Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Herman Aguinis Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Herman Aguinis Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Herman Aguinis Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Herman Aguinis Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006."— Presentation transcript:

1 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Herman Aguinis Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Herman Aguinis Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

2 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Management in Context: Overview  Definition of Performance Management (PM)  The Performance Management Contribution  Disadvantages/Dangers of Poorly-implemented PM systems  Definition of Reward Systems  Aims and role of PM Systems  Characteristics of an Ideal PM system  Integration with Other Human Resources and Development Activities

3 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Management: Definition Continuous Process of Identifying performance of individuals and teams Measuring performance of individuals and teams Developing performance of individuals and teams and Aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organization

4 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 PM is NOT performance appraisal PM –Strategic business considerations –Ongoing feedback –So employee can improve performance –Driven by line manager Performance appraisal –Assesses employee Strengths & Weaknesses –Once a year –Lacks ongoing feedback –Driven by HR

5 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Contributions of PM For Employees The definitions of job and success are clarified Motivation to perform is increased Self-esteem is increased Self-insight and development and enhanced

6 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Contributions of PM For Managers Supervisors’ views of performance are communicated more clearly Managers gain insight about subordinates There is better and more timely differentiation between good and poor performers Employees become more competent

7 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Contributions of PM For Organization/HR Function Organizational goals are made clear Organizational change is facilitated Administrative actions are more fair and appropriate There is better protection from lawsuits

8 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Disadvantages/Dangers of Poorly-implemented PM Systems for Employees Lowered self-esteem Employee burnout and job dissatisfaction Damaged relationships Use of false or misleading information

9 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Disadvantages/Dangers of Poorly-implemented PM Systems for Managers Increased turnover Decreased motivation to perform Unjustified demands on managers’ resources Varying and unfair standards and ratings

10 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Wasted time and money Unclear ratings system Emerging biases Increased risk of litigation Disadvantages/Dangers of Poorly-implemented PM Systems for Organization

11 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Reward Systems: Definition Set of mechanisms for distributing  Tangible returns and  Intangible or relational returns As part of an employment relationship

12 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Tangible returns  Cash compensation  Base pay  Cost-of-Living & Contingent Pay  Incentives (short- and long-term)  Benefits, such as  Income Protection  Allowances  Work/life focus

13 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Intangible returns  Relational returns, such as  Recognition and status  Employment security  Challenging work  Learning opportunities

14 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Returns and Their Degree of Dependency on the Performance Management System Return  Cost of Living Adjustment  Income Protection  Work/life Focus  Allowances  Relational Returns  Base Pay  Contingent Pay  Short-term Incentives  Long-term Incentives Degree of Dependency Low Moderate High

15 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Purposes of PM Systems: Overview  Strategic  Administrative  Informational  Developmental  Organizational maintenance  Documentation

16 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Strategic Purpose  Link employee behavior with organization’s goals  Communicate most crucial business strategic initiatives

17 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Administrative Purpose  Provide information for making decisions re:  Salary adjustments  Promotions  Retention or termination  Recognition of individual performance  Layoffs

18 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Informational Purpose Communicate to Employees:  Expectations  What is important  How they are doing  How to improve

19 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Developmental Purpose  Performance feedback/coaching  Identification of individual strengths and weaknesses  Causes of performance deficiencies  Tailor development of individual career path

20 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Organizational Maintenance Purpose  Plan effective workforce  Assess future training needs  Evaluate performance at organizational level  Evaluate effectiveness of HR interventions

21 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Documentational Purpose  Validate selection instruments  Document administrative decisions  Help meet legal requirements

22 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Characteristics of an Ideal PM System

23 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Congruent with organizational strategy Consistent with organization’s strategy Aligned with unit and organizational goals

24 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Thorough All employees are evaluated All major job responsibilities are evaluated Evaluations cover performance for entire review period Feedback is given on both positive and negative performance

25 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Practical Available Easy to use Acceptable to decision makers Benefits outweigh costs

26 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Meaningful Standards are important and relevant System measures ONLY what employee can control Results have consequences Evaluations occur regularly and at appropriate times System provides for continuing skill development of evaluators

27 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Specific Concrete and detailed guidance to employees what’s expected how to meet the expectations

28 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Identifies effective and ineffective performance Distinguish between effective and ineffective –Behaviors –Results Provide ability to identify employees with various levels of performance

29 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Reliable Consistent Free of error Inter-rater reliability

30 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Valid Relevant (measures what is important) Not deficient (doesn’t measure unimportant facets of job) Not contaminated (only measures what the employee can control)

31 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Acceptable and Fair Perception of Distributive Justice –Work performed  evaluation received  reward Perception of Procedural Justice –Fairness of procedures used to: Determine ratings Link ratings to rewards

32 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Inclusive Represents concerns of all involved –When system is created, employees should help with deciding What should be measured How it should be measured –Employee should provide input on performance prior to evaluation meeting

33 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Open (No Secrets) Frequent, ongoing evaluations and feedback 2-way communications in appraisal meeting Clear standards, ongoing communication Communications are factual, open, honest

34 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Correctable Recognizes that human judgment is fallible Appeals process provided

35 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Standardized Ongoing training of managers to provide Consistent evaluations across –People –Time

36 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Ethical Supervisor suppresses self-interest Supervisor rates only where she has sufficient information about the performance dimension Supervisor respects employee privacy

37 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Integration with other Human Resources and Development activities PM provides information for: Development of training to meet organizational needs Workforce planning Recruitment and hiring decisions Development of compensation systems

38 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver CHAPTER 2 Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

39 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 39 Performance Management Process: Overview  Prerequisites  Performance Planning  Performance Execution  Performance Assessment  Performance Review  Performance Renewal and Recontracting

40 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 40 Performance Management Process Performance Review Performance Renewal and Recontracting Performance Assessment Performance Execution Performance Planning Prerequisites

41 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 41 Prerequisites A.Knowledge of the organization’s mission and strategic goals B.Knowledge of the job in question

42 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 42 A.Knowledge of mission and strategic goals Strategic planning –Purpose or reason for organization’s existence –Where organization is going –Organizational goals –Strategies for attaining goals

43 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 43 Mission and Goals Cascade effect throughout organization Organization  Unit  Employee

44 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 44 B.Knowledge of the job Job analysis of key components –Activities, tasks, products, services, processes KSAs required to do the job –Knowledge –Skills –Abilities

45 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 45 Job Description Job duties KSAs Working conditions

46 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 46 Generic Job Descriptions Occupational Informational Network (O*Net) http://online.onetcenter.org/

47 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 47 Job analysis Use a variety of tools –Interviews –Observation –Questionnaires (available on Internet)

48 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 48 Job analysis follow-up All incumbents should –review information and –provide feedback re: –Task Frequency Criticality

49 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 49 Performance Planning: Results Key accountabilities Specific objectives Performance standards

50 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 50 Key Accountabilities Broad areas of a job for which the employee is responsible for producing results

51 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 51 Specific Objectives  Statements of outcomes  Important  Measurable

52 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 52 Performance Standards “Yardstick” to evaluate how well employees have achieved each objective Information on acceptable and unacceptable performance, such as  quality  quantity  cost  time

53 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 53 Performance Planning: Behaviors  How a job is done

54 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 54 Performance Planning: Competencies Measurable clusters of KSAs Critical in determining how results will be achieved

55 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 55 Performance Planning: Development Plan  Areas for improvement  Goals to be achieved in each area of improvement

56 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 56 Performance Execution: Employee Responsibilities  Commitment to goal achievement  Ongoing requests for feedback and coaching  Communication with supervisor  Collecting and sharing performance data  Preparing for performance reviews

57 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 57 Performance Execution: Manager Responsibilities Observation and documentation Updates Feedback Resources Reinforcement

58 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 58 Performance Assessment Manager assessment Self-assessment Other sources (e.g., peers, customers, etc.)

59 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 59 Multiple Assessments Are Necessary  Increase employee ownership  Increase commitment  Provide information  Ensure mutual understanding

60 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 60 Performance Review Overview of Appraisal Meeting Past –Behaviors and results Present –Compensation to be received Future –New goals and development plans

61 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 61 Six Steps for Conducting Productive Performance Reviews 1.Identify what the employee has done well and poorly 2.Solicit feedback 3.Discuss the implications of changing behaviors

62 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 62 Six Steps for Conducting Productive Performance Reviews 4.Explain how skills used in past achievements can help overcome any performance problems 5.Agree on an action plan 6.Set a follow-up meeting and agree on behaviors, actions, attitudes to be evaluated

63 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 63 Performance Renewal and Recontracting Same as/different from Performance Planning –Uses insights and information from previous phases –Cycle begins again

64 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 2– 64 Performance Management Process Summary: Key Points Ongoing process Each component is important  If one is implemented poorly, whole system suffers Links between components must be clear

65 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver CHAPTER 3 Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

66 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Management and Strategic Planning: Overview  Definition and Purposes of Strategic Planning  Linking Performance Management to the Strategic Plan –Strategic Planning –Developing Strategic Plans at the Unit Level –Job Descriptions –Individual and Team Performance  Building Support

67 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Strategic Planning: Definition Process –Describe organization’s destination –Assess barriers –Select approaches for moving forward

68 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Strategic Planning: Goal Allocate resources –to provide organization –with competitive advantage

69 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Strategic Planning: Purposes Help define the organization’s identity Help organization prepare for the future Enhance ability to adapt to environmental change Provide focus and allow for better allocation of resources (continued on next slide)

70 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Strategic Planning: Purposes Produce an organizational culture of cooperation Allow for the consideration of new options and opportunities Provide employees with information to direct daily activities

71 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Strategic Planning : Overview 1.Environmental Analysis 2.Mission 3.Vision 4.Goals 5.Strategies

72 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Environmental Analysis Identifies external and internal trends To understand broad industry issues To make decisions using “big picture” context

73 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 External trends Opportunities: –environmental characteristics that can help the organization succeed Threats: –environmental characteristics that can prevent the organization from being successful

74 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 External trends – Factors to Consider Economic Political/legal Social Technological Competitors Customers Suppliers

75 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Internal trends Strengths: –internal characteristics that the organization can use for its advantage Weaknesses: –internal characteristics that can hinder the success of the organization

76 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Internal trends – Factors to Consider Organizational structure Organizational culture Politics Processes Size

77 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Gap Analysis Analyzes: External environment (opportunities and threats) vis-à-vis Internal environment (strengths and weaknesses)

78 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Gap analysis determines:  Opportunity + Strength = Leverage  Opportunity + Weakness = Constraint  Threat + Strength = Vulnerability  Threat + Weakness = Problem

79 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Strategic Planning for the Organization Environmental and Gap Analyses provide information for organizations to decide:  Who they are  What they do

80 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Mission A good mission statement answers: Why does the organization exist? What is the scope of the organization’s activities? Who are the customers served? What are the products or services offered?

81 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Mission Statement contains: A. Information on organization’s  Basic product/service to be offered  Primary market/customer groups  Unique benefits and advantages of product/services  Technology to be used  Concern for survival through growth and profitability

82 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Mission Statement may contain: B. Information on organization’s values and beliefs  Managerial philosophy  Public image sought by organization  Self-concept of business adopted by  Employees  Stockholders

83 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Vision Statement of future aspirations Focuses attention on what is important Provides context for evaluating –Opportunities –Threats

84 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 A Good Vision Statement is: Brief Verifiable Bound by a Timeline Current Focused Understandable Inspiring A stretch

85 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Purposes for Setting Goals Formalize expected achievements Provide motivation Provide tangible targets Provide basis for good decisions Provide basis for performance measurement

86 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Strategies Create strategies or Game Plans or “How to” procedures to address issues of: –Growth –Survival –Turnaround –Stability –Innovation –Leadership

87 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 How the HR Function contributes: Communicate knowledge of strategic plan Provide knowledge of KSAs needed for strategy implementation Propose reward systems

