SBenegaL

Category: Performance Appraisal System

  • Performance: Attribution 2

    In the last byte, we looked at a graphical representation of attribution and the change in behavior that could be associated with it. In today’s byte, we attempt to understand the graphical model further.

    A simple explanation to the diagram displayed in the last byte could be as follows:

    A manager could observe a poor performance and immediately take cues (which would be as described earlier – consensus, consistency or distinctiveness) depending on the interpretation of these, the manager could attribute the poor performance to either internal or external causes. The internal sources attributed to could include – low effort, lack of commitment or lack of ability. External attribution could be towards the equipment failure or unrealistic goals etc. Based on the understanding, the manager could detect the source of the problem and tries to correct it.

    The response of the manager could vary ranging from expressing personal concern to sending the employee back home!

    It could be sensed that a manager who attributes the poor performance to a person would react more harshly than a manager who would attribute it to situational causes. In all this, the manager should be aware of 2 attribution errors we have already discussed:

    1. Fundamental Attribution Error
    2. Self-serving Bias

  • Performance: Attribution

    In the last byte, we looked at how information cues work towards creating an attribution. In today’s byte, we show a model that could summarize the way attribution happens.

    Following diagram summarizes how we could look at the way attribution and the corresponding behavior could work. 


    We shall explain the same and continue the discussion in the next byte.

  • Performance Management: Poor Performance Attribution – Cues

    In the last byte, we began our discussion on attribution theory. In today’s byte, we look at this in a greater detail.

    Kelly (about whom we mentioned in the last byte) attempted to explain the behavior of other people by identifying antecedents of internal and external attribution. The attributions that people make as based on information gathered in the form of informational cues. There are 3 classifications of cues [defined in the last byte]:

    1. Consensus
    2. Distinctiveness
    3. Consistency
    Based on whether these 3 cues are high or low, we make attributions. In case we summarize the way the choices are made, we could say:
    1. The combination of low consensus, low distinctiveness and high consistency leads to internal attribution
    2. Other combinations lead to external attribution!

  • Performance Management: Poor Performance Attribution

    In the last byte, we looked at the potential source of Poor Performance. In today’s byte, we look at some of the typical issues that happen when we attempt to attribute a poor performance.

    If we are working in a team, we often find situations where the team is encountered with a poor performance. While some of the team leaders assign the responsibility to the external factors that where beyond the control of the team, there are others who attribute the poor performance to the employee whom they feel hadn’t worked hard enough. This is the subject matter of Attribution Theory – according to which, managers make their attributions (inferences) concerning employees behavior and performance. It is also found that, supervisors and employees who do not share perceptions and attributes are more likely to blame each other for performance problems! (True isn’t it!)

    Harold Kelly extended this understanding on the way we attribute and identified antecedents of internal and external attribution. We shall discuss this further in the next byte, but leave you with 3 definitions to mull over:

    1. Consensus: An informational cue indicating the extent to which peers in the same situation behave in a similar fashion.
    2. Distinctiveness: An informational cue indicating the degree to which an individual behaves the same way in other situation
    3. Consistency: An informational cure indicating the frequency of behavior over time

  • Performance Management: Poor Performance

    In the last byte, we looked at how one could manage performance by getting the right rewards in place. In today’s byte, we look at dealing with poor performance.

    It is not uncommon to find instances of performance being below par – there is one question that arises once a poor performance is detected – What is the source of the poor performance?

    Poor performance could arise from a variety of causes, some are: poorly designed work systems, a not so good selection process, inadequate training and development dimension, lack of personal motivation, personal problems creeping into the work environment etc. Given this plethora of causes, it would be important to identify the right source of the problem and proceed with the apt corrective action.

    Once the source is identified, we could classify it into 2 categories:

    1. Problem due to the system – solution would be for the supervisor to set the system better
    2. Problem due to the personal sphere of the employee – in this case, the source of the problem should be further investigated and nailed down.
    Having nailed down the source of the problem and its primary responsibility, we would require to next chalk out a plan to correct the performance. Without getting into details, it is important to state here that both the employee and the supervisor should be engaged in getting to a solution – there are no short answers in here.

  • Performance Management: Rewarding Implementation

    In the last byte, we looked at the pros and cons of using an individual based versus a group based reward system. In today’s byte we look at some of the aspects that a reward system would be required to consider when being implemented.

