1. HRM: Leading teams – G. Grote ETHZ, Spring Semester 09 Topics HRM: Leading teams

2. HRM: Leading teams – G. Grote ETHZ, Spring Semester 09 Purposes of appraisal Improving performance Making reward decisions Motivating staff Developing subordinates Identifying potential Formal recording of unsatisfactory performance Note: Conscious decision on which purpose(s) to focus on is important

3. HRM: Leading teams – G. Grote ETHZ, Spring Semester 09 Design of appraisal interviews Adequate communication on four levels –Factual –Relational –Appeal –Impression management Use of meta-communication to prevent relational problems to be shifted to the factual level Supporting reciprocal perspective taking

4. HRM: Leading teams – G. Grote ETHZ, Spring Semester 09 Prototypical agenda of appraisal interviews Assess achievement of objectives Recognize achievement of objectives Analyze causes for (non-)achievement Analyze personal strengths and development needs Identify opportunities for development Negotiate and determine new objectives

5. HRM: Leading teams – G. Grote ETHZ, Spring Semester 09 Appraisal criteria Assessment of personal characteristics/ behaviors/outcomes –Recommendation: Focus on assessing behaviors, e.g. by means of behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS), and on assessing outcomes based on achievement of objectives Compare performance between individuals –rank order –grouping according to a predetermined percentage per evaluation category

6. HRM: Leading teams – G. Grote ETHZ, Spring Semester 09 Behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS) Each value on a scale for a particular dimension is defined by a concrete behavior Example decision making 1=avoids decisions 2=decides without adequately considering factual information 3=decides without adequately involving the persons affected by the decision 4=decides only when problems become pressing 5=decides proactively 6=decides with adequate consideration of the limits in his/her decision comptence Frequent problem: several criteria are confounded in the anchors Alternative approach: Assess frequencies of concrete behaviors (e.g. how often did person A participate in decision making)

7. HRM: Leading teams – G. Grote ETHZ, Spring Semester 09 Example Novartis

8. HRM: Leading teams – G. Grote ETHZ, Spring Semester 09 Example Novartis

9. HRM: Leading teams – G. Grote ETHZ, Spring Semester 09 Example Novartis

10. HRM: Leading teams – G. Grote ETHZ, Spring Semester 09 Sources of information for appraisals self-assessment supervisors subordinates peers customers Combining all sources: 360°-feedback

11. HRM: Leading teams – G. Grote ETHZ, Spring Semester 09 Typical errors in appraising others Primacy/recency Halo Implicit theories Stereotypes Central tendency and positive skew Persistence of impression despite information to the contrary Attribution errors

12. HRM: Leading teams – G. Grote ETHZ, Spring Semester 09 Attribution errors Attribution=attributing causes to behaviors –evaluating differences in behavior by comparing people, tasks, and situations in terms of causes for behavior (dimensions: e.g. internal/external causes; stable/variable causes) Examples of attribution errors: –Fundamental attribution error: overemphasizing the actor as a cause of events –Protecting self-esteem: Underestimating person-related causes for ourselves especially for failure –Underusing consensus information: little use of information from comparisons with others` behavior –Confirming expectations: e.g. assuming person-related causes for behaviors that are atypical for a particular situation; assuming situation-related causes in highly structured situations

13. HRM: Leading teams – G. Grote ETHZ, Spring Semester 09 Measures to avoid rating errors Systematic preparation of appraisal interview Conscious reflecting of potential errors and their influence on the appraisal Use of structured assessment scales (e.g. BARS) Open communication climate that also allows critical feedback on the appraisal by the appraised person

14. HRM: Leading teams – G. Grote ETHZ, Spring Semester 09  Note: Subordinates' assessment of their supervisors predicts supervisor's success after 7 years as accurately as assessment centers, while self-assessment of supervisors has little predictive power. Discrepancies between assessing oneself/others Source: Wirtschaftswoche 11.3.94; 900 subordinates assess the behavior of their 150 supervisors.