88 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Strategic Plans at the Unit Level Organization Mission statement, Vision statement, Goals, and Strategies Must clearly align with And be congruent with Every Unit Mission statement, Vision statement, Goals, and Strategies

89 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Alignment of Strategic Plan with Performance Organization’s Strategic Plan Mission, Vision, Goals, Strategies Unit’s Strategic Plan Mission, Vision, Goals, Strategies Job Description Tasks, KSAs Individual and Team Performance Results, Behaviors, Developmental Plan Critical to involve all levels of management Critical to involve all employees

90 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Job Descriptions Tasks and KSAs are congruent with Organization and Unit strategic plans Activities described support mission and vision of Organization and Unit

91 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Individual and Team Performance Organization and Unit mission, vision, goals lead to  Performance management system, which Motivates employees Aligns development plans with organization priorities

92 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Strategic Plan  Choices in PM System Design Criteria (Behavior vs. Results) Participation (Low vs. High) Temporal Dimension (Short Term vs. Long Term) Level of Criteria (Individual vs. Team/Group) System Orientation (Developmental vs. Administrative) Rewards (Pay for Performance vs. Tenure/Position)

93 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Building Support – Answering “What’s In It for Me?” Top Management: –Help carry out vision All levels: –Involvement –Participation –Understanding

94 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver CHAPTER 4 Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

95 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Defining Performance and Choosing a Measurement Approach: Overview  Defining Performance  Determinants of Performance  Performance Dimensions  Approaches to Measuring Performance

96 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Defining Performance Performance is: Behavior What employees do

97 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Defining Performance Performance is NOT: Results or Outcomes What employees produce

98 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Behaviors labeled as Performance are: 1.Evaluative –Negative –Neutral –Positive 2.Multidimensional –Many different kinds of behaviors –Advance or hinder organizational goals

99 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Behaviors are Not always –Observable –Measurable

100 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Results/Consequences may be used –To infer behavior –As proxy for behavioral measure

101 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Determinants of Performance Performance = Declarative Knowledge X Procedural Knowledge X Motivation

102 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 A. Declarative Knowledge Information about –Facts –Labels –Principles –Goals Understanding of task requirements

103 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 B. Procedural Knowledge Knowing –What to do –How to do it Skills –Cognitive –Physical –Perceptual –Motor –Interpersonal

104 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 C. Motivation Choices –Expenditure of effort –Level of effort –Persistence of effort

105 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Implications for Addressing Performance Problems Managers need information to accurately identify source(s) of performance problems Performance management systems must –Measure performance AND –Provide information on SOURCE(s) of problems

106 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Factors Influencing Determinants of Performance: Individual characteristics –Procedural knowledge –Declarative knowledge –Motivation HR practices Work environment

107 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Dimensions: Types of multi-dimensional behaviors: Task performance Contextual performance –Pro-social behaviors –Organizational citizenship

108 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Task performance Activities that transform raw materials help with the transformation process –Replenishing –Distributing –Supporting

109 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Contextual performance Behaviors that contribute to organization’s effectiveness and provide a good environment in which task performance can occur

110 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Differences Between Task and Contextual Performance Task Performance Varies across jobs Likely to be role prescribed Influenced by Abilities Skills Contextual Performance Fairly similar across jobs Not likely to be role prescribed Influenced by Personality

111 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Why Include Task & Contextual Performance Dimensions in PM system? 1.Global competition 2.Teamwork 3.Customer service 4.Supervisor views

112 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Job Performance in Context A performer (individual or team) In a given situation Engages in certain behaviors That produce various results TRAITBEHAVIORRESULTS

113 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Approaches to Measuring Performance Trait Approach –Emphasizes individual traits of employees Behavior Approach –Emphasizes how employees do the job Results Approach –Emphasizes what employees produce

114 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Trait Approach Emphasis on individual Evaluate stable traits Cognitive abilities Personality Based on relationship between traits & performance

115 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Trait Approach (continued) Appropriate if Structural changes planned for organization Disadvantages Improvement not under individual’s control Trait may not lead to Desired behaviors or Desired results

116 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Behavior Approach Appropriate if Employees take a long time to achieve desired outcomes Link between behaviors and results is not obvious Outcomes occur in the distant future Poor results are due to causes beyond the performer’s control Not appropriate if above conditions are not present

117 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Results Approach Advantages: Less time Lower cost Data appear objective

118 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Results Approach (continued) Most appropriate when: Workers skilled in necessary behaviors Behaviors and results obviously related Consistent improvement in results over time Many ways to do the job right

119 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver CHAPTER 5 Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

120 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Defining Performance and Choosing a Measurement Approach: Overview  Defining Performance  Determinants of Performance  Performance Dimensions  Approaches to Measuring Performance

121 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Defining Performance Performance is: Behavior What employees do

122 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Defining Performance Performance is NOT: Results or Outcomes What employees produce

123 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Behaviors labeled as Performance are: 1.Evaluative –Negative –Neutral –Positive 2.Multidimensional –Many different kinds of behaviors –Advance or hinder organizational goals

124 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Behaviors are Not always –Observable –Measurable

125 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Results/Consequences may be used –To infer behavior –As proxy for behavioral measure

126 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Determinants of Performance Performance = Declarative Knowledge X Procedural Knowledge X Motivation

127 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 A. Declarative Knowledge Information about –Facts –Labels –Principles –Goals Understanding of task requirements

128 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 B. Procedural Knowledge Knowing –What to do –How to do it Skills –Cognitive –Physical –Perceptual –Motor –Interpersonal

129 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 C. Motivation Choices –Expenditure of effort –Level of effort –Persistence of effort

130 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Implications for Addressing Performance Problems Managers need information to accurately identify source(s) of performance problems Performance management systems must –Measure performance AND –Provide information on SOURCE(s) of problems

131 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Factors Influencing Determinants of Performance: Individual characteristics –Procedural knowledge –Declarative knowledge –Motivation HR practices Work environment

132 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Dimensions: Types of multi-dimensional behaviors: Task performance Contextual performance –Pro-social behaviors –Organizational citizenship

