Karteikarten
Sources of error in performance appraisal
Karten in diesem Stapel (15)
- 1Sources of error in performance appraisalValidity - must measure actual employee performance
Reliability - must generate consistent results - 2Rater errorsThe Halo Effect - Errors in the evaluation of an employee's performance resulting from leniency/strictness bias, central tendency, prejudice, the recency effect and the like
- 3The halo effectA problem that occurs during performance appraisal, when a supervisor's rating of a subordinate on one factor biases the rating of that personas on other factors
- 4Central TendencyA common error that occurs when every employee is incorrectly rated near the average of middle of the scale
- 5Leniency/strictness biasOccurs when employees are rated lower than their performance justifies example when a manager rates an employee for admin purposes i.e. pay rise or promotion
- 6PrejudiceWhere a manager demonstrates a positive or negative bias i.e. the performance capacity or potential for development of and employee older than 60
- 7The recency effectThe use of most recent events to evaluate employee performance instead of using a longer, more comprehensive time-frame
- 8The Relationship EffectOccurs where the nature of the superior/subordinate relationship influences a performance rating
- 9What to consider when an employee performance appraisal system is introducedStrategic business objectives
Specific performance evaluation purposes (training and development, performance linked to rewards
Must be compatible with the organisation's culture - 10RankingOldest and simplest form of rating;
Manager compares the subordinates; performance then ranks each in order from best to worst;
Simple rating but misleading
Ignoring relative differences,
Gives no indication of actual performance
Involves considerable difficulty in discriminating between employees - 11GradingEmployees' performance is matched with a specific grade definition such as superior, good, acceptable, marginal and unsatisfactory
Seen as forced distribution
overcomes problems of managers overrating, underrating or rating average; - 12Illustration of a forced distributionUnsatisfactory
Marginal
Satisfactory
Good
Superior - 13Graphic ScalesEvaluate employee performance using specific employee behavior or characteristics
Most popular methods - 14Critical IncidentsExamples of employee behavior that illustrate effective or ineffective job performance
Can be prone to recency error, manipulation by selective reporting, difficulty in comparing individual employees, involves very time-consuming recording for managers - 15Behaviorally anchored rating scales BARSCombines elements of the traditional rating scale and critical incident method
Takes a great deal of management time and effort to develop;
use restricted to a minority of big organisations with generic jobs
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am Ohne Titel, erstellt von Marie Brannigan am 02/11/2014.
- Erstellt von
- Marie Brannigan
- Aufrufe
- 6
- Bewertung