Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
I/O Personnel Psych
LA Tech, Psych. 516, Test 1 Chapter 5
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Performance Management | A continuous process of identifying, measuring, and developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning performance with the strategic goals of an organization |
| Performance Appraisal | The systematic description of job-relevant strengths and weaknesses within and between employees or groups |
| performance management system purposes | Strategic, communication, employment decisions, criteria, developmental, feedback, Organizational diagnosis, Maintenance, and Development, records |
| Strategic purpose | Helps link employee activities to the organization’s mission and goals |
| communication purpose | Feedback, expectations, aspects of work that are most important to supervisors and stakeholders |
| employment decisions purpose | Info gathered from Performance Management systems can serve as key input in formal organizational reward punishment systems |
| criteria purpose | Aiding in HR research (Ex. Test Validation) |
| developmental purpose | Can help establish objectives for training programs |
| feedback purpose | Can serve as vehicles for personal development |
| Organizational diagnosis, Maintenance, and development purpose | HR planning and evaluation |
| records purpose | Proper documentation of HR decisions and legal requirements |
| Realities of Performance Management Systems | its in all org., (reward/punishment) for ind.&org. hard to give accurate, merit-based ratings on complex jobs, Politics of rating coworkers, help allies/hurt enemies, putting in pm system takes time & effort, & workers must be convinced its useful & fair |
| Barriers to Implementing Effective Performance Management Systems | organizational, political, interpersonal barriers |
| organizational barriers | Common Causes- Faults built into the system due to poor decisions, defects in materials, flaws in the design of the system, or some other managerial shortcoming. Special Causes- faults due to a particular event, operator, or a subgroup within a system |
| political barriers | mgrs dont allow accurate ratings to cause problems for themselves, & try to use the appraisal process to their own advantage. Thus, when raters/ratees share same org. goals and priorities, the appraisal process may be less affected by political barriers. |
| Interpersonal Barriers | mgrs delay face-to-face appraisals, misperceptions of org. standards, formal perf. appraisal may interfere w/coaching relationship. Perf. Appraisal Dilemma- widely accepted as a useful tool, but org., political, & interpersonal barriers can damage it. |
| Fundamental Requirements of Successful Performance Management Systems | Congruence with Strategy, Thoroughness, practicality, meaningfulness, specificity, disriminability, realiability & validity, inclusiveness, fairness & acceptability |
| congruence with strategy | system aligns with org. goals |
| thoroughness | all employees, all job aspects, for an entire time period |
| practicality | benefits of program should outweigh the cost |
| meaningfulness | Measures only things under employee control, occurs on regular intervals, should provide continuing improvement, use results for HR decisions, implementation is important part of everyone’s job. |
| specificity | system should provide specific guidelines to raters and ratees on org. expectations and how to meet them. |
| discriminability | clear differentiation between effective and ineffective workers. |
| reliability and validity | performance scores should be consistent over time and across raters observing the same behaviors and should not be deficient or contaminated. |
| inclusiveness | allows for active participation of raters and ratees, including in the design of the system and self evals |
| fairness and acceptability | participants should view the process and outcomes of the system as being just and equitable. |
| performance appraisal involves two distinct processes | observation and judgment observation -Includes the detection, perception, and recall or recognition of certain events. judgment- Includes categorization, integration, and evaluation of information |
| In practice, observation and judgment represent the last elements of a three part sequence: | o Job Analysis- Describes work and personal requirements of a particular job o Performance Standards- Sets levels of acceptable/unacceptable performance o Performance Appraisal- Job-relevant strengths/weaknesses of workers |
| 360-Degree Feedback | Broadens the base of appraisals by including input from peers, subordinates, and customers. |
| in 360 feedback - immediate supervisor | responsible for managing overall appraisal process, person that can best evaluate each subordinate’s perf. per org. objectives, must be able to tie reward/punishment decisions to effective/ineffective performance, More perspective is needed for comp. eval |
| 3 basic methods of peer assessments in 360 feedback | Peer Nominations- Most useful for identifying extremely high/low levels of KSAO’s Peer Rating- Most useful for providing feedback Peer Ranking- Most useful for discriminating various levels of performance |
| problems with peer assessment | o Friendship Bias o Common Method Variance- The variance observed in a performance measure that is not relevant to the behaviors assessed, but instead is due to the method of measurement used. |
| two ways to address CMV | procedural remedies: obtain predictor and criterion from different sources, separate measurement of predictor & criterion, make it anonymous statistical remedies: |
| subordinate ratings in 360feedback | -Used by Universities (students) -Subordinate ratings r valid predictors of subsequent supervisory ratings -Anonymity important for accuracy of ratings -subordinate ratings are better quality when used for developmental purposes, not administrative |