133 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Task performance Activities that transform raw materials help with the transformation process –Replenishing –Distributing –Supporting

134 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Contextual performance Behaviors that contribute to organization’s effectiveness and provide a good environment in which task performance can occur

135 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Differences Between Task and Contextual Performance Task Performance Varies across jobs Likely to be role prescribed Influenced by Abilities Skills Contextual Performance Fairly similar across jobs Not likely to be role prescribed Influenced by Personality

136 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Why Include Task & Contextual Performance Dimensions in PM system? 1.Global competition 2.Teamwork 3.Customer service 4.Supervisor views

137 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Job Performance in Context A performer (individual or team) In a given situation Engages in certain behaviors That produce various results TRAITBEHAVIORRESULTS

138 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Approaches to Measuring Performance Trait Approach –Emphasizes individual traits of employees Behavior Approach –Emphasizes how employees do the job Results Approach –Emphasizes what employees produce

139 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Trait Approach Emphasis on individual Evaluate stable traits Cognitive abilities Personality Based on relationship between traits & performance

140 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Trait Approach (continued) Appropriate if Structural changes planned for organization Disadvantages Improvement not under individual’s control Trait may not lead to Desired behaviors or Desired results

141 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Behavior Approach Appropriate if Employees take a long time to achieve desired outcomes Link between behaviors and results is not obvious Outcomes occur in the distant future Poor results are due to causes beyond the performer’s control Not appropriate if above conditions are not present

142 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Results Approach Advantages: Less time Lower cost Data appear objective

143 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Results Approach (continued) Most appropriate when: Workers skilled in necessary behaviors Behaviors and results obviously related Consistent improvement in results over time Many ways to do the job right

144 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver CHAPTER 6 Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

145 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Gathering Performance Information: Overview Appraisal Forms Characteristics of Appraisal Forms Determining Overall Rating Appraisal Period and Number of Meetings Who Should Provide Performance Information? A Model of Rater Motivation Preventing Rating Distortion through Rater Training Programs

146 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Major Components of Appraisal Forms (1) Basic Employee Information Accountabilities, Objectives, and Standards Competencies and Indicators Major Achievements and Contributions Stakeholder Input Employee Comments Signatures

147 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Major Components of Appraisal Forms (2) (could be included in a separate form) Developmental Achievements Developmental –Needs –Plans –Goals

148 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Desirable Features for All Appraisal Forms Simplicity Relevancy Descriptiveness Adaptability Comprehensiveness Definitional Clarity Communication Time Orientation

149 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Determining Overall Rating Judgmental strategy Mechanical strategy

150 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Appraisal period Number of Meetings Annual Semi-annual Quarterly

151 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 When Review Is Completed Anniversary date –Supervisor doesn’t have to fill out forms at same time –Can’t tie rewards to fiscal year Fiscal year –Rewards tied to fiscal year –Goals tied to corporate goals –May be burden to supervisor, depending on implementation

152 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 6 Types of Formal Meetings (can be combined) System Inauguration Self-Appraisal Classical Performance Review Merit/Salary Review Development Plan Objective Setting

153 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Who Should Provide Performance Information? Employees should be involved in selecting Which sources evaluate Which performance dimensions When employees are actively involved Higher acceptance of results Perception that system is fair

154 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Who Should Provide Performance Information? Direct knowledge of employee performance Supervisors Peers Subordinates Self Customers

155 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Supervisors Advantages –Best position to evaluate performance vs. strategic goals –Make decisions about rewards Disadvantages –Supervisor may not be able to directly observe performance –Evaluations may be biased

156 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Peers Advantages –Assess teamwork Disadvantages –Possible friendship bias –May be less discriminating

157 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Subordinates Advantages –Accurate when used for developmental purposes –Good position to assess some competencies Disadvantages –Inflated when used for administrative purposes –May fear retaliation (confidentiality is key)

158 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Self Advantages –Increased acceptance of decisions –Decreased defensiveness during appraisal interview –Good position to track activities during review period Disadvantages –May be more lenient and biased

159 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Customers (external and internal) Advantages –Employees become more focused on meeting customer expectations Disadvantages –Time –Money

160 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Disagreement Across Sources Expect disagreement Ensure employee receives feedback by source Assign differential weights to scores by source, depending on importance

161 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Types of Rating Errors Intentional errors –Rating inflation –Rating deflation Unintentional errors –Due to complexity of task

162 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Expected Positive and Negative Consequences of Rating Accuracy Probability of Experiencing Positive & Negative Consequences Expected Positive and Negative Consequences of Rating Distortion Probability of Experiencing Positive & Negative Consequences Motivation to Provide Accurate Ratings Motivation to Distort Ratings Rating Behavior A Model of Rater Motivation

163 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Motivations for Rating Inflation Maximize merit raise/rewards Encourage employees Avoid creating written record Avoid confrontation with employees Promote undesired employees out of unit Make manager look good to his/her supervisor

164 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Motivations for Rating Deflation Shock employees Teach a lesson Send a message to employee Build a written record of poor performance

165 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Prevent Rating Distortion through Rater Training Programs

166 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Rater Training Programs should cover: Information Motivation Identifying, observing, recording and evaluating performance How to interact with employees when they receive performance information

167 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Information - how the system works Reasons for implementing the performance management system Information on the appraisal form and system mechanics

168 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Motivation – What’s in it for me? Benefits of providing accurate ratings Tools for providing accurate ratings

169 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Identifying, observing, recording, and evaluating performance How to identify and rank job activities How to observe, record, measure performance How to minimize rating errors

170 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 How to interact with employees when they receive performance information How to conduct an appraisal interview How to train, counsel, and coach

171 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver CHAPTER 7 Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

172 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Implementing a Performance Management System: Overview Preparation Communication Plan Appeals Process Training Programs Pilot Testing Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation

173 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Preparation Need to gain system buy-in through : –Communication plan regarding Performance Management system Including appeals process –Training programs for raters –Pilot testing system Ongoing monitoring and evaluation

174 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Communication Plan answers: What is Performance Management (PM)? How does PM fit in our strategy? What’s in it for me? How does it work? What are our roles and responsibilities? How does PM relate to other initiatives?

