Download
1 / 26
260 likes | 308 Views
APPRAISING PERFORMANCE. WAHEED ALI UMRANI, Lecturer, Institute of Modern Sciences & Arts, (IMSA), Hyderabad. APPRAISAL METHODS.
E N D
APPRAISING PERFORMANCE WAHEED ALI UMRANI, Lecturer, Institute of Modern Sciences & Arts, (IMSA), Hyderabad.
APPRAISAL METHODS A scale that lists a number of traits and a range of performance for each. The employee is then rated by identifying the score that best describes his or her level of performance for each trait.
The graphic rating scale is the simplest and most popular technique for appraising performance. Figure 9-2 (P-324) shows a typical rating scale. It lists traits (such as quality and reliability) and a range of performance values (from unsatisfactory to outstanding) for each trait.
The supervisor rates each subordinate by circling or checking the score that best describes his or her performance for each trait. The assigned values for the traits are then totaled.
2. Alternation Ranking Method • (Ranking employees from best to worst on a particular trait, choosing highest, the lowest, until all are ranked)
Ranking employees from best to worst on a trait or traits is another method for evaluating employees. Since it is usually easier to distinguish between the worst and best employees than just rank them, an alternation ranking method is most popular.
First, list all subordinates to be rated, and then cross out the names of any not known well enough to rank. Then, on a form such as that in Figure 9-4 (P-327), indicate the employee who is the highest on the characteristic being measured and also the one who is the lowest.
Then choose the next highest and the next lowest, alternating between highest and lowest until all employees to be rated have been ranked.
3. Paired Comparison Method • (Ranking employees by making a chart of all possible pairs of the employees for each trait and indicating which is the better employee of the pair.
The paired comparison method helps make the ranking method more precise. For every trait (quantity of work, quality of work, and so on), every subordinate is paired with and compared to every other subordinate.
Suppose there are five employees to be rated. In the paired comparison method you make a chart, as in figure 9-5, (P-328) of all possible pairs of employees for each trait. Then for each trait indicate (with a + or -) who is the better employee of the pair.
Next the number of times an employee is rated better is added up. In Figure 9-5, employee Maria ranked highest (has the most + marks) for quality of work, whereas Art was ranked highest for creativity.
4. Forced Distribution Method 1.The forced distribution method is similar to grading on a curve. With this method, predetermined percentages of ratees are placed in performance categories.
For example, you may decide to distribute employees as follows: • 15% high performers • 20% high-average performers • 30% average performers • 20% low-average performers • 15% low performers
(although the proportions in each category need not to be symmetrical). As at school, forced distribution means not everyone can get an “A”, and that one’s performance is always rated relative to one’s peers.
5. Critical Incident Method • With the critical incident method, the supervisor keeps a log of desirable or undesirable examples or incidents of each subordinate’s work-related behavior. Then every 6 months or so, the supervisor and subordinate meet and discuss the latter’s performance using the specific incidents as examples.
This method has following advantages: 1.It provides you with specific hard examples of good and poor performance for explaining the appraisal.
It ensures that you think about the subordinate’s appraisal all during the year because the incidents must be accumulated; therefore, the rating does not just reflect the employee’s most recent performance (we’ll return to this important point below).
Keeping a running list of critical incidents should also provide concrete examples of what specifically your subordinate can do to eliminate any performance deficiencies.
However, this method is not too useful by itself for comparing employees or for making salary decisions.
6. Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) • A behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS) combines the benefits of narratives, critical incidents, and quantified ratings (such as graphic rating scales) by anchoring a quantified scale with specific behavioral examples of good or poor performance, as in Figure 9-7 (P-332). its proponents claim that it provides better, more equitable appraisals than do the other tools we discussed.
1. Generate critical incidents • Persons who know the job being appraised (jobholders and/or supervisors) are asked to describe specific illustrations (critical incidents) of effective and ineffective performance.
7. THE MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES (MBO) METHOD • Stripped to its essentials, Management By Objectives (MBO) requires the manager to set specific measurable goals with each employee and then periodically discuss his or her progress towards these goals. You could engage in a modest MBO program with subordinates by jointly setting goals and periodically providing feedback.
However, the term MBO almost always refers to a comprehensive, organization wide goal-setting and appraisal program that consists of six main steps:
