BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE APPRAISAL

Presented BY :- DEEPAK KUMAR PRAVEEN DUBE

WHAT IS A BARRIER ?

• Barrier refers to any obstacle to movement, communication or progress.

• Anything which prevents two or more people or groups from agreeing , communicating or working with each other.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AT A GLANCE…

A performance appraisal, employee appraisal, performance review, or (career) development discussion is a method by which the job performance of an employee is evaluated (generally in terms of quality, quantity, cost, and time) typically by the corresponding manager or supervisor. A performance appraisal is a part of guiding and managing career development.

Barriers to Effective Appraisals

• Halo or Horn Effect• Personality Conflict • Central tendency • Leniency or Strictness• Similar to Me Effect • Contrast Effect

Barriers to Effective Appraisals

• First Impression • Spill Over Effect• Use Of Abstract Words• Unrealistic Standards• Ineffective Communication Channel• Critical Incident Effect

Barriers to Effective Appraisals

• Forced Distribution• Stereotyping• Incompetence & Lack Of Knowledge• Negative Approach• Resistance

Halo or Horn Effect

• It was first noted by Edward Thorndike in the 1920s.

• This is an assumption on the part of the supervisor that because the employee was good at one factor, they will be good at all other subsequent factors.

Personality Conflict

• Disagreements on interpersonal issues are known as Personality Conflict.

• Certain level of conflict is necessary to increase performance.

• Performance declines as the level of conflict increases.

Central tendency

• Central tendency is when the supervisor tends to see everything as average, such as a 3 on a 5-point scale.

• Subordinates are neither condemned nor

praised according to their performance.

Leniency or Strictness

• Lenient or easy raters assign consistently high values or scores to their employees.

• Strict or harsh raters give consistently low ratings.

Leniency Evaluation

A n-item rating scale is used by the subjects to evaluate the employee’s performance. Each scale item corresponds to a different performance dimension and is measured using a 7-point likert scale. Subject ratings of the employee’s performance are converted into leniency measures . Using the ratings’ “true scores” as determined by the subject matter experts, it is possible to quantify the raters’ tendencies to assign higher ratings than the employee’s performance would necessitate.

Leniency is computed using the following formula:

where d is the number of rating scale items (4); k refers to the kth rater; R is the obtained rating; and T is the “true score”. Negative mean scores indicate that the subject was more lenient in his/her ratings than the true score. Positive scores indicate severity in ratings from the true score.

Similar to Me Effect

• It refers to a tendency of assessor or evaluator to favor those individuals who are similar to them. Put simply, people are attracted to candidates with similar senses of humor, similar conversational styles, even similar physical appearances.

• This occurs when there are non-job factors in common between the assessor and the employee, such as social or religious similarities and so on.

Similar to me effect continued….- Tendency to perceive people in a (+) way when

assessor sees them as being similar to himself- those that are dissimilar are evaluated in a (-)way- source of bias- similarities found in age, race, work values, habits,

beliefsWORKER-BOSS relationship: Boss to Worker = more lenientWorker to Boss = more trusting + confident

Contrast Effect

• This occurs when comparison of the performance of one employee with the performance of another employee is done.

• It results in an unfair judgment of the first employee.

First Impression

• When the performance appraisal is made without observation over time. This can be either positive or negative, based on impression that is created.

Spill Over Effect

• Often some raters evaluate persons on the basis of their performance in the past; average constant behaviour is not checked.

• When the employee is rated on the basis of his recent past performance , it is termed as Recency.

Use Of Abstract Words

• Too often managers fill their performance reviews with words such as “good”, “excellent” and “outstanding” rather than being specific and explaining how well the employees met their goals.

• Words like “grasps”, “generates” and “achieves” would serve the purpose better.

Unrealistic Standards

• Standards describe the conditions that must exist before the performance can be rated satisfactory.

• Standards should neither be too high nor too low to ensure the growth of the organization.

Ineffective Communication Channel

• Due to the ineffectiveness in communication channel the evaluator may not be able to convey the intended message to the employee.

Critical Incident Effect

It refers to keeping a record of uncommonly good or undesirable examples of an employee's work-related behavior and reviewing the list with the employee at the time of evaluation.

forced distribution

• Predetermined percentages of employees are placed in various performance categories.

AverageBelow averageGoodExcellent

Distribution Of Employees

Stereotyping

• This implies that forming a mental picture of a person on the basis of his age, gender, caste or religion.

• It results in an over-simplified view and blurs the assessment of job performance.

Incompetence & Lack Of Knowledge

• Raters may fail to evaluate performance accurately due to lack of knowledge and experience.

• Post appraisal interview is often handled ineffectively.

Negative Approach

• Performance appraisal loses most of its value when the focus of management is on punishment rather than on development of employees.

Resistance

• Trade unions may resist performance appraisal on the ground that it involves discrimination among its members.

• Negative ratings may affect interpersonal relation particularly when employees or unions do not have faith in the system of performance appraisal.

References

• About.com • Adam N. Prowker, Research paper (1999),

Blacksburg, Virginia• Arthur Sherman, George Bohlander ,Scott Snell ;

Managing Human Resource• Rakesh K. Chopra; Management Of Human Resource• George T. Milkovich, John W. Boudreau (Cornell

University); Human Resource Management

References

• Dr. C.B. Gupta (Delhi University)Human Resource Management

• Dr. L.M. Prasad ; Principles and Practice Of Management

• Wikipedia.com

ANY QUESTIONS???