175 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Cognitive Biases that affect communications effectiveness Selective exposure Selective perception Selective retention

176 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 To minimize effects of cognitive biases: A. Consider employees: Involve employees in system design Show how employee needs are met

177 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 To minimize effects of cognitive biases: B. Emphasize the positive Use credible communicators Strike first – create positive attitude Provide facts and conclusions

178 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 To minimize effects of cognitive biases: C. Repeat, document, be consistent Put it in writing Use multiple channels of communication Say it, and then – say it again

179 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Appeals Process Promote Employee buy-in to PM system –Amicable/Non-retaliatory –Resolution of disagreements

180 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Appeals Process Employees can question two types of issue: –Judgmental (validity of evaluation) –Administrative (whether policies and procedures were followed)

181 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Appeals Process Level 1 –HR reviews facts, policies, procedures –HR reports to supervisor/employee –HR attempts to negotiate settlement Level 2 –Arbitrator (panel of peers and managers) and/or –High-level manager – final decision

182 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Rater Training Programs Content Areas to include –Information –Identifying, Observing, Recording, Evaluating –How to Interact with Employees Choices of Training Programs to implement –RET –FOR –BO –SL

183 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Content A. Information - how the system works –Reasons for implementing the performance management system –Information the appraisal form system mechanics

184 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Content B. Identifying, observing, recording, and evaluating performance –How to identify and rank job activities –How to observe, record, and measure performance –How to minimize rating errors

185 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Content C. How to interact with employees when they receive performance information –How to conduct an appraisal interview –How to train, counsel, and coach

186 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Choices of Training Programs Rater Error Training (RET) Frame of Reference Training (FOR) Behavioral Observation Training (BO) Self-leadership Training (SL)

187 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Rater Error Training (RET) Goals of Rater Error Training (RET) –Make raters aware of types of rating errors –Help raters minimize errors –Increase rating accuracy

188 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Intentional rating errors Leniency (inflation) Severity (deflation) Central tendency

189 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Unintentional rating errors Similar to Me Halo Primacy First impression Contrast Stereotype Negativity Recency Spillover

190 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Possible Solutions for Types of Rating Errors Intentional –Focus on motivation –Demonstrate benefits of providing accurate ratings Unintentional –Alert raters to different errors and their causes

191 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Frame of Reference Training (FOR) Goal of Frame of Reference Training (FOR)* –Raters develop common frame of reference Observing performance Evaluating performance * Most appropriate when PM appraisal system focuses on behaviors

192 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Expected Results of Frame of Reference Training (FOR) Raters provide consistent, more accurate ratings Raters help employees design effective development plans

193 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Behavioral Observation Training (BO) Goals of Behavioral Observation Training (BO) –Minimize unintentional rating errors –Improve rater skills by focusing on how raters: Observe performance Store information about performance Recall information about performance Use information about performance

194 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Self-leadership Training (SL) Goals of Self-leadership Training (SL) –Improve rater confidence in ability to manage performance –Enhance mental processes –Increase self-efficacy

195 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Pilot Testing Provides ability to –Discover potential problems –Fix them

196 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Pilot Testing - benefits Gain information from potential participants Learn about difficulties/obstacles Collect recommendations on how to improve Understand personal reactions Get early buy-in Get higher rate of acceptance

197 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Implementing a Pilot Test Roll out test version with sample group –Staff and jobs generalizable to organization Fully implement planned system –All participants keep records of issues encountered –Do not record appraisal scores –Collect input from all participants

198 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation When system is implemented, decide: –How to evaluate system effectiveness –How to measure implementation –How to measure results

199 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Evaluation data to collect: Reactions to the system Assessments of requirements –Operational –Technical Effectiveness of performance ratings

200 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Indicators to consider Number of individuals evaluated Distribution of performance ratings Quality of information Quality of performance discussion meetings System satisfaction Cost/benefit ratio Unit-level and organization-level performance

201 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver CHAPTER 8 Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

202 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Management and Employee Development: Overview Personal Developmental Plans Direct Supervisor’s Role 360-degree Feedback Systems

203 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Stakeholders in the Development Process Employees –Help plan their own development –Improve their own performance Managers –Help guide the process of development –Support success of process

204 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Personal Developmental Plans Specify actions necessary to improve performance Highlight employee’s –Strengths –Areas in need of development

205 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Personal Developmental Plans answer: How can I continuously learn and grow in the next year? How can I do better in the future? How can I avoid performance problems of the past?

206 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Personal Developmental Plans: Overview Developmental Plan Objectives Content of Developmental Plan Developmental Activities

207 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Overall Developmental Plan Objectives Encourage: –Continuous learning –Performance improvement –Personal growth

208 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Specific Developmental Plan Objectives Improve performance in current job Sustain performance in current job Prepare employee for advancement Enrich employee’s work experience

209 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Content of Developmental Plan Developmental objectives –New skills or knowledge –Timeline How the new skills or knowledge will be acquired –Resources –Strategies Standards and measures used to assess achievement of objectives

210 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Content of Developmental Plan Based on needs of organization and employee Chosen by employee and direct supervisor Taking into account –Employee’s learning preferences –Developmental objective in question –Organization’s available resources

211 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Developmental Activities ‘On the job’ On-the-job-training Mentoring Job rotation Temporary assignments

212 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Developmental Activities In addition to ‘on the job’ Courses Self-guided reading Getting a degree Attending a conference Membership or leadership role –in professional or trade organization

213 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Direct Supervisor’s Role: Explain what is necessary Refer employee to appropriate developmental activities Review & make suggestions regarding developmental objectives

214 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Direct Supervisor’s Role (ongoing): Check on employee’s progress Provide motivational reinforcement

215 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 360-degree Feedback Systems Tools to help employees Improve performance by using Performance information Gathered from many sources –Superiors –Peers –Customers –Subordinates –The employee

216 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 360-degree Feedback Systems Anonymous feedback Most useful when used –For DEVELOPMENT –NOT for administrative purposes Internet used for collecting data

217 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

218 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

219 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

220 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

221 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Necessary organizational norms include: Cooperation Openness and trust Input and participation valued Fairness

222 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Overview of 360-degree Feedback Systems Advantages of 360-degree Feedback Systems Risks of 360-degree Feedback Systems Characteristics of a Good 360-degree Feedback System

223 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Advantages of 360-degree Feedback Systems Decreased possibility of biases Increased awareness of expectations Increased commitment to improve Improved self-perception of performance Improved performance Reduction of ‘undiscussables’ Increased employee control of their own careers

224 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Risks of 360-degree Feedback Systems Unconstructive negative feedback hurts. Are individuals comfortable with the system? User acceptance is crucial. If few raters, anonymity is compromised. Raters may become overloaded. Stock values may drop.

