• 1. Critically assess the positive and negative aspects of Performance Appraisal (PA) systems in terms of their effect on behaviours, motivation and teamwork.

• Depending upon your conclusions suggest how PA systems might be modified, or what might replace them in order to better align performance management approaches with leadership theory.

• 2. Use your wiki to develop your ideas using the library database and other sources appropriately to support your views.3. Prepare a short presentation (10 – 15 minutes) of your team's findings. Make sure that in your presentation you cite all reference sources that you use, using APA format, and provide a reference list (as the last slide if you are using a slide show to support your presentation).4. Present your findings on Wednesday 23 February at 9.00 am in IMC Room 249.

1MBE2010/11 A-1

11 PAs Evaluation, using Scoring Assessmentwith the Leadership Theories.

MBE A-1

Methodology 1. AnalysisI. Select 11 PAsII. Pros-Cos AnalysisIII. Team Assessment, scoring

2. DevelopmentI. Evaluation from BehavioursII. Evaluation from MotivationIII. Evaluation from Teamwork

3. ConclusionI. Summary (Modification)II. Replacement

11 Performance Appraisals are:

1. Critical incident method 2. Weighted checklist method3. Paired comparison analysis4. Graphic rating scales 5. Essay Evaluation method 6. Behaviourally anchored rating scales 7. Performance ranking method8. Management By Objectives (MBO)

method 9. 360 degree performance appraisal 10. Forced ranking (forced distribution) 11. Behavioural Observation Scales

3MBE2010/11 A-1

Disclaimers*This result was analysed, using the average of scoring by MBE A-1 (n=6), therefore, this result can not be identified and verified as a official research outcome on the course of WMG.*This analysis should be calculated by relative evaluation, however, it can not avoid human bias on the calculation precisely, because assessors are not professional.

1. Critical incident method

Series10.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

1.92 2.33 2.33

Behaviours Motivation Teamwork

Pros Might reduce frequency of negative critical incidents.

ConsNo information given back to employees.Would probably lead to a negative incident bias.Employees may worry about the consequences.Employees may conceal information regarding incidents.

Manager writes down positive and negative performance behavior of employees throughout the performance period.

4MBE2010/11 A-1

Analysis

Source: Woolsey, K. L. (1986)

2. Weighted checklist method

Series10.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

2.92

2.08 2.08

Behaviours Motivation Teamwork

ProsHelps managers to evaluate performance.If done objectively, can enhance teamwork.

ConsHuman bias by leaders/raters/supervisors all possible.Process is expensive and time consuming.Can be difficult to analyze data.Limited to behavioral observations, not open-ended.

This method describe a performance appraisal method where rater familiar with the jobs being evaluated prepared a large list of descriptive statements about effective and ineffective behavior on jobs.

5MBE2010/11 A-1

Analysis

Source: Park, K., & Kim, J. (1990)

3. Paired comparison analysis

Series10.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.08 3.50 3.50

Behaviours Motivation Teamwork

ProsHelps managers decide where employees would be most effective.Useful when priorities are not clear.Peoples skills are recognised

ConsWeightings need to be reviewed regularly, due to changing requirements, markets, etc.People may be assigned to jobs they would prefer not to do, solely because they are good at them.

A range of plausible options is listed. Each option is compared against each of the other options. The results are tallied and the option with the highest score is the preferred option.

6MBE2010/11 A-1

Analysis

Source: Katz, B., Bruck, M., & Coleman, W. (2001)

4. Graphic rating scales

Series10.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

2.92 2.75 2.42

Behaviours Motivation Teamwork

ProsEasy to understand for leaders and employees.Shared and individual goals.Quantitative comparisons possible.Could be used in most departments.

ConsDoes not give reasons as to why supervisors give particular ratings.Used subjectively in many cases.Not valid if comparing employees rated by different supervisors.

The Rating Scale is a form on which the manager simply checks off the employee’s

7MBE2010/11 A-1

Analysis

Source: Keavenya, T. J., & McGann, A. F. (1975)

5. Essay Evaluation method

Series10.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.42 3.50 3.42

Behaviours Motivation Teamwork

ProsNon-quantitative, descriptive evaluation can be very important for improvement.

