Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Psychology and Work Today
Psychology and Work Today
This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following are prohibited by law:
any public performance or display, including transmission of any image over a network;
preparation of any derivative work, including the extraction, in whole or in part, of any images;
any rental, lease, or lending of the program
• Labor unions
• Represent approximately 11% of workforce
• Prefer seniority rather than assessment
• Employees
• Prefer not to be told of deficiencies
• Managers
• Dislike playing the role of judge
• Professors
• See “Newsbreak” on p. 108
•Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.,
•Schultz & Schultz 10e •8
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. All rights reserved
Performance Appraisal Techniques
• Objective Methods
• Output measures
• Computerized performance monitoring
• Job-related personal data
• Subjective (Judgmental) Methods
• Written narratives
• Merit rating techniques
• Advantages
• Immediate and objective feedback
• Reduces rater bias
• Helps identify training needs
• Facilitates goal setting
• May contribute to increases in productivity
• Disadvantages
• May be considered an invasion of privacy
• May increase stress
• May reduce job satisfaction
• May lead to focus on quantity at the expense of quality
X
1 2 3 4 5
Poor Average Excellent
• Assessment centers
• Evaluation by superiors
• Evaluation by colleagues
• Peer ratings tend to be more favorable for career
development than for promotion decisions
• Self-evaluation
• Self-ratings suffer from leniency
• Subordinate evaluation
• Effective in developing leadership & leads to improved
performance
• 360 degree feedback (multisource)
•Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.,
•Schultz & Schultz 10e •23
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. All rights reserved
Common Sources of Rating Error
• Halo effect
• Constant or systematic bias
• Most-recent-performance error
• Inadequate information error
• Average rating or leniency error
• Rater’s cognitive processes
• Rater personality
• Role conflict
• Impression Management
•Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.,
•Schultz & Schultz 10e •24
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. All rights reserved
Halo Effect
• Training
• Create awareness of normal distribution of abilities
and skills
• Develop ability to define objective criteria for work
behaviors
• Providing feedback to raters
• 90% of managers said feedback influenced second
set of ratings (Davis & Mount, 1984)
• Subordinate participation
• Led to increased employee trust and perceptions of
accuracy of evaluation system (Mayer & Davis, 1999)
•Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.,
•Schultz & Schultz 10e •34
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. All rights reserved
Postappraisal Interviews
• Managers
• Lack the time to make other than hasty appraisals
• 90% of HR managers dissatisfied with their
organization’s PA system
• Employees
• Don’t like appraisals
• Uninformed about the criteria (criteria appear
biased)
• Correlations between ratings and results-
oriented criteria are low due to poor
implementation
•Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc.,
•Schultz & Schultz 10e •37
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. All rights reserved
Key Terms
• Attribution • Paired-comparison
• Average rating (leniency) technique
error • Constant (systematic) bias
• Behavioral observation • Forced-choice technique
scales (BOS) • Forced-distribution
• Behaviorally anchored technique
rating scales (BARS) • Halo effect
• Inadequate information • Peer rating
error
• Interpersonal effect • Performance appraisal
• Management-by-objectives • Ranking technique
(MBO) • Rating scales
• Merit rating • Role conflict
• Most-recent-performance • Self-ratings
error