• 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.
• 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 ].
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;
• 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.