Prestatiebeoordeling en beloningssysteem Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 15

Leerdoelen De doelen van de prestatiebeoordeling te beschrijven Aan te geven wat de voordelen zijn van gedrag in plaats van karaktertrekken te gebruiken bij prestatiebeoordelingen De populairste criteria voor prestatiebeoordelingen te noemen Uit te leggen wie prestaties mogen evalueren, afgezien van de directe superieur Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 15

Leerdoelen De potentiële problemen van prestatiebeoordelingen te beschrijven evenals maatregelen om die te voorkomen Uit te leggen waarom managers niet graag functioneringsgesprekken houden De verschillende soorten beloningen op te noemen De verbanden te schetsen tussen prestatiebeoordeling, beloningen en werknemersgedrag Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 15

Prestatiebeoordeling prestatiebeoordelingen Prestatiebeoordeling Doelen van prestatiebeoordelingen Prestatiebeoordeling en motivatie Performance appraisal serves a number of purposes in an organization. 1. Management uses appraisals for general personnel decisions. 2. Appraisals identify training and development needs. 3. Performance appraisals can validate selection and development programs. 4. Appraisals provide performance feedback to employees. 5. Rewards can be allocated on the basis of performance appraisals. A vital component of employee motivation is performance and the linkages between effort and performance, and between performance and rewards. For these linkages to be meaningful, workers need to see their efforts as leading to the kind of performance that will give them the rewards which they want. And they need to know how their performance will be measured. Moreover, they must believe that extra effort will lead to increased performance according to the criteria by which they are being evaluated. Finally, they must believe that if they perform well according to the standards they will be rewarded. Individuals will work below their potential in the following situations: 1. Objectives are unclear. 2. Performance standards are vague. 3. The effort-performance and performance-reward linkages are weak. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 15

Individuele taakresultaten Wat evalueren we? Individuele taakresultaten Gedrag Managers most commonly appraise individual task outcomes, behaviors, and traits. Individual Task Outcomes. This type of appraisal is appropriate if ends count more than means. Behaviors. Even though identifying specific outcomes that can be attributed to one employee’s actions is difficult, management will still appraise employee behavior. Traits. While traits such as having “a good attitude” or being “dependable” are often used to evaluate performance, they may have little to do with how well a worker performs on the job. Karaktertrekken Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 15

Wie moet de evaluatie uitvoeren? Directe superieur Collega's Zelfevaluatie Directe ondergeschikten 360-graden evaluaties Immediate Supervisor. Nearly all performance appraisals of lower-level or mid-level employees are conducted by their immediate supervisors. However, this method has several drawbacks. First, some managers feel unqualified to evaluate the contributions of their employees. Second, others resent having to “play God.” Finally, given self-managed teams and telecommuting, an immediate supervisor may not be the best judge of a worker’s performance. Peers. Evaluations by peers can be reliable because they are close to the action. Peers also provide several judgements rather than a single judgement from a supervisor. But, some are unwilling to evaluate their peers, and animosity or friendship can bias peer appraisals. Immediate Subordinates. These appraisals can provide accurate and detailed information about a manager’s behavior. But, employees must not fear reprisal. Self-Appraisals. Consistent with self-management and empowerment, self-appraisals lessen workers’ defensiveness about the appraisal process and can promote performance discussions between workers and their managers. The comprehensive approach: 360-degree feedback. This approach calls for feedback from the full circle of daily contacts that an employee might have--from mail-room personnel to peers to customers to bosses. This technique is well suited to organizations that have introduce teams, employee involvement, and TQM programs. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 15

Beoordelingsmethoden Schriftelijke verslagen Kritische voorvallen Grafische beoordelingsschalen Gedragsbeoordelingsschalen Vergelijkingen tussen meerdere individuen The following are common methods of performance appraisal. Written Essays. Narratives that describe an employee’s strengths, weaknesses, past performance, potential, and suggestions for improvement require no complex forms or extensive training. But, a good or bad appraisal may depend as much on the writing skill of the managers as it does on the actual performance of the employee. Critical Incidents. When using this method, the appraiser writes down what an employee did that was especially productive or counterproductive. The key is to cite specific behaviors, not vaguely defined personality traits. Graphic Rating Scales. In this method, performance factors are listed such as quantity and quality of work, depth of knowledge, cooperation, honesty, attendance, loyalty, and initiative. The appraiser then rates each factor on an incremental scale. While this method can not provide the depth of information of essays or critical incidents, they are less time consuming to develop and administer, and they yield results that can be quantified. Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales. Combining the critical incidents and graphics rating scale approaches, the appraiser rates employees on items along a continuum. The points along the scale are examples of actual on-the-job behavior rather than general descriptions or traits. Multiperson Comparisons. Because managers evaluate one individual’s performance against the performance of others, this is a relative rather than an absolute measuring device. Group order ranking requires the rater to place employees into a particular classification, such as the top one-fifth. Individual ranking orders employees from best to worst. Paired comparisons rank each employee with all other employees and rates each as either the weaker or superior member of the pair. Multiperson comparisons can be combined with any of these methods to blend absolute and relative standards. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 15

