Belles Feuilles North America

This assignment discusses two common errors that may occur when conducting a Performance Appraisal – the halo effect and rater bias.

Assessment is the on-going review by a line manager of the work an employee or a team has performed that is measured against expected outcomes. It is a two way communication channel that gives a shared understanding of what is to be achieved, it provides an opportunity to get employees to buy in to the process. It is a useful tool that can highlight development needs. It can highlight good practice, and bad practice and if there are deficiencies in the process, on either side. This means there is an opportunity to recognise achievement and where problems are identified, how these can be

D) There are many ethical issues that go along with performance assessments. The rater must ensure that he or she doesn’t discriminate against the employee. There is potential for the rater to discriminate based on religion, race, age, or gender. If the employee can prove that they were discriminated against then they can bring a suit to the rater and the company. The rater must not show bias towards the employee that is being rated. If the rater is bias to the employee then there is a huge chance that it is not an accurate performance assessment. Another ethical issues that can appear for the rater, is giving inaccurate feedback. If the rater is not honest then the feedback is not accurate, therefore the manager can also have a suit filled

While HR managers develop the system, managers conduct the actual performance evaluations. However, these roles can change depending on the size of the organization. For example, in companies where the HR department is small, managers must assume a larger role in effective HR practices. It was also found in the article Performance Management Research Review, “Research from the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp, formerly the Human Resource Institute) that there are several well-defined steps that can make performance management an effective process in any organization. Their study, finding the Keys to Performance Management: A Study of Current Trends and Future Possibilities surveyed more than 1,000 HR professionals representing various industries and company sizes. There were nine key practices for effective performance management found, and are listed as: The performance management process includes developmental plans for the future; Training is provided to managers on how to conduct a performance evaluation meeting; The quality of performance appraisals is measured; There is a system in place to address and resolve poor performance; The performance appraisal includes information other than that based on the judgment of managers; The performance review process is consistent across the organization; Employees can expect feedback on their performance more than once a year; 360 reviews are used to support the

The annual performance review process has been a festering thorn in managers sides for years. Most managers have gone out of their way to avoid them. On many occasions, both managers and subordinates have felt that performance evaluations were nothing but a huge waste of time. According to Little, the biggest problem with the performance evaluation process is that managers haven not been properly trained to conduct annual reviews (2013). Performance levels and feedback should be constantly documented and briefed to employees throughout the year. This will help reduce unwanted stress and prevent subordinates from being surprised by an unexpected rating at the end the reporting period. The purpose of this paper is to explain some of the reasons why managers despise performance evaluations. It will also address some of the pitfalls of poor preparation during the evaluation process. Finally, ways to improve the performance evaluation process will be discussed so that everyone benefits in the end. Now that you know the topic of discussion for today, let us take a look at some of the reasons why managers dislike performance evaluation process.

Employee performance review is a key component to the success of any organization. CanGo managers seem to have a misunderstanding on how to effectively execute a performance review of their employees. Therefore it is essential that CanGo management receive training to improve their performance reviews. The lack of understanding on how to execute a performance review can lead to potential performance review problems such as halo effect, leniency, strictness, central tendency, bias, and unclear standards.

Job performance is one of the most important factor in both organizational psychology and human resource management, for the last decade there have been growing interest in the development of knowledge about performance measurements in organizations, researchers have covered a wide range of areas surrounding the subject, like identification of problems and different approaches to measure performance. In organizational environment we can perceive the performance evaluation process, as the practice of a mutual exchange between an employee and his manager. That allows the employee to get an individual feedback about his job performance and productivity

Performance management is the foundation for employee performance and engagement…it is larger than the annual performance review (“Guide to,” 2016). It is not merely a tool, but rather an act – an act of management (Ammons, 2015). One key best practice of performance management is having an effective appraisal cycle, as well as knowing how vital performance feedback is to the appraisal cycle and to the overall wellbeing of the human resources and to the company.

360-degree feedback also known as multi-rater feedback is a performance evaluation test where employees get anonymous feedback from their co-workers. Employees can recognize their strengths and weaknesses though this method of assessment. The paper will look at the mistakes that people make in formulating a 360-degree feedback and appropriate use of the 360-degree performance evaluation test.

Performance appraisals are used administratively whenever they are the basis for a decision about the employee’s work conditions, including promotions, terminations, and rewards. (Gomez-Mejia, 2012, p.223).

Assessments are tools to navigate the employee through to successful completion of their responsibilities and can be effective instruments when employed correctly (Lawler et al, 2012) but they tend to not function for various reasons. Most commonly it is thought that they are susceptible to bias and unfair practices but the removal of subjectivity (Prowse & Prowse, 2009) and the inclusion of employee input can ensure dual acceptance of ratings and dismissal of perceived bias while promoting employee engagement (Lawler et al, 2012) in order to harvest internal talent.

I am proposing the Behavioral Anchored Rating scales (BARS). This method mainly bases its evaluations on key and specific behaviors that are required for each employee position in the organization. BARS technique is designed to show the benefits of the quantitative and qualitative data in the performance appraisal process. BARS mainly compare an employee performance against the specific behavior that is anchored to the numerical ratings (Zaffron, Feb 2009).

The company has an evaluation system that is not meeting the organizational objectives or developing the employees. Problems have arisen with the current evaluation reporting system because rating officials are too generous when evaluating employees. The organization’s employee evaluation format does not force the rating officials to be honest when evaluating their employee’s potential and performance. Rating officials are not trained on rating techniques and don’t provide quality feedback and establish employee goals that align with the organizational goals of the company. Poorly administered evaluations can undermine employee morale and be used by disgruntled employees against employers in litigation (Woodford & Doyle,

Performance ratings is part of the performance and reward management system that used to support organisations’ personnel decisions in performance appraisal, promotion, compensation, and employee development (Yun, Donahus, Dudley, & McFarland, 2005). Accurate performance ratings are fundamental to the success or failure of the performance management process, therefore, raters have been suggested to be fully trained to minimise potential errors in performance ratings (Biron, Farndale, & Paauwe, 2011). Several rater training programs have been developed to enhance the quality of performance ratings, such as rater error training and frame-of-reference training (MacDonald & Sulsky, 2009). Nevertheless, not all rater training programs have been equally successful, many researchers have demonstrated the effectiveness of frame-of-reference training in increasing rating accuracy (Woehr, 1994; Keown-Gerrard & Sulsky, 2001; Roch, Woehr, Mishra, & Kieszczynska, 2012). The following will assess the effectiveness of frame-of-reference training in increasing rating quality through comprehensive examination of its validity, accuracy and reliability.

“Performance appraisal” is a discrete, formal, organizationally sanctioned event, usually not occurring more frequently than once or twice a year, which has clearly stated performance dimensions and/or criteria that are used in the evaluation process. Furthermore, it is an evaluation process, in that quantitative scores are often assigned, based on the judged level of the employee‟s job performance on the dimensions or criteria used, and the scores are shared with the employee being evaluated. (Angelo S. DeNisi and Robert D. Pritchard, 2006)