Discussion 1

Week 10 Discussion: A & B

    1.5 pages for each DQ. Separate reference list. Total 3 pages. APA references NO WEBSITES, Only peer-reviewed journal articles. 

Discussion 1: Job Analysis and Rating Performance

The foundation for many personnel psychology and human resource management activities is conducting a comprehensive job analysis (SHL Group plc, 2005). A job analysis can not only define the criteria for assessing performance, but also the level at which it is performed, providing insight as to where performance can be improved and perhaps suggesting which means can be used to foster improvement. Various forms of ranking and rating schemes have been designed and used to assess performance.  Among them, behavioral anchored rating scales (BARS) have been particularly useful and effective (Weatherly, 2004). Job analysis provides the basis for developing ranking and rating schemes, in particular the anchors for levels of BARS.

ASSIGNMENT a description of behavioral anchored scales in performance measures, and explain how they relate to job analysis. Then, explain two benefits of using behavioral anchored scales in performance measurement. Provide concrete examples and citations from the Learning Resources and current literature to support your post.

Example

The behavioral anchored rating scales, or BARS, is a a evaluation method designed to assess employee behavior related to a specific position within a specific organization. There are several approaches to the BARS rating format, however, overall, these formats seek to encourage raters to observe specific behaviors and actions, assign meaning to these observations and then record and assess these meanings based on specific dimensions of between excellent and unsatisfactory behavior (Bernadin and Smith, 1981). While the BARS method has gained traction in the performance appraisal context, there have been notable criticisms of its usage, pertaining to its perceived differentiation from other rating formats and its theoretical, conceptual, empirical and practical use (Bernadin and Smith, 1981; Hom, DeNisi, Kinicki and Bannister, 1982). Despite its criticism, many scholars and researchers have advocated for use of the BARS format in performance evaluation scenarios, citing a misinterpretation of both the observation and rating process that this format dictates. By providing valid current and future implication on employee behavior and trends in productivity, the use of the BARS method can provide valuable insight on employee perception and action. 

The BARS format relies heavily on individualized observation of an employee in a specific role. With this, raters must possess a critical and accurate understanding of what the role is and what necessary characteristics are attached to achieve a level of effectiveness. Organizations must ensure that the job analysis that they provide to employees and raters are true and current reflection of the duties and responsibilities of a position. By not doing so, there is the risk of emphasizing miscommunication and misrepresentation of what is required of the employee. Since the BARS format are specifically related to behavioral observation, an advantage to this rating system is an advanced level of feedback (Hom et al., 1982). Based on observation and documentation, the rater can provide accurate feedback about an individual's performance and provide specific strategies that can assist in behavioral modification. The reception of the feedback is also enhanced, due to the behavioral correlation of scale anchors and dimensions (Hom, et al., 1982). This specificity assists the ratee is linking specific issues to specific solutions. Another potential benefit of using the BARS format is the implications of "relevancy, benefits for ratee, supervisor and organization, consistency, discriminability, and accuracy" (pp. 599, Jacobs, Kafrey and Zeldeck, 1980). These factors help to influence behavioral expectations, and can help organizations build stronger training and development programs, enhance communication and assess and develop stronger organizational policies that reflect both employee and leader input. 

References: 

Bernadin, H.J., & Smith, P. (1981). A clarification of some issues regarding the development and use of behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS). Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(4), 458-463. 

Hom, P., DeNisi, A., Kinicki, A., & Bannister, B. (1982). Effectiveness of performance feedback from behaviorally anchored rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(5), 568-576. 

Jacobs, R., Kafry, D., & Zedeck, S. (1980). Expectations of behaviorally anchored rating scales.  Personnel Psychology, 33. 

Discussion 2: Factors Impacting Performance Appraisals in Practice

Despite the fact that performance management systems are based on a solid job analysis, employing the best design practices, and implementing fully developed procedures, there are still factors that impact the evaluations made (Weatherly, 2004). In practice, factors such as rater bias, inadequate training, and insufficient time are just a few that can impact evaluations (New Media Learning, 2011). It is important to avoid or reduce bias and other influencing factors in order to produce valid, timely, and accurate performance appraisals.

ASSIGNMENT explanations of two potential effects of rater motivation and intent on performance measure validity. Then, describe the potential impact of performance data misuse at the employee and organizational levels. Finally, explain how you might address the misuse you identified. Provide concrete examples and citations from the Learning Resources and current literature to support your post.

Example

According to Blume et al (2009), an inaccurate performance appraisal may result in inaccurate performance discrimination between employees that are at different performance levels. This reduces the purpose of performance appraisals in regards to pay increases or promotions. A rater’s motivation can create a biased performance appraisal if the rater is non-confrontational or has a personal relationship with the subordinate, such as personal friends. Park (n.d) posits literature has examined rater motivation by investigating the relationship between a single aspect of rater motives (e.g., the goals of the rater and social context) and appraisal accuracy. Rater motivation can have a negative impact on how performance appraisals are viewed by other employees if there is bias in the rating system.

Misuse of information such as a supervisor inaccurately rating their friend for the purpose of promotion or pay increase can have a negative impact on the micro-level such as the workplace, and the macro-level such as the organization. At the micro-level, co-workers can become non-productive and lose work motivation. It could also cause bitterness in the workplace. The other employees could feel that the performance appraisal system is a “sham.”  Cronyism, defined by BusinessDictionary.com (2017), is the act of showing favoritism to one’s friends, typically by awarding them to a position in an organization or company despite the person not necessarily being the best qualified for the promotion, appointment, or pay increase.

In regards to rater motivation, cronyism can create turnover which will impact the organization’s overall structure and efficiency. Using inaccurate information that results in a non-qualified person getting a promotion can create a domino effect of poor performance. Because the cronyism is in management, poor leadership remains intact; however, a constant turnover of subordinates will continue. This constant turnover reduces organizational stability in the lower ranks as well as costs the organization time and money due to the continuous training of new employees. According to Pearce & Huang (2014), cronyism can have an everlasting effect on an organization. Once employees believe that rewards are based on cronyism rather than merit, those perceptions do not change. Using an inter-rater system or adding a peer review to the performance appraisal can reduce cronyism as well as reduce the possibility of inaccurate performance rating.  

References

Blume, B. D., Baldwin, T. T., & Rubin, R. S. (2009). Reactions to different types of forced

            distribution performance evaluation systems. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24,

77-91.

Cronyism. BusinessDictionary.com. WebFinance, Inc.

 http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/cronyism.html. (Assessed: 3 May 2017).

Park, S. (n.d). Motivation of Public Managers as Raters in Performance Appraisal: Developing a

            Model of Rater Motivation. Public Personnel Management, 43(4), 387-414.

Pearce J. L. , & Huang L. (2014 ). Workplace favoritism: Why it damages trust and persists. The

            Merage School of Business Working Paper. Irvine, CA : University of California, Irvine .