Potentiële problemen Eén criterium Clementiefout Halo-fout Identificatiefout Geringe differentiatie Informatie vertekenen To the degree that the following factors are present, an evaluation is likely to be distorted. The typical employee’s job is made up of a number of tasks. If performance is determined by a single criterion, then the evaluation will be limited. If employees are appraised on a single job criterion, they will focus on it to the exclusion of other equally important elements of the job. Each appraiser uses a value system which acts as a standard against which appraisals are made. Relative to the actual performance of an individual, some appraisers mark high (positive leniency error) and some mark low (negative leniency error). If all individuals were rated by the same person, his or her leniency error factor would be applied to everyone. The difficulty arises when different appraisers with different leniency factors are making judgments. The halo error is the tendency for an evaluator to let the assessment of an individual on one trait influence his or her appraisal of that person on other traits. If an employee is dependable and trustworthy, he might become biased toward him and rate him high on other behavior. When evaluators rate others by giving special consideration to those qualities which they perceive in themselves, they are making a similarity error. If all of an appraiser’s evaluations seem similar, social differentiation may be the cause. High differentiators use all or most of the scale. They use all available information and are better able to perceive anomalies and contradictions. Low differentiators use a limited range of the scale. They tend to suppress or ignore differences. Sometimes, a formal appraisal takes place after the decision about an individual’s performance has been made. Then, an evaluator must force information to match nonperformance criteria. This can occur if an appraiser believes that appraisals should be based on seniority instead of performance. In this case, he or she may be unknowingly adjusting each performance appraisal to bring it in line with the employee’s seniority rank, thereby adjusting performance appraisals to align with the nonperformance criteria actually being used. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 15

Problemen overwinnen Maak gebruik van meerdere criteria Kijk niet te veel naar persoonlijkheidskenmerken Kijk vooral wel naar gedrag Noteer relevant gedrag in een dagboek Maak gebruik van meerdere beoordelaars Beoordeel selectief Train beoordelaars Steps can be taken to minimize the problems we have discussed. Since successful performance requires doing a number of things well, multiple criteria should be used during an appraisal. These criteria should be based on the critical activities that lead to either effective or ineffective performance. Traits, such as loyalty, initiative, or reliability, are appealing characteristics in employees. But are employees with these traits better performers than those who lack them? Since there is no evidence which shows that certain traits will be adequate synonyms for performance in a large cross-section of jobs, the evaluator should deemphasize traits during performance appraisals. It is better to emphasize behavior when evaluating performance. Since they focus on specific examples of performance, behavioral measures avoid the problem of using inappropriate substitutes for actual performance. And since actual behavior is being appraised, the chances are better that two or more appraisers will see the same thing. An appraiser should document performance in a journal. By keeping a journal of specific critical incidents for each employee, an evaluator can rate performance more accurately. When multiple evaluators are used, the probability of attaining accurate information is raised. If rater error tends to follow a normal curve, an increase in the number of appraisers will tend to show the majority congregating about the middle. Appraisers should evaluate in only those areas in which they have some expertise. In addition, appraisers should be as close as possible, in terms of organizational level, to the person being evaluated. Appraising selectively, therefore, will increase agreement between raters, minimize the possibilities for inaccuracies, and increase the validity of the evaluation process. Organizations can train their appraisers to become more accurate raters. But the effects of training diminish over time, so regular training sessions may be needed. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 15