ConsCould be biased.Evaluator might do it without fully assessing employee.Can take a long time and be uneconomical

This method asked managers / supervisors to describe strengths and weaknesses of an employee’s behavior. Essay evaluation is a non-quantitative technique.

8MBE2010/11 A-1

Analysis

Source: Smith, B. N., Hornsby, J. S., & Shirmeyer, R. (1996)

6. Behaviorally anchored rating scales

Series10.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

3.33 3.08 3.25

Behaviours Motivation Teamwork

ProsQuantitatively assesses how well certain specific behaviors are exhibited.Could help managers to understand link between certain behaviors and critical incidents.

ConsCan take a long time to create and develop effective indicators.Bias and subjectivity could be present.

This method used to describe a performance rating that focused on specific behaviors or sets as indicators of effective or ineffective performance. It is a combination of the rating scale and critical incident techniques of employee performance evaluation.

9MBE2010/11 A-1

Analysis

Source: Smith, B. N., Hornsby, J. S., & Shirmeyer, R. (1996)

7. Performance ranking method

Series10

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

2.25 2.50

1.67

Behaviours Motivation Teamwork

ProsIndividually quite motivating, especially for competitive employees.Could be effective in short-term.

ConsDifficult to evaluate fairly.Would encourage competition with employees only looking out for themselves.Instills fear and can be demoralizing for those with low rank.

Ranking is a performance appraisal method that is used to evaluate employee performance from best to worst. It is a combination of the rating scale and critical incident techniques of employee performance evaluation.

10MBE2010/11 A-1

Analysis

Source: Katz, B., Bruck, M., & Coleman, W. (2001)

8. Management By Objectives (MBO) method

Series10

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

3.83 3.83 3.33

Behaviours Motivation Teamwork

ProsBased on employee/manager input and commitment.Gives focus and direction to employees.Periodic re-evaluation keeps progress on track.

ConsGoal-oriented approach that may not understand the limitations of the process to achieve (Red-bead).May limit people to reaching targets, when they could exceed them.De-motivates those unable to improve or achieve targets.

MBO is a process in which managers / employees set objectives for the employee, periodically evaluate the performance, and reward according to the result. MBO focuses attention on what must be accomplished (goals) rather than how it is to be accomplished (methods)

11MBE2010/11 A-1

Analysis

Source: Ivancevich, J. M. (1972).

9. 360 degree performance appraisal

Series10

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55 4.42

4.08 4.08

Behaviours Motivation Teamwork

ProsWide scope of feedback makes use of all possible sources of experience.Motivator to perform on all fronts.Removes subjectivity aspects of other methods.Identifies strengths and areas for improvement.Anonymous, so no fear of reprisal from those who are rated.Holds even the management accountable.Can address skills, competencies, behaviors.Very flexible.

ConsExtremely time-consuming for all involved.Limitations where new employees are involved (may not have experience as assessors, other people might not know them well, etc…)

360 Degree Feedback is a system or process in which employees receive confidential, anonymous feedback from the people who work around them.

12MBE2010/11 A-1

Analysis

Source: Pollack, D. M., & Pollack, L. J. (1996)

10.Forced ranking (forced distribution)

Series10

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

2.7

3.6

1.8

Behaviours Motivation Teamwork

ProsCan create a high-performance culture.Framework is fixed and does not depend on changing market requirements.

ConsWould encourage cut-throat competition with employees only looking out for themselves.Makes collaboration almost impossible.Harms morale.

Forced ranking is a method of performance appraisal to rank employee but in order of forced distribution. For example, the distribution requested with 10 or 20 percent in the top category, 70 or 80 percent in the middle, and 10 percent in the bottom.

13MBE2010/11 A-1

Analysis

Source: Smith, B. N., Hornsby, J. S., & Shirmeyer, R. (1996)

11. Behavioral Observation Scales

Series10

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

3.08 2.33 2.58

Behaviours Motivation Teamwork

ProsAvoid critical incidents by understanding who/what might cause them.Allows management to identify patterns in employee behaviors.

