunities for a formal discussion about perform- ance issues between the subordinate and the supervisor. It is more conven- ient if the completion of the appraisal form coincides with the fiscal year so that rewards can be allocated shortly after the employee has received his or her performance review.
• Performance management systems can include up to six separate formal meet- ings between the supervisor and the subordinate: (1) system inauguration, (2) self-appraisal, (3) classical perform- ance review, (4) merit/salary review, (5) development plan, and (6) objective setting. In practice, these meetings are usually condensed into two or so meet- ings during each review cycle. One point that should be emphasized is that these are formal meetings. Informal meetings involving a discussion of per- formance issues should take place on an ongoing basis.
• Several sources can be used to obtain performance information: supervisors, peers, subordinates, self, and customers.
Before selecting a source, one needs to be sure that the source has firsthand knowledge of the employee’s perform- ance. Using each of these sources has advantages and disadvantages, none of which are foolproof, and not all may be available in all situations. However, it is
important that employees take part in the process of selecting which sources will evaluate which performance dimen- sions. Active participation in the process is likely to enhance acceptance of results and perceptions that the system is fair.
• When multiple sources of performance information are used, there may be dis- agreements about an employee’s per- formance level, even if these multiple sources are rating the same perfor- mance dimension. The people rating the same employee may be drawn from dif- ferent organizational levels, and they may observe different facets of the employee’s performance, even if they are evaluating the same general competency (e.g., “com- munication”). If an overall score is needed that considers all sources, then a weight- ing mechanism is needed. For example, a decision needs to be made regarding whether performance information pro- vided by the supervisor has more or less relative importance than that provided by customers. There is no need to summa- rize the information across the sources for feedback purposes; in fact, it is beneficial for the employee to receive feedback broken down by source so that the employee can place particular attention and effort on the interactions involving any source that has detected performance deficiencies.
• In providing performance information, raters may make intentional errors. These errors may involve inflating or deflating performance scores. For example, a supervisor may want to avoid a con- frontation with his or her employees and inflate ratings. A peer may believe that providing accurate ratings may jeopard- ize the relationship with a colleague and may, consequently, provide inflated ratings. When raters provide perfor- mance ratings, they are faced with pro- viding either accurate or inaccurate ratings. They weigh costs and benefits of
choosing one or the other path. If the cost/benefit equation does not favor pro- viding accurate ratings, it is likely that ratings will be distorted. When this happens, incorrect decisions may be made, employees are likely to feel they have been treated unfairly, and the organization is more prone to litigation.
In other words, when performance ratings are distorted because raters are not motivated to provide accurate scores, the performance management system not only will fail to achieve desired outcomes but also may lead to very nega- tive consequences for the organization.
• In addition to intentional errors, raters may make unintentional errors in pro- viding performance ratings. This hap- pens because observing information about performance, storing this infor- mation in memory, and then recalling it when it is time to fill out the appraisal form is a complex cognitive task.
• Intentional and unintentional distortion in performance ratings can be minimized by providing raters with extensive train- ing. Such training programs include content related to information, motiva- tion, and skills. For example, regarding information, training programs address an overview of the entire performance management system. Regarding motiva- tion, raters are given information about how rating employees accurately will provide them with direct and tangible benefits. Training programs can demon- strate how to conduct an appraisal interview. No performance management system is foolproof, and performance ratings are inherently subjective; how- ever, the implementation of such training programs, together with accountability (i.e., having to justify ratings to superiors in a face-to-face meeting) and rewards associated with accurate ratings, pro- vides raters with the needed motivation and skills to minimize rating errors.
Chapter 6 • Gathering Performance Information 157
C A S E S T U DY 6-1
Evaluating an Appraisal Form Used in Higher Education
Consider the appraisal form shown below, which is a form used by a university in the United States for non-faculty staff members. First, use the table to place check marks next to each component that is present. Second, in the Comments section, please write, (1) for those components that are
present, whether any changes or revisions are needed in the form and why and, (2) for those components that are absent, why they should be added and what are the possible negative consequences of not doing so. !
Major Components of Appraisal Forms Comments Basic employee information
Accountabilities, objectives, and standards Competencies and indicators
Major achievements and contributions Developmental achievements
Developmental needs, plans, and goals Stakeholder input
Employee comments Approvals
UC Berkeley
Performance evaluation and planning form Professional Employee:_______________________ Job Title: ____________________ Department:___________________
Control Unit:_____________________
Evaluation Period: From _________ to _________ Annual _______ Other________
Appointment: Limited/Contract, end date: ____________ Career ______ Probationary period ends: ______________
Instructions:
Effective evaluation of job performance is an on-going process. Annually, each manager or supervisor provides a summary of progress toward meeting job expectations and last year’s goals. This form is to be used for annual evaluations, and at other times during the year when formal feedback is needed.
These forms have been approved for employees covered by the Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM).
For represented employees, departments will want to use forms that have been approved by the respective bargaining units.
Part I—Job Success Factors
These include key responsibilities and basic competencies. Rate each factor based on performance during the period identified above. The factors include key responsibilities specific to this position (Part 1-A), and competencies common to the campus professional job standards (Part 1-B).
(Continued)
Part II—Goals from Last Year or Last Evaluation Period
Rate the progress made on each of the goals established at the beginning of the period. Also include any new goals established during the evaluation period and note any modifications to the original goals.
Part III—Goals for This Coming Year or Evaluation Period
Enter the performance goals for the next period to be evaluated. Individual goals and objectives should align with those of the department and the campus.
Part IV—Professional Development Plan
Enter any actions that will be taken by the employee or manager/supervisor to support the goals indicated in Part III above, or specific job success factors in Part I. The plan may include career growth, job mastery, or actions to correct performance.
Rating Scale*: