Training and Development and Performance Management

Evaluation1.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Training and Development and Performance Management

4/29/2020 Print Preview

https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?eISBN=9781285872643&id=30222987&snapshotId=116383&dockAppUid=101&nbId=116383& 1/5

(1)

(2)

(3)

8.3a Trait Methods

Trait approaches are designed to measure the extent to which an employee possesses certain characteristics—such as dependability, reactivity, initiative, and leadership—that are viewed as important for the job and the organization in general. Trait methods became popular because they are easy to develop. However, if not designed carefully on the basis of job analysis, trait evaluations can be notoriously biased and subjective.

Graphic Rating Scales

In the graphic rating scale method (A trait approach to performance rating whereby each employee is rated according to a scale of characteristics) , each trait or characteristic to be rated is represented by a scale on which a rater indicates the degree to which an employee possesses that trait or characteristic. An example of this type of scale is shown in Highlights in HRM 2. There are many variations of the graphic rating scale. The differences are to be found in

the characteristics or dimensions on which individuals are rated,

the degree to which the performance dimension is defined for the rater, and

how clearly the points on the scale are defined. In Highlights in HRM 2, the dimensions are defined briefly, and some attempt is made to define the points on the scale. Subjectivity bias is reduced somewhat when the dimensions on the scale and the scale points are defined as precisely as possible. This can be achieved by training raters and by including descriptive evaluation guidelines in a performance evaluation reference packet.

Highlights in HRM 2

Graphic Rating Scale with Provision for Comments

javascript://

4/29/2020 Print Preview

https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?eISBN=9781285872643&id=30222987&snapshotId=116383&dockAppUid=101&nbId=116383& 2/5

Also, the rating form should provide sufficient space for comments on the behavior associated with each scale. These comments improve the accuracy of the evaluation because they require the rater to think in terms of observable employee behaviors while providing specific examples to discuss with the employee.

Mixed-Standard Scales

The mixed-standard scale method (A trait approach to performance rating similar to other scale methods but based on comparison with (better than, equal to, or worse than) a standard) is a modification of the basic rating scale method. Rather than evaluating traits according to a single scale, the rater is given three specific descriptions of each trait. These descriptions reflect three levels of performance: superior, average, and inferior. After the three descriptions for each trait are written, they are randomly sequenced to form the mixed- standard scale. As Highlights in HRM 3 discusses, supervisors evaluate employees by

javascript://

4/29/2020 Print Preview

https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?eISBN=9781285872643&id=30222987&snapshotId=116383&dockAppUid=101&nbId=116383& 3/5

indicating whether their performance is better than, equal to, or worse than the standard for each behavior.

Forced-Choice Method

The forced-choice method (A trait approach to performance rating that requires the rater to choose from statements designed to distinguish between successful and unsuccessful performance) requires the rater to choose from statements, often in pairs, that appear equally favorable or equally unfavorable but are designed to distinguish between successful and unsuccessful performance. For example, forced-choice pairs might include the following:

1. a) Works hard

b) Works quickly

2. a) Shows initiative

b) Is responsive to customers

3. a) Work is reliable

b) Performance is good

The rater then selects one statement from the pair without knowing which statement correctly describes successful job behavior. Because it’s not immediately clear, which response results in a higher rating, less bias results.

The forced-choice method is not without limitations, the primary one being the cost of establishing and maintaining its validity. The fact that it has been a source of frustration to many raters has sometimes caused the method to be eliminated from evaluation programs. In addition, it cannot be used as effectively as some of the other methods as a tool for developing employees.

Essay Method

Unlike rating scales, which provide a structured form of evaluation, the essay method (A trait approach to performance rating that requires the rater to compose a statement describing employee behavior) requires the appraiser to compose a statement that best describes the employee’s strengths and weaknesses and make recommendations for his or her development. Often the essay method is combined with other rating methods because it provides additional descriptive information about an employee’s performance that cannot be generated with a structured rating scale. Essays also provide an excellent opportunity for supervisors to point out the unique characteristics of the employee being appraised, including specific points about the employee’s promotability, special talents, skills, strengths, and weaknesses.

javascript://

4/29/2020 Print Preview

https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?eISBN=9781285872643&id=30222987&snapshotId=116383&dockAppUid=101&nbId=116383& 4/5

A limitation of the essay method is that composing an essay that attempts to cover all of an employee’s essential characteristics is a very time-consuming task (though when combined with other methods, this method does not require a lengthy statement). Another disadvantage of the method is that it tends to be subjective and might not focus on the relevant aspects of a person’s job performance. A final drawback of this evaluation method is that the quality of the performance evaluation could be affected by the supervisor’s writing skills. Good writers may simply be able to produce more favorable-sounding evaluations.

Highlights in HRM 3

Example of a Mixed-Standard Scale

DIRECTIONS: Indicate whether the individual’s performance is above (1), equal to (0), or lower than (2) each of the following standards.

1. Employee uses good judgment when addressing problems and provides workable alternatives; however, at times does not take actions to prevent problems. (medium PROBLEM-SOLVING)

2. Employee lacks supervisory skills; frequently handles employees poorly and is at times argumentative. (low LEADERSHIP)

3. Employee is extremely cooperative; can be expected to take the lead in developing cooperation among employees; completes job tasks with a positive attitude. (high COOPERATION)

4. Employee has effective supervision skills; encourages productivity, quality, and employee development. (medium LEADERSHIP)

5. Employee normally displays an argumentative or defensive attitude toward fellow employees and job assignments. (low COOPERATION)

6. Employee is generally agreeable but becomes argumentative at times when given job assignments; cooperates with other employees as expected. (medium COOPERATION)

7. Employee is not good at solving problems; uses poor judgment and does not anticipate potential difficulties. (low PROBLEM-SOLVING)

8. Employee anticipates potential problems and provides creative, proactive alternative solutions; has good attention to follow-up. (high PROBLEM-SOLVING)

9. Employee displays skilled direction, effectively coordinates unit activities, is generally a dynamic leader, and motivates employees to high

4/29/2020 Print Preview

https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?eISBN=9781285872643&id=30222987&snapshotId=116383&dockAppUid=101&nbId=116383& 5/5

performance. (high LEADERSHIP)

© 2020 Cengage Learning Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may by reproduced or used in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, or in any other manner - without the written permission of the copyright holder.