ConsEmployees may conceal information from supervisors.Can de-motivate staff as there is no room for experimentation; failure is punished.Could be biased.

Behavioral Observation Scales is frequency rating of critical incidents that worker has performed.

14MBE2010/11 A-1

Analysis

Source: Topel, R. (1993)

Result of Scoring -TableBehaviours Motivation Teamwork

1. Critical incident method 1.92 2.33 2.33 2. Weighted checklist method 2.92 2.08 2.08 3. Paired comparison analysis 3.08 3.50 3.50 4. Graphic rating scales 2.92 2.75 2.42 5. Essay Evaluation method 3.42 3.50 3.42 6. Behaviorally anchored rating scales 3.33 3.08 3.25 7. Performance ranking method 2.25 2.50 1.67 8. Management By Objectives (MBO) method 3.83 3.83 3.33 9. 360 degree performance appraisal 4.42 4.08 4.08 10.Forced ranking (forced distribution) 2.70 3.60 1.80 11. Behavioral Observation Scales 3.08 2.33 2.58

Basic Collection DataN=6, Scoring Range between 1 and 5;5: Very Good4: Good3: Acceptable2: Partly Acceptable1: Not Acceptable

AVG of indivi Scores= (∑X)/n

MBE2010/11 A-1 15

Development

Result of Scoring -Graph

1. Critical incident method3. Paired comparison analysis

5. Essay Evaluation method7. Performance ranking method

9. 360 degree performance appraisal11. Behavioral Observation Scales

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

BehavioursMotivation

Teamwork

MBE2010/11 A-1 16

Development

AP selection from Behaviour’s Point of View

MBE2010/11 A-1 17

3. Paired comparison analysis6. Behaviorally anchored rating scales

9. 360 degree performance appraisal

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Behaviours

Motivation

Teamwork

Development

Source: Deming (1993)

Knowledge of a system

Knowledge of Variation

Knowledge of Psychology

Theory of Knowledge

SoPK

CEOSnr Mngs

MngsSupervisers

Ops

CEOSnr Mngs

MngsSupervisers

Ops

Control Coac

h

Leadership & SoPK

AP selection from Motivation’s Point of View

MBE2010/11 A-1 18

3. Paired comparison analysis6. Behaviorally anchored rating scales

9. 360 degree performance appraisal11. Behavioral Observation Scales

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Behaviours

Motivation

Teamwork

Development

Source: Maslow, A. (1954) & Herzberg (1959)

Self-Actualisation

Esteem

Social

Safety

Physiological

Motivational Factors

Hygiene Maintenance

Factors

MasLow’s Hierarchy of needs

Herzberg’s Motivation Hygiene

Theory

AP selection from Teamwork’s Point of View

Action Centred Leadership

MBE2010/11 A-1 19

3. Paired comparison analysis6. Behaviorally anchored rating scales

9. 360 degree performance appraisal

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Behaviours

Motivation

Teamwork

BehavioursMotivationTeamwork

Development

Task

TeamIndividual

Source: Adair (1973)

Positioning Map Analysis of PAs

Red bead Leaders

△

Leadeｒship

Excellence◎

Dead Walking Leaders

×

Reporter△

MBE2010/11 A-1 20

Add-Value

InformationNo Information

Zero-Value

①

Positioning Map Analysis of PAs

Red bead Leaders

△

Leadeｒship

Excellence◎

Dead Walking Leaders

×

Reporter△

MBE2010/11 A-1 21

Add-Value

InformationNo Information

Zero-Value

①

①

⑨⑧

⑤②④

⑥③

⑩⑪⑦

Lack of Info

Lack

of A

dd-V

alue

Modification from the outcomes

MBE2010/11 A-1 22

Behaviours9. 360 degree performance appraisal 4.42

8. Management By Objectives (MBO) method 3.83

5. Essay Evaluation method 3.42 6. Behaviorally anchored rating scales 3.33

3. Paired comparison analysis 3.08 11. Behavioral Observation Scales 3.08

4. Graphic rating scales 2.92 2. Weighted checklist method 2.92 10.Forced ranking (forced distribution) 2.70

7. Performance ranking method 2.25 1. Critical incident method 1.92

Motivation9. 360 degree performance appraisal 4.08

8. Management By Objectives (MBO) method 3.83

10.Forced ranking (forced distribution) 3.60

3. Paired comparison analysis 3.50 5. Essay Evaluation method 3.50 6. Behaviorally anchored rating scales 3.08

4. Graphic rating scales 2.75 7. Performance ranking method 2.50 1. Critical incident method 2.33 11. Behavioral Observation Scales 2.33