| self ratings in 360 feedback | self rating compared w/ mgr, peer, & subordinate appraisals show leniency, less variability, ^ bias, lessagreement w/others. 2improve validity of self-rate:ind. rates on relative not absolute scale, give ^ chances to rate, confidential, focus on future |
| clients served in 360 feedback | gives the consumer perspective |
| Appraising Performance | Not just an individual task. Can be done by groups. |
| - Groups can be a useful mechanism for improving the accuracy of performance appraisals under two conditions: | o The task needs to have a necessarily correct answer (is the behavior present or not) o The magnitude of the performance cue should not be too large (what is mgmt potential for employee?) |
| measurement equivalence | The construct underlying the measure should be equivalent amongst all raters. - Once Measurement Equivalence is established, we can assess the extent of agreement across raters (Inter-rater reliability) |
| judgmental bias in rating | leniency, severity, central tendency, halo effect |
| leniency and severity can be controlled in several ways | Put ratings in forced normal distribution, Require supervisors to rank order subordinates Encourage raters to give feedback on regular basis, reducing rater & ratee discomfort have raters’ be accurate by holding them accountable for ratings. |
| types of performance measures | objective: production (amount of scrap), employment data (absences) subjective measures: based on human judgment, must be based on a careful analysis of behaviors viewed as important for effective job perf. |
| 2 types of rating systems | relative and absolute |
| examples of relative rating systems | rank ordering, paired comparisons, and forced distribution |
| rank ordering | Simple Ranking- ranking workers from best to worst Alternation Ranking- choose the best worker, then the worst worker, then the 2nd best, then the 2nd worst, alternates until all ratees are ranked. |
| paired comparisons | Systematic Ratee-to-ratee comparisons. Rater chooses the best out of the pair and rank is determined by the number of times they were chosen as “superior” |
| forced distribution | Ranking subordinates in a fashion that will adhere to a predetermined ranking distribution |
| absolute rating systems examples | essay, behavioral checklist, forced choice system, critical incident technique, graphic rating scale, behaviorally anchored rating scale |
| essay rating system | Narrative that describes and indivdual’s strengths, weaknesses, and potential, and to make suggestions for improvement. |
| behavioral checklist | rater is provided w/ series of descriptive statements of job-related behavior. rater’s task is to (Check) statements that describe the ratee in question. Summated Ratings- Likert scale of importance of frequency that can accompany a behavioral checklist. |
| forced choice system | behavioral checklist that puts statements in groups, rater picks which are most/least descriptive of ratee. |
| 2 statistical properties of Forced-Choice checklist items: | Discriminability and Preference- the degree to which quality expressed in an item is valued by people -technique was developed to reduce leniency & make objective standards of comparison between individuals. |
| critical incident technique | reports by knowledgeable observers of things employees did that were especially effective or ineffective in accomplishing parts of their jobs. It is time consuming to record incidents on a daily/weekly basis. |
| graphic rating scale | most widely used. Less time to develop & give, lets qualitative results be determined, Considers more than 1 perf. dimension, Standardized, comparable across ind. |
| structure for graphic rating scales can differ in 3 ways: | •how well response category is defined •how well ind. interpreting ratings can tell which response was intended •how well perf. dimension rated is defined |
| behaviorally anchored rating scale process (retranslation) | workers &/or mgrs pick/define important dimensions of eff. perf. 2nd group makes crit. incidents showing eff., avg, & ineff. perf. 3rd group uses list of definitions & critical incidents made by 2nd group to sort incidents into dimensions |
| 3 broad objectives of rater training | Improve the observational skills of raters by teaching them what to attend to Reduce or eliminate judgmental bias To improve the ability of raters to communicate performance information to ratees in an objective and constructive matter |
| rater error training | Exposes raters to the different errors and their causes |
| frame of reference (rater training) | Increases awareness of the unintentional errors committed. most effective in improving the accuracy of perf. appraisals. |
| team based org. vs. non team org. | neither necessarily outperforms the other |
| work or service teams | teams engaged in routine tasks |
| project teams | teams assembled for a specific purpose that will disband once task is complete. less routine work |
| network teams | typically geographically diverse; stay in touch via technology. their work is nonroutine. |
| Social and Interpersonal Context of Performance Management Systems | - Social Power, influence, and leadership - Trust - Social exchange - Group dynamics and close interpersonal relationships |
| Supervisory activities before an appraisal | o Communicate frequently with subordinates about performance o Get training in performance appraisal o Judge your own performance first o Encourage subordinates to prepare for appraisal interviws o Use “priming” information |
| Supervisory activities during an appraisal | Warm up &encourage subordinate participation, Judge performance, not personality, mannerisms, or self-concept, Be specific, Be an active listener, Avoid destructive criticism & threats to employee’s ego, Set agreeable & formal goals for future improvement |
| Supervisory activities after an appraisal | o Communicate frequently with subordinates about their performance o Periodically assess progress towards goals o Make organizational rewards contingent on performance |
Created by:
cjd021
Popular Psychology sets