225 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Characteristics of a Good 360-degree Feedback System Anonymity Observation of employee performance Avoidance of survey fatigue Raters are trained Used for developmental purposes only Emphasis on behaviors Raters go beyond ratings Feedback interpretation Follow-up

226 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver CHAPTER 9 Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

227 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Management Skills: Overview Coaching Coaching Styles Coaching Process Performance Review Meetings

228 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Coaching: Definition Manager –Interacts with employee and –Takes active role and interest in performance Collaborative ongoing process –Directing employee behavior –Motivating employee behavior –Rewarding employee behavior Concerned with long-term performance

229 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Major Coaching Functions: Give advice Provide guidance Provide support Give confidence Promote greater competence

230 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Key Coaching Behaviors Establish developmental objectives Communicate effectively Motivate employees Document performance Give feedback Diagnose performance problems Develop employees

231 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 The Good Coach Questionnaire  Do you listen to your employees?  Do you understand their individual needs?  Do you encourage employees to express their feelings openly?  Do you give tangible and intangible support for development?  Do your employees know your expectations about their performance?

232 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 The Good Coach Questionnaire (continued)  Do you encourage open and honest discussions and problem solving?  Do you help your employees create action plans that will  Solve problems?  Create changes?  Do you help your employees explore potential areas of  Growth?  Development?

233 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Coaching Styles More AssertiveLess assertive Task & Fact oriented DriverAnalyzer People oriented PersuaderAmiable

234 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Adaptive coaches use all styles according to employee needs: Sometimes providing direction Sometimes persuading Sometimes showing empathy Sometimes paying close attention to rules and established procedures

235 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Set Developmenta l Goals Identify Developmental Resources & Strategies Implement strategies Observe and Document Developmental Behavior Give Feedback Coaching Process

236 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Coaching Process: Steps covered in Chapter 8 Set Developmental Goals Identify Resources and Strategies Needed to Implement Developmental Goals Implement Developmental Goals

237 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Coaching Process: Overview of remaining steps Observe and Document Developmental Behavior and Outcomes Give Feedback –Praise –Negative Feedback

238 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Observe and Document Developmental Behavior and Outcomes Constraints: Time Situation Activity

239 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Organizational Activities to improve documentation of performance Good communication plan to get manager buy-in Training programs –Rater error training –Frame-of-reference training –Behavioral observation training –Self-leadership training

240 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Reasons to document performance Minimize cognitive load Create trust Plan for the future Legal protection

241 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Recommendations for Documentation Be specific Use adjectives and adverbs sparingly Balance positives with negatives Focus on job-related information Be comprehensive Standardize procedures Describe observable behavior

242 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Giving Feedback Main purposes: –Help build confidence –Develop competence –Enhance involvement –Improve future performance

243 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Potential costs of failing to provide feedback: Employees are deprived of chance to improve their own performance Chronic poor performance Employees have inaccurate perceptions of how their performance is regarded by others

244 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 To be effective, feedback should: Be timely Be frequent Be specific Be verifiable Be consistent (over time and across employees) Be given privately Provide context and consequences (continued next slide)

245 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 To be effective, feedback should: (continued) Describe first, evaluate second Cover the continuum of performance Identify patterns Demonstrate confidence in employee Allow for both advice and idea generation

246 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Guidelines for Giving Praise Be sincere – only give praise when it is deserved Give praise about specific behaviors or results Take your time Be comfortable with act of praising Emphasize the positive

247 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Giving Negative Feedback Managers avoid giving negative feedback due to: Negative reactions and consequences Negative experiences in the past Playing “god” Need for irrefutable and conclusive evidence

248 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Negative feedback is most useful when it: Identifies warning signs and performance problem is still manageable Clarifies unwanted behaviors and consequences Focuses on behaviors that can be changed Comes from a credible source Is supported by data

249 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Feedback Sessions should always answer: How is your job going? What can be done to make it better? –Job –Product –Services How can you better serve your customers? –Internal –External

250 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Supervisory roles in managing performance Judge –Evaluate performance –Allocate rewards Coach –Help employee solve performance problems –Identify performance weaknesses –Design developmental plans

251 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Review Formal Meetings Possible types of formal meetings: 1.System Inauguration 2.Self-Appraisal 3.Classical Performance Review 4.Merit/Salary Review 5.Developmental Plan 6.Objective Setting

252 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Steps to take before meeting: Give at least 2-weeks notice Block sufficient time Arrange to meet in a private location without interruptions

253 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Merged Performance Review Meeting Components 1.Explanation of meeting purpose 2.Employee self-appraisal 3.Supervisor & employee share rating and rationale 4.Developmental discussion 5.Employee summary 6.Rewards discussion 7.Follow-up meeting arrangement 8.Approval and appeals process discussion 9.Final recap

254 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Possible defensive behaviors of employees Fight response –Blaming others –Staring at supervisor –Raising voice –Other aggressive responses Flight response –Looking/turning away –Speaking softly –Continually changing the subject –Quickly agreeing without basis –Other passive responses

255 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 To prevent/reduce defensive behaviors Establish and maintain rapport Be empathetic Observe verbal and nonverbal cues Minimize threats Encourage participation