    We sometimes hear the conversation – “Even if I don’t work, I get my salary!” This is in some ways the subject matter of today’s discussion. If employees do not see the “connection” between their performance and the reward they begin believing that they are entitled to rewards regardless of how they perform. In many ways they begin to believe they are “entitled” to a specific reward rather than them “earning” the reward.

    The Performance Management and Reward systems in organizations are built on the premise that there is a visible connection between performance and reward. It should be noted that when there is a visible relation between the performance of the employee at work and the reward related to the work, effectively handing the performance and reward could act as a lever of change that the organization might be looking out for – that is, the organization gets the performance it rewards for!

    Thus, the organization would need to communicate the direct relation between performance and reward in order to be effective! It would require to leverage the strength of earning and develop that as a culture than, looking forward to an entitlement based culture.

  • Performance Management: Rewarding (Individual & Group)

    In the last byte, we looked at why rewarding employees is a critical organizational decision. In today’s byte, we look at whether rewarding would be good if done at the individual level or a group level.

    In an organization, invariable the completion of a task requires an employee to play 2 distinct roles:

    1. As an individual contributor towards the success of the assigned target
    2. As a group member working together towards accomplishing the target.
    When the question of compensating the performance of the employee arises, different cultures look at it differently. While the American influence looks at a verily individualistic reward system, the Japanese and Chinese cultures have a group based reward system. The individual system in extreme cases could end up leading to dysfunctional behavior in an organization, while the group bases system could kill initiative and creativity of the individuals in the group if not properly planned and executed.

    A good way out of this situation would be: At the individual level, a skill based and pay-for-knowledge system would be good; at the group level, gain-sharing plans emphasizing on reducing costs would be a good approach. However, it is important to note that a case by case approach towards implementation and some tailor made modifications are necessary.

  • Performance Management: Rewarding & Importance

    In the last byte, we initiated a discussion on the underlying challenges in rewarding performance. In today’s byte, we look at why rewarding or punishing a particular behavior is a key organizational decision.

    If we were to ask our self (as representatives of an organization), bestowed with the responsibility of rewarding an employee – it would be important to begin with a thought on the impact of the decision we set out to make. We would require to realize that the decision we are about to make would affect many people throughout the system; it wouldn’t be limited to the person being rewarded or punished. When we choose to reward or punish an employee, the impact is visible not just to the employee in question but also all those around the employee – there is an element of learning that occurs as people watch what happens to the employee.

    Allocation of the reward or the punishment would involve sequential decisions be made about which of the people to reward, how should one reward the employee, and also when to reward! These three dimensions of the reward decision pretty much shape how people in the organization behave.

    The next time, we are in the scenario of taking a call on rewarding/punishing an employee we would need to remember – people watch what happens to their peers who make mistakes or have problems with any change in the system – this acts as a feeder into their own behavior. Think through about what message is sent through the organization.

  • Performance Management: Rewarding

    In the last byte, we looked at the key characteristics of an effective appraisal system. In today’s byte, we look at the aspect of rewarding performance.

    Generally, performance appraisal systems also act as feeders to rewarding decisions that the organization takes. We also have indicated in the discussion on learning that through reinforcement we could change the behavior of an individual. Extending this to the context of rewarding employees – if an organization wants good performance, it must reward good performance, and if it doesn’t want bad performance then it must not reward bad performance. If the company believes in values, teamwork, customer focus then they need to reward behavior related to these ideas.

    This looks simple, doesn’t it?

    If one were to ask a seasoned professional the answer would be “No”. Reward decisions are the most difficult to make! Surprised?

    Well the solution lies in realizing that not everyone works for money! While pay and reward for performance have value, a lot of other dimensions like – values, trust, fun and meaningful work all begin playing a key role. These elements make reward decisions most difficult and complicated decisions in organizations.

    We shall continue this discussion over the next few blogs.

  • Performance Appraisal System: Characteristics

    Over the last few bytes ending with the last byte, we have looked how a performance appraisals system has to be, and what impact of 360 degree feedback. In today’s byte, we look at some of the characteristics of an effective appraisal system.

    A simple reflection on the discussion thus far would help us identify the following key characteristics:

    • Validity
    • Reliability
    • Responsiveness
    • Flexibility
    • Equitability
    Here are some ways we could improve the effectiveness.
    Validity increases by capturing multiple dimensions