BMGT/HR
Wratchett123
Week6-Discussion.pdf
Page 1 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
frequently do this by taking unauthorized breaks, intentionally working slowly, and
wasting company resources. Perhaps more serious is property deviance, which includes
actions that destroy the assets of an organization. Employees who do this sabotage
equipment, misuse expense accounts, or steal materials and products.
Production deviance
Harmful employee actions aimed at reducing the speed and accuracy of production
processes.
Property deviance
Harmful employee actions aimed at destroying assets of the organization.
Counterproductive behaviors can also be targeted toward specific individuals. These
actions fall into the categories of political deviance and personal aggression. Political
deviance occurs when an employee does things that put other employees at a
disadvantage. Examples include showing favoritism, gossiping about coworkers, and
competing with others in nonbeneficial ways. The more serious form of counterproductive
behavior directed toward individuals is personal aggression, which is represented by
hostile acts such as violence and sexual harassment. Employees working in groups
lacking civility and respect are particularly prone to act aggressively.
Political deviance
Harmful employee actions designed to harm the performance and careers of other
employees.
301
302
37
38
39
Page 2 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
1.
2.
3.
Personal aggression
Harmful employee actions that seek to personally harm coworkers.
As described in the “Technology in HR” feature, organizations use a number of tactics to
reduce counterproductive behavior. Motivation that comes from a sense of being treated
fairly is a very important factor influencing counterproductive performance. Employees
are more prone to engage in counterproductive performance when they perceive that the
organization treats them unfairly. Having a leader who is ethical, fair, and not abusive is
a critical deterrent of counterproductive behavior. Thus, organizations and leaders can
reduce counterproductive behavior by communicating an interest in the well-being of
employees, providing developmental opportunities, and acting in an ethical manner
themselves. In addition, employees who are more conscientious, more agreeable, higher
in self-mastery, less anxious, and less driven by a desire to obtain rewards indulge in less
counterproductive behavior, even when they do not feel support from the organization.
CONCEPT CHECK
What are three different types of performance that fall directly under the general
performance factor?
How is citizenship performance different from task performance?
What are four types of counterproductive performance behavior?
LEARNING OBJECTIVE 3: How Is Performance Measured?
The process of measuring what each employee contributes, called performance
appraisal, is a necessary but difficult part of managing others. Indeed, for many
managers, performance appraisal is near the bottom of the list of things they want to do.
Perhaps more troublesome is that a majority of workers say that performance reviews do
40
41
42
Page 3 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
nothing to improve their future effectiveness. What makes assessing performance so
tough? One reason managers dislike
43
Page 4 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
performance appraisal is the difficulty of capturing all areas of contribution. Employees
contribute in a number of different ways, and it is often hard to accurately evaluate their
efforts with a numerical score. Another reason is that many employees seem to feel that
performance ratings are biased. They see the process as sometimes unfair. A starting point
for thinking about performance measures is thus to consider ways evaluations can be
inaccurate. After examining general sources of inaccuracy in performance measures, we
will explore various types of performance measures. We will also discuss problems that
these specific measures have, and the formats—or specific types of questions—used to
provide performance ratings.
Performance appraisal
The process of measuring what employees contribute to the organization.
Technology in HR: MONITORING ELECTRONIC ACTIVITY
Increased use of computers and other technology has the potential to make workers more
productive. But it is also possible that workers will become less efficient if they use the
technology in counterproductive ways. The use of company computers for purposes other
than work completion is sometimes referred to as cyberloafing, and it is not unusual.
Over 60 percent of workers report surfing the Web at least once a day for personal
purposes. Workers themselves report spending about 1.5 hours per week visiting websites
unrelated to work, whereas human resource managers suggest the actual time is closer to
8 hours. Such problems have prompted as many as 76 percent of organizations to
monitor employees’ Internet connections.
302
303
Page 5 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
One way of monitoring employees’ computer usage is through the use of special software.
The software is able not only to block access to websites but also to provide supervisors
with reports listing the websites visited. Using such software can, however, communicate
lack of trust. Research thus suggests that companies need to be careful when monitoring
electronic activities.
Employees are more accepting of electronic monitoring when they are given advance
notice that it will be used. Monitoring is also less threatening if employees feel general
support from the organization. Using monitoring to show employees how they can
improve rather than to wield punishment is one way to increase the acceptance of
electronic monitoring. On the whole, evidence suggests that electronic monitoring can
deter counterproductive actions, but it is most effective when used in ways that do not
violate employee perceptions of trust and fairness.
Sources: G. Stoney Alder, Terry W. Noel, and Maureen L. Ambrose, “Clarifying the
Effects of Internet Monitoring on Job Attitudes: The Mediating Role of Employee Trust,”
Page 6 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
Information & Management 43 (2006): 894–903; Deborah L. Wells, Robert Moorman,
and Jon M. Werner, “The Impact of the Perceived Purpose of Electronic Performance on
an Array of Attitudinal Variables,” Human Resource Development Quarterly 18, no. 1
(2007): 121–138.
Page 7 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
CONTAMINATION AND DEFICIENCY AS SOURCES OF INACCURACY
Basic problems with performance appraisal are shown in Figure 8.3. One circle in the
figure represents the employee’s true contribution to the organization. The other circle
represents contribution as it is measured. Of course, the objective of performance
appraisal is to have the two circles overlap as much as possible. However, two types of
error often interfere with achieving this objective.
One error is contamination, which occurs when things that should not be measured are
included in an employee’s performance evaluation. For instance, a supervisor who is
racially biased might give lower ratings to an employee from a minority group. A measure
of the number of computer circuits that an employee assembles might be contaminated if
the employee must use machinery that frequently breaks down.
Contamination
A problem with performance appraisal that occurs when things that should not be
included in the measurement are included.
The second type of error is deficiency, which occurs when things that should be included
in an employee’s performance evaluation are not measured. A measure that fails to
include citizenship behavior is deficient because it does not recognize actions that aid
coworkers. A monthly measure of insurance sales might also be deficient if it fails to
include an assessment of effort expended to build relationships that will result in future
sales.
Deficiency
A problem with performance appraisal that occurs when things that should be included in
the measurement are not included.
303
304
Page 8 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
A good appraisal system minimizes contamination and deficiency. The concepts of
deficiency and contamination can also help guide our assessment of different types of
performance measures.
GENERAL TYPES OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Organizations use a number of different methods for appraising performance. In general,
performance appraisal methods vary in two important ways: whether they are subjective
or objective and whether they focus on process or outcome.
Figure 8.3: Sources of Inaccuracy in Performance Measurement.
Page 9 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
Objective Versus Subjective Measures
Beginning in elementary school, students encounter differences between objective and
subjective measures of performance. Teachers grade math tests objectively by identifying
how many of the problems were solved correctly. Such objective performance
measures are based on counts of either behavior or outcomes. In contrast, writing
assignments are given subjective grades that reflect the teacher’s evaluation of quality.
These subjective performance measures are based on judgments from raters such as
teachers and supervisors.
Objective performance measures
Performance measures that are numerical and based on counts of behaviors or outcomes.
Subjective performance measures
Performance measures that represent judgments made by raters.
When it comes to job performance, objective and subjective measures often don’t agree.
An important question thus concerns which type of measure is best. Most people believe
the answer is that objective measures are best. It is easy to see how raters could have
biases that may reduce the accuracy of subjective measures. For example, workers who
have a more positive attitude receive higher evaluations from supervisors but do not
generally perform better on objective measures. To many people, objective measures
thus seem more consistent and fair. However, objective measures also have problems. In
the case of employees with a positive attitude, it may be that their cooperation with others
represents a contribution that the objective measure fails to capture. Indeed, subjective
ratings have been shown to capture not only task performance but also citizenship
performance, making them less deficient than objective measures in many contexts.
304
305
44
45
46
Page 10 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
Another problem with objective measures can be seen in a common example involving
employee productivity. Suppose a supervisor has two employees working on a production
line with two machines that manufacture cell phone components. One employee produces
20 components every hour. The other produces only 15. The objective indicator of
performance suggests that the first employee contributes more to the organization.
However, the supervisor may know that one production machine frequently breaks down.
Knowing that the employee who only produces 15 components frequently stops to repair
the machine may cause the supervisor to provide a higher subjective rating for that
person. In such a case, the objective rating is deficient because it does not capture an
important part of overall contribution: repairing the machine.
An example that is closer to home for most college students concerns grading on an
accounting exam. A purely objective measure will not give credit for a problem unless the
final answer is correct. However, students often ask for and receive partial credit based on
the grader’s judgment that certain parts of the problem were done correctly. The end
result is a combination of objective and subjective measurement. The part of performance
where the objective measure is deficient is captured in the subjective measure. In
summary, then, objective measures are not necessarily foolproof. It is usually desirable for
assessments of job performance to include both objective and subjective measures.
Outcome Versus Behavioral Measures
Performance measures also differ in whether they focus on outcomes or behaviors.
Outcome measures assess end results such as number of automobiles repaired or success
of an advertising campaign. Behavioral measures place more emphasis on the actions of
employees. Typical behavioral measures
Page 11 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
include following company procedures for reacting to customer complaints and using
appropriate processes to move and store goods in a warehouse.
We can see some of the differences in outcome and behavioral measures by looking at
organizations that employ sales representatives. One approach to managing sales
representatives focuses on outcome measures. Organizations adopting this approach
identify top performers as the individuals who sell the most products and services.
Bottom-line results are most important, and methods of obtaining sales are not
specifically evaluated as part of performance appraisal. This approach provides sales
representatives with a great deal of autonomy. Individual representatives are expected to
use their own knowledge and skills to determine the best way to meet the needs of
individual customers.
A different approach to managing sales representatives focuses on behavioral measures.
Organizations using this approach have preferred ways of interacting with customers and
obtaining sales, and they provide sales representatives with very specific descriptions of
appropriate selling behavior. Top performers simply carry out the actions specified by the
organization. It is assumed that desirable outcomes will result when representatives
engage in the desired actions. Following company procedures is thus emphasized more
than simply making a high number of sales.
Outcome and behavioral measures can each suffer from deficiency and contamination,
suggesting that both should be assessed in most situations. However, which type of
measure dominates often depends on the organization’s competitive strategy.
Organizations pursuing cost-focused strategies tend to have production processes that are
clearly established. In these organizations, research and experience have determined the
most efficient production methods, and the objective of low-cost production is best
accomplished by having employees follow prescribed procedures. Behavioral measures
are thus most often linked with Loyal Soldier and Bargain Laborer HR strategies.
In contrast, outcome measures are most common for organizations pursuing Committed
Expert and Free Agent HR strategies. These organizations rely on creativity and
innovation. Optimal methods for producing goods and services are often unknown. High-
performing employees are expected to use their unique knowledge and skills to produce
305
306
Page 12 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
the desired outcome of delivering superior goods and services. In these cases, the
outcome, or end result, is what matters most.
COMMON PROBLEMS WITH PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Objective and subjective measures, as well as outcome and behavioral measures, suffer
from several potential problems. For subjective measures, bias can be introduced when
humans provide ratings. People are not perfect information processors, and subjective
ratings based on human judgments are often both contaminated and deficient. Objective
and outcome measures are also imperfect, as they sometimes hold employees accountable
for things they cannot control. Finally, all types of performance ratings can suffer from
inconsistency, because performance at one point in time is likely different from
performance at another time. We can thus identify the following common problems with
performance appraisal measures: rater errors and bias, situational influences, and
changes over time.
Page 13 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
How Do We Know? WHO IS MOST LIKELY TO PROVIDE ERROR-FREE RATINGS?
Do some people provide better performance measures than others? If so, who are the best
raters? Kok-Yee Ng, Christine Koh, Soon Any, Jeffrey Kennedy, and Kim-Yan Chan
explored ratings in the Singapore Armed Forces to answer such questions.
Military officers received ratings from supervisors, peers, and subordinates. The ratings
were then examined for differences in halo and leniency (giving everyone a high score).
Subordinates were more likely than peers or superiors to provide ratings with halo and
leniency, and peers were more likely than supervisors to demonstrate leniency. These
errors for subordinates were most pronounced when the rater held stronger beliefs in the
need for hierarchy and respect for authority. Subordinates and peers with a stronger
sense of harmony and avoiding embarrassing others were also more likely to provide
lenient ratings.
The Bottom Line. Some raters are more prone to errors than others. In particular,
subordinates and peers appear to provide ratings with error. The authors thus conclude
that organizations need to ensure that raters are trained to reduce their idiosyncratic
tendencies.
Source: Kok-Yee Ng, Christine Koh, Soon Ang, Jeffrey C. Kennedy, and Kim-Yin Chan,
“Rating Leniency and Halo in Multisource Feedback Ratings: Testing Cultural
Assumptions of Power Distance and Individualism–Collectivism,” Journal of Applied
Psychology 96 (2011): 1033-1044.
306
307
Page 14 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
Rater Errors
Research suggests that raters commit a number of errors when they rate employee
performance. Rating errors occur when raters provide assessments that follow an
undesirable pattern or when the rater does not properly account for factors that might
influence assessments. As explained in the “How Do We Know?” feature, some raters are
more prone to errors than others. One common error involves the pattern of results that
arises when a rater dislikes separating people into categories. This leads to central
tendency error, which is the pattern of placing almost everyone in the middle of the
scale.
Central tendency error
A rating error that occurs when raters give almost all employees scores in the middle of
the scale.
Another common problem occurs when a rater unintentionally compares people with one
another. Suppose a rater is evaluating three employees and one of them is an outstanding
performer. Observing the high performer may raise the rater’s expectations so that he
gives the other two employees low ratings even though their performance is above
average. This type of error is called contrast error.
Contrast error
A rating error that occurs when raters unknowingly allow comparisons among employees
to influence ratings.
A different sort of error occurs when a rater bases an assessment on a general impression
of an employee rather than on the employee’s specific contributions. Over an extended
period, the rater observes a number of different behaviors and forms an overall judgment
of the contribution of the employee. The rater may then judge specific aspects of
performance—such as quality of work, quantity of work, and cooperation with others—in
terms of this overall perception of the employee, rather than judging each aspect of
47
Page 15 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
performance separately. For instance, a rater may be quite accurate in identifying a truck
driver as a good employee but may not really be aware of whether the driver is
Page 16 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
PRINTED BY: [email protected]. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
307
308
Page 17 of 17
2018/05/04https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/api/v0/books/9781119040965/print?from=302&to=307