2. Weighted checklist method 2.08

Teamwork9. 360 degree performance appraisal 4.08

3. Paired comparison analysis 3.50 5. Essay Evaluation method 3.42 8. Management By Objectives (MBO) method 3.33

6. Behaviorally anchored rating scales 3.25

11. Behavioral Observation Scales 2.58

4. Graphic rating scales 2.42 1. Critical incident method 2.33 2. Weighted checklist method 2.08 10.Forced ranking (forced distribution) 1.80

7. Performance ranking method 1.67

Conclusion

Behaviours

MotivationTeamwork

1. Wide scope of feedback makes use of all possible sources of experience2. Helps managers to evaluate performance.3. Easy to understand for leaders and employees.4. Quantitative comparisons possible.5. Non-quantitative, descriptive evaluation can be very important for

improvement.6. Could help managers to understand link between certain behaviors and

critical incidents.7. Periodic re-evaluation keeps progress on track.8. Allows management to identify patterns in employee behaviors.

MBE2010/11 A-1 23

1. Identifies strengths and areas for improvement.

2. Motivator to perform on all fronts.3. Peoples skills are recognised4. Shared and individual goals.

1. Can address skills, competencies, behaviors.

2. If done objectively, can enhance teamwork.

3. Gives focus and direction to employees4. Framework is fixed and does not

depend on changing market requirements.

Conclusion

Options to Replace Performance (Modification)

Giving DirectionGiving Feedback & Identifying areas for trainingDeveloping a new Reward System (not only based on financial reward).Providing an Objective Basis for PromotionMotivating Staff

References

• Adair, J. (2006). Action -Centered-Leadership. In Leadership and Motivation (pp. 19-35). Kogan Page Ltd; Reissue.• Adair, J. (1987). The leader. In Effective Teambuilding (pp. 116-125). Business Management.• Deming, E. W. (1993). The new economics: for industry, government, education. Cambridge: MIT, Centre for Advanced

Engineering Study.• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley &

Sons.• Ivancevich, J. M. (1972). A Longitudinal Assessment of Management by Objectives. Administrative Science Quarterly

Vol. 17, No. 1, Mar., 1972 , 126-138.• Katz, B., Bruck, M., & Coleman, W. (2001). The Benefits of Powered Liposuction Versus Traditional Liposuction: A

Paired Comparison Analysis. Dermatologic Surgery Volume 27, Issue 10 , 851-914.• Keavenya, T. J., & McGann, A. F. (1975). A comparison of behavioral expectation scales and graphic rating scales.

Journal of Applied Psychology Volume 60, Issue 6 , 695-703.• Park, K., & Kim, J. (1990). Fuzzy weighted-checklist with linguistic variables. Reliability Volume: 39 Issue:3 , 389 - 393 .• Pollack, D. M., & Pollack, L. J. (1996). Using 360 Degree Feedback in Performance Appraisal. Public Personnel

Management, Vol. 25 .• Smith, B. N., Hornsby, J. S., & Shirmeyer, R. (1996). Current Trends in Performance Appraisal: An Examination of

Managerial Practice. SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 61 .• Topel, R. (1993). Discretion and bias in Performance Evaluation. European Economic Review 37 , 355-365.• Woolsey, K. L. (1986). The Critical Incident Technique: An Innovative Qualitative Method of Research. Canadian

Journal of Counselling, v20 n4 , 242-254.

MBE2010/11 A-1 24

Q & A

Thank you

MBE2010/11 A-1 25