256 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 When defensiveness is unavoidable:  Recognize it  Allow its expression If situation becomes intolerable  Reschedule the meeting for a later time

257 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver CHAPTER 10 Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

258 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Reward Systems and Legal Issues Overview Reward Systems Legal Issues

259 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Reward Systems: Overview Traditional and Contingent Pay (CP) Plans –Reasons for Introducing CP Plans –Possible Problems Associated with CP –Selecting a CP Plan Putting Pay in Context Pay Structures

260 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Traditional Pay Salary and salary increases are based on –Position –Seniority

261 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Contingent Pay (CP) Salary and salary increases are based on –Job performance Also called: Pay for Performance If not added to base pay, called: –Variable pay

262 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Reasons for Introducing CP Performance management is more effective when rewards are tied to results CP Plans force organizations to: –Clearly define effective performance –Determine what factors are necessary CP plans help to recruit and retain top performers CP plans project good corporate image

263 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 CP plans help improve motivation when: Employees see clear link between their efforts and resulting performance ( Expectancy ) Employees see clear link between their performance level and rewards received ( Instrumentality ) Employees value the rewards available ( Valence ) motivation = expectancy x instrumentality x valence

264 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Possible Problems Associated with CP Poor performance management system Rewarding counterproductive behavior Insignificant rewards The reward becomes the driver Extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation Disproportionately large rewards for executives

265 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Selecting a CP Plan: Issues to consider A.Culture of organization B.Strategic direction of organization

266 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 A. Culture of organization: Types of organizations Traditional –Top-down decision making –Vertical communication –Jobs that are clearly defined Involvement –Shared decision making –Lateral communications –Loosely defined roles

267 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 CP systems for different organizational cultures: Traditional organizations –Piece rate –Sales commissions –Group incentives Involvement organizations –Profit sharing –Skill-based pay

268 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 B: CP Plans to enhance Strategic Directions: Employee development –Skill based pay Customer service –Competency based pay –Gainsharing Overall Profit –Executive pay –Profit or stock sharing Productivity –Individual Piece rate Sales commissions –Group Gainsharing Group incentives Teamwork –Team sales commissions –Gainsharing –Competency based pay

269 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Putting Pay in Context A reward increases the chance that Specific behaviors and results will be repeated, or Employee will engage in new behavior and produce better results

270 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Rewards can include: Pay Recognition –Public –Private –Status Time Trust & Respect Challenge Responsibility Freedom Relationships

271 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 How to Make Rewards Work Define and measure performance first and then allocate rewards Only use rewards that are available Make sure all employees are eligible Rewards should be both –Financial –Non-financial (continued)

272 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 How to Make Rewards Work (continued) Rewards should be: –Visible –Contingent –Timely –Reversible

273 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Pay Structures Job Evaluation Broad-banding

274 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Pay structures An organization’s pay structure  Classifies jobs  Into categories  Based on their relative worth  Is designed by job evaluation methods

275 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Job evaluation Method of data collection –Determine the worth of various jobs to –Create a pay structure Consideration of –KSAs required for each job –Value of job for organization –How much other organizations pay

276 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Types of job evaluation methods: Ranking Classification Point

277 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Job evaluation methods: Ranking Create job descriptions Compare job descriptions Rank jobs

278 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Advantages of using Ranking method Requires little time Minimal effort needed for administration

279 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Disadvantages of using Ranking method Criteria for ranking may not be clear: Distances between each rank may not be equal

280 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Job evaluation methods: Classification A series of classes or grades are created Each job is placed within a job class

281 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Advantages of using Classification method Jobs can be quickly slotted into structure Employees accept method because it seems valid

282 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Disadvantages of using Classification method Requires extensive time and effort for administration Differences between classification levels may not be equal

283 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Job evaluation methods: Point method Identify compensable factors (job characteristics) Scale factors (e.g. on a scale of 1 – 5) Assign a weight to each factor so the sum of the weights for all factors = 100%

284 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Advantages of using Point method Establish worth of each job relative to all other jobs within organization Comprehensive measurement of relative worth of each job in organization Easy to rank jobs when total points are known for each job

285 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Disadvantages of using Point method Requires extensive administrative –Time –Effort

286 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Does job evaluation method matter? –Fairness –Evaluators Impartial Objective

287 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Compensation surveys Information on –Base pay –All other types of compensation Conducted in-house or by consultants, such as: www.salary.com or www.haypaynet.com

288 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Broad-banding: Pay structure collapses job classes into fewer categories Advantages: Provides flexibility in rewarding people Reflects changes in organization structure Provides better base for rewarding growth in competence Gives more responsibility for pay decisions to managers Provides better basis for rewarding career progression

289 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Reward Systems: Summary Traditional and Contingent Pay (CP) Plans –Reasons for Introducing CP Plans –Possible Problems Associated with CP –Selecting a CP Plan Putting Pay in Context Pay Structures

290 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Legal Issues: Overview Performance Management and the Law Some Legal Principles Affecting PM Laws Affecting PM

291 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Management and the Law Performance management systems are legally sound, if they are fair: –Procedures are standardized –Same procedures are used with all employees

292 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Some Legal Principles Affecting PM: Overview Employment-at-will Negligence Defamation Misrepresentation Adverse Impact Illegal Discrimination

293 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Employment-at-will Employment relationship can be ended at any time by –Employer –Employee Exceptions –Implied contract –Possible violation of legal rights

294 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Negligence If organization documents describe a system and It is Not implemented as described, Employee can challenge evaluation, charging negligence

295 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Defamation Disclosure of performance information that is –Untrue and –Unfavorable

296 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Misrepresentation Disclosure of performance information that is –Untrue and –Favorable

297 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Adverse Impact / Unintentional Discrimination PM system has unintentional impact on a protected class Organization must demonstrate: –Specific KSA is a business requirement for the job –All affected employees are evaluated in the same way Organization should review ongoing performance score data by protected class to implement corrective action as necessary

