Only $2.99/month

Terms in this set (81)

• Interviews: a dialogue initiated by one or more persons to gather information and evaluate the qualification of an applicant for employment. Most widespread method used.
o Can be unreliable, low in validity, and biased against different groups
• To increase utility: HR staff should keep interview structured, standardized and goals focused, and should have structured note taking system, use multiple interviewers, consider videotaping, ask situational interview questions (which have high predictive validity). This is effective for assessing sensitive issues like honesty & integrity.
• References, Biological Data & Application Banks:
o Reference issues: people pick those that will say good things about them, people that are giving references fear that giving damaging info will come back to haunt them. Background checks are a little more effective.
• Physical ability tests:
o Seven classes: muscular tension, muscular power, muscular endurance, cardiovascular endurance, flexibility, balance & coordination
o Must prove that these are essential to performing the job.
• Cognitive ability tests: Tests that include three dimensions: verbal comprehension, quantitative ability, and reasoning ability. Ex: Wonderlic test. Downside is that typically have adverse impact on some minority groups.
• Personality inventories: categorizes individual by what they are like. Use the Big Five: Adjustment, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, inquisitiveness
o Conscientiousness is the only one that has real predictive validity across situations.
• Work samples: Observes how an applicant does in a simulated job. Ex: Google code jam. Other places to observe this are assessment centers.
• Honesty & drug tests: Faking bias is actually not an issue with honesty tests and drug tests have been called in to question b/c of invasion to privacy.
• Comparative - Requires the rater to compare an individual's performance with that of others (uses some overall assessment of individual's performance or worth & seeks to develop some ranking of individual within a work group).
o 3 Techniques:
• Simple Ranking - Requires managers to rank ee within their depts from high performer to poorer.
• Alteration Ranking- Manager looks at list of ees deciding who is the best ee, & crossing that person's name off the list—from remaining names, manager crosses off worst ee, and so forth.
Strengths - Talent management/ee development
Weaknesses - Validity can be questioned—courts implications—case of Albermarle v. Moody—No way of knowing what criteria of job performance was considered by all managers.
• Forced distribution Ranking - (uses ranking format, but ee are ranked in groups) requires manager to put certain % of ees into predetermined categories—GM's Jack Welch—asked every yr to identify & remove bottom 10% of workforce—forces Managers to .
Strengths - Distinguishes betw ees & avoids entitlement mentality for pay, rewards, & development activities. with ees. Help align company, ee, & compensation performance; help tailor development for under performers—can improve Org's potential performance of workforce.
Weaknesses - forces Managers to select some ees, even when above % to be "Not acceptable"—Managers won't always do that; system may be illegal & cause poor morale, affecting teamwork, recruiting—bottom group is usually minority—women, men over 40yrs—leading to discrimination.
• Paired comparison - Requires managers to compare every ee w/ every other ee in the work group, giving an ee a score of 1 every time he is considered the high performer—once all have been compared, manager tallies the # of X each ee received favorable decision, which becomes ee's performance score.
Strengths - Differentiate ee's performance—eliminating problems of leniency, central tendency & strictness; use to make Admin decisions reg pay raises & promotions; system is easy to develop, use and widely accepted by users.
Weaknesses - Lacks specificity for feedback purposes—ee doesn't know what to do diff to improve; ees & managers may not accept eval based on comparison; time consuming, especially if many ees. E.g., Manager has 10 ees, then (10 x 9/2) = 45 comparisons).
• Attribute Approach - Extent to which ees have certain attributes (traits—initiative, leadership & competitiveness) believed desirable for the Org's success—on which ees are evaluated.
o Strengths
o Weaknesses
• Graphic rating scale - (most common form) list of traits evaluated by 5-pt. rating scale—[discrete scale—# of dif pts, or continuous scale—manger places ].
Strengths -
Weaknesses - E.g, Brito v. Zia case—Spanish-speaking ees were terminated based on appraisal—based on quality of work, job knowledge, etc. Court said Zia needed to provide empirical data to prove their point—called it subjective appraisals.
• Mixed standard scale - Developed to get around graphic scale problems—define relevant performance dimensions then create statement representing good, %, & poor PM for each dimension—these are later mixed w/ statements of other dimensions [ee's rated on (+), (0) & (-)]—now used for behavioral ratings to eliminate errors in PA.
Strengths - Easy to develop, can be used w/ various jobs, can be reliable & valid as more measurement techniques.
Weaknesses - Little congruence betw technique & Org's strategy; do not support Org's goals; creates for ee to be defensive when receiving feedback—does not tell ee how to improve.
• Behavioral Approach: Attempts to define the behaviors ee must exhibit to be effective in the job. Evaluation - Can be effective—links Org's strategy to specific behavior necessary for implementing that strategy; provide guidance & feedback. Weakness - Has to do w/ Org context of system—consistently monitored, revised for focus & assumes that there is "one best way" to do the job.
o Critical Incident - Requires Managers to keep records of specific examples of effective & ineffective performance on the part of each ee.
• Strengths - Give ee feedback about what ee does well or poorly; tied to Org's strategy by focusing on incident that best support strategy.
• Weaknesses - Managers resist having to keep daily/wkly log of their ee behavior; hard to compare ee since incidents are specific to each ee.
• Organizational Behavioral Modification (OBM) - Managing the behaviors of ees through formal system of behavioral feedback & reinforcement—ee's future behavior is determined by past one that has been + reinforced
o 4 Techniques: Define key behavior for job performance; Use measure to see if behavior is exhibited; Manger shares info w/ ee to reinforce behavior or set goals for these; & Feedback is provided to ee.
• Strengths - Used in variety of settings; Increase of ee performance in record keeping
• Results Approach - Managing the objective, measureable results of a job or work group—subjectivity can be eliminated to have closer indicator of one's contribution liked to Org effectiveness.
o Management by Objective (MBO) - popular in private & public Orgs—Original "manager's letter" from firm Booz, Allen & Hamilton—concept was for ee to write letter to manager reg performance goal & how to achieve them in coming yr. Process is top-down to reach Org's strategic goals—ee performance will be evaluated on standards of these goals. 3 common Component—specific, diff & objective goal.
• Strengths - Major findings—68 out of 70 studies productive gains; 2 showed loses; Increase productivity, Org's performance;
• Weaknesses
• Quality - Improving customer satisfaction is the primary goal (Customer Orientation & Preventive approach to errors)
• Strengths - Emphasize assessment of person & system factors in measurement system; Managers & ee work together to solve performance problems; Involve internal & external customer in setting standards & setting performance; Use multiple sources to evaluate person & system factors (Characteristics of effective appraisal system).
• Weaknesses - Existing systems measure performance in terms of quantity, not quality; ee held accountable for good or bad results; Orgs do not share $$ rewards w/ ee according to how much ee contributed; Rewards not connected to bus results.
• Strategic Congruence - The extent to which a performance management system elicits job performance that is congruent with the org's strategy, goals, & culture.
• Validity (Content) - The extent to which a performance measure assesses all the relevant—and only the relevant—aspects of job performance. (a measuring tool that assesses the true aspect of a job performance—to be valid cannot be deficient or contaminated).
• Reliability - The consistency of a performance measure; the degree to which a performance measure is free from random error.
o Interrater Reliability - The consistency among the individuals who evaluate the employee's performance. (Performance Measure has interrater reliability if 2 individuals give the same [or close to same] evaluations of a person's job performance).
o Internal Consistency Reliability - The extent to which all the items rated are internally consistent.
o Test-retest Reliability - measurement reliable over time (E.g., scale—results should be same every time, if not it lacks test-retest reliability).
o Acceptability - Extent to which a performance measure is deemed to be satisfactory or adequate by those who use it (affected by extent employees believe the PMS is fair).
• 3 categories of perceived fairness:
Procedural (development) - To ensure fairness use consistent standards when evaluating employee.
Interpersonal (use) - provide feedback in atmosphere of respect & courtesy.
Outcome fairness (outcomes) - Communicate expectations reg performance evaluations & standards.
• Specificity - Extent to which PM gives detailed guidance to employees about what is expected of them & how they can meet these expectations (relevant to strategy & development PM—measure must specify what employee must do to achieve strategic goal—if not, Org will not achieve its strategic purpose).