En hoe evalueren we teamprestaties? 1. Laat problemen niet doorsudderen tot het jaarlijkse functioneringsgesprek. 2. Houd gesprekken over feedback gescheiden van gesprekken over loonsverhoging. 3. Laat werknemers zichzelf beoordelen. 4. Wanneer je kritisch moet zijn, richt je kritiek dan op concrete voorbeelden van gedrag, niet op de ander als persoon. 5. Beschouw het gesprek als een momentopname in een doorlopend proces. Typically, employees get performance feedback in the annual review. But this review can create problems. In some cases, managers put off these reviews, especially if they are negative. Sometimes, managers save up information and unload it during the annual review. Such problems can be avoided by giving feedback to employees on an ongoing basis. Managers should separate performance reviews from pay reviews. Because they are eager to find out how much of a pay raise they will receive, workers tend to “tune out” when their performance is rated during pay reviews. Managers should allow employees to engage in self-evaluation by asking for the following information: how they are doing, how the organization can help them to do better, and how much cooperation they are getting from their peers. When it is time to be critical, managers should focus on specific examples of behavior rather than on an individual’s personality. Managers should treat the review as a point in an ongoing process. It should be used to clarify what will constitute successful performance in the future. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 15

Beoordelen van teamprestaties Koppel de teamresultaten aan de organisatiedoelen. Begin met de klanten van het team en het werkproces dat het team volgt om hun behoeften tegemoet te komen. Meet de prestaties van teams en individuen. Leer het team eigen maatstaven te creëren. The following guidelines can foster a system that will promote and improve team performance. 1. Tie the team’s results to the organization’s goals. 2. Begin with the team’s customers and the work process the team follows to satisfy them. 3. Measure the performance of the team. 4. Recognize individual efforts. 5. Train the team to create its own measures. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 15

Determinanten van beloningen Prestaties Inspanning Aantal dienstjaren Vaardigheden Before workers do anything, they look for the payoff or reward. Since many of these rewards are organizationally controlled, they are an important influence on the behavior of employees. Performance is the measurement of results. It asks the simple question: “Did you do the job?” The answer to this question requires some agreed-upon criteria for defining performance. If rewards are allocated on the basis of factors directly linked to doing the job successfully, then performance will determine the level of rewards. The rewarding of effort represents the classical example of rewarding means rather than ends. This practice is not uncommon. Effort can count more than performance when it is believed that those who try should be encouraged. Even if it is clearly stated that performance is what will be rewarded, sympathy for those who are trying hard but obtaining little success can influence evaluation and reward decisions. Seniority dominates most civil service systems in the United States. Its virtue is that, relative to other criteria, it is easy to determine and represents a quantifiable criterion that can substitute for performance. Rewards are often allocated according the the skills of an employee. Regardless of whether the skills are used, those who possess the highest levels of skill will get the highest rewards. Job difficulty can be a criterion by which rewards are distributed. Jobs that are hard to do or that are stressful or unpleasant may have to offer higher rewards in order to attract workers. The greater the discretion called for on a job, the greater the impact of mistakes and the greater the need for good judgment. In a job that has been completely programmed, there is little discretionary time. Such jobs require less judgment and offer lower rewards. As discretionary time increases, greater judgmental abilities are needed, so rewards will be higher. Moeilijkheidsgraad van een baan Ruimte voor eigen oordeel Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 15

Soorten beloningen Intrinsieke beloningen Extrinsieke beloningen Niet-financiële beloningen Indirecte compensatie Intrinsic rewards are those that individuals receive largely as a result of job satisfaction. Such rewards are related to the following: more responsibility, participative decision making, opportunities for growth, more interesting work, greater freedom and discretion on the job, and diversity of activities. Extrinsic rewards include direct compensation, indirect compensation, and non-financial rewards. Of course, employees expect some form of direct compensation and expect that it will be equitable. Such rewards include base pay, overtime and holiday premiums, performance bonuses, profit sharing, and stock options. Indirect compensation includes insurance, paid holidays or vacations, services, and perquisites. Since these rewards are generally available to all workers at a given level, regardless of performance, they are not really motivating rewards. Non-financial rewards are “things” that are at the disposal of the organization. The creation of such rewards is limited only by the manager’s ability to assess what “payoffs” employees will find attractive. Non-financial rewards include preferred office furnishings, assigned parking spaces, impressive titles, and preferred lunch hours. What one employee finds desirable, another will find superfluous. Therefore, a given reward may or may not get the desired result. But if applied carefully, the benefits of employee rewards can be impressive. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 15