298 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Illegal Discrimination or Disparate Treatment Raters assign different scores to employees based on factors that are NOT related to performance Employees receive different treatment as result of such ratings Employees can claim they were intentionally and illegally treated differently due to their status

299 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Employee claim of illegal discrimination: Direct evidence of discrimination, or Evidence regarding the following: –Membership in protected class –Adverse employment decision –Performance level deserved reward/different treatment –How others were treated (not in protected class)

300 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Employer response to claim of illegal discrimination Legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for action Related to performance Note: Good performance management system and subsequent performance-related decision, used consistently with all employees, provides defense

301 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Laws Affecting PM: During past few decades, several countries have passed laws prohibiting discrimination based on: Race or Ethnicity Sex Religion National Origin Age Disability status Sexual orientation

302 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Laws in the United Kingdom: Equal Pay Act of 1970 Race Relations Act of 1976 Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003

303 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Laws in the United States of America Equal Pay Act of 1963 Civil Rights Act of 1964 Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (as amended in 1986) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

304 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Characteristics of Legally Sound PM Systems Organization : –The system is formally explained and communicated to all employees –The system includes a formal appeals process –Procedures are standardized and uniform for all employees within a job group –The system includes procedures to detect potentially discriminatory effects or biases and abuses in the system

305 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Characteristics of Legally Sound PM Systems Management –Supervisors are provided with formal training and information on how to manage the performance of their employees –Performance information is gathered from multiple, diverse, and unbiased raters –The system includes thorough and consistent documentation including specific examples of performance based on first- hand knowledge

306 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Characteristics of Legally Sound PM Systems Employees –Performance dimensions and standards are: Clearly defined and explained to the employee, Job-related, and Within the control of the employee –Employees are given Timely information on performance deficiencies and Opportunities to correct them –Employees are given a voice in the review process and treated with courtesy and civility throughout the process

307 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Legal Issues: Summary Performance Management and the Law Some Legal Principles Affecting PM Laws Affecting PM

308 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver CHAPTER 11 Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006

309 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Managing Team Performance: Overview Definition and Importance of Teams Types of Teams and Implications for PM Purposes and Challenges of Team PM Including Team Performance in the PM System Rewarding Team Performance

310 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Definition of Team Two or more people –Interact Dynamically Independently –Share common and valued Goal, Objective or Mission

311 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Importance of Teams Global pressures Flexibility in flatter organizations Complexity of products and services Rapidly changing environments

312 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Management & Teams PM systems should target: –Individual performance –Individual’s contribution to team performance –Performance of entire team

313 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 General principles of PM relating to teams 1.Design and implement best possible system 2.Consider dangers of poorly implemented system

314 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Managing for Improved Team Performance Don’t limit team processes with other task or organizational requirements Provide good team design and organizational support Give feedback only on processes that the team members can control

315 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Types of Teams Classified by –Complexity of task –Membership configuration

316 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Complexity of Task ranges from: Routine –Well defined –Few deviations in how work is done –Outcomes easily assessed - to - Non-routine –Not defined well –No clear specifications on how to do the work –Outcomes are long term and difficult to assess

317 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Membership Configuration includes Length of time team expects to work together Stability of team membership Static Dynamic

318 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Types of Teams Based on Membership Configuration and Task Complexity

319 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Types of Teams Work or Service Teams Project Teams Network Teams

320 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Work or Service Teams Intact Routine tasks Share similar skill sets

321 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Project Teams Assembled for specific purpose Tasks outside core product or service Members from different functional areas

322 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Network Teams Membership not constrained by –Time or space –Organizational boundaries Teams may include –Temporary or full-time workers –Customers –Vendors –Consultants Work is extremely non-routine

323 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Examples of PM Approaches by Type of Team Type of Team –Work & Service Team –Project Team –Network Team Type of PM Approach –Peer ratings –Ongoing measurements –Development of competencies

324 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Purposes of Team PM Traditional goals of any PM System Specific to Team performance: –Make all team members accountable –Motivate all team members to have a stake in team performance

325 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Challenges of Team PM How do we assess relative individual contribution? How do we balance individual and team performance? How do we identify individual and team measures of performance?

326 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Including Team Performance in the PM System Prerequisites Performance Planning Performance Execution Performance Assessment Performance Review Performance Renewal and Re-Contracting

327 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Management Process Performance Review Performance Renewal and Re-contracting Performance Assessment Performance Execution Performance Planning Prerequisites

328 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Prerequisites Knowledge of mission –Organization –Team Knowledge of job to be performed by the team

329 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Planning Results expected of the team Behaviors expected of team members Developmental objectives to be achieved by team and its members

330 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Execution Team responsibilities 1.Commit to goal achievement 2.Seek feedback from Each other Supervisor 3.Communicate openly & regularly 4.Conduct regular & realistic peer- appraisals

331 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Execution Supervisor responsibilities 1.Observe and document Team performance Relative contribution of team members 2.Update team on any changes in goals of the organization 3.Provide resources & reinforcement

332 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Assessment Types of Assessments Self-appraisals Peer evaluations Supervisor evaluation Outsider appraisals (if appropriate)

333 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Assessment Kinds of Performance to be Assessed Individual task performance Individual contextual performance Team performance

334 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Dimensions of Team Performance to assess: Effectiveness Efficiency Learning and growth Team member satisfaction

335 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Review Two meetings with supervisor or review board –Team meeting –Individual meeting Emphasis on past, present and future

336 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Team meeting Discuss overall team –Performance –Results Information comes from: –Team members –Other teams/outsiders –Supervisor’s evaluation

337 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Individual meeting Discuss how individual behavior contributed to team performance Information comes from: –Self-appraisal –Peer ratings –Supervisor’s evaluation

338 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Performance Renewal and Re-Contracting Make adjustments to performance plan Include plan for individual performance as it affects team functioning

339 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Making Team-based Rewards Effective All employees should be eligible Rewards should be –Visible –Contingent –Reversible Avoid factors which cause reward systems to fail Consider variable pay systems (in addition to individual bonuses)


Download ppt "PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Herman Aguinis Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Herman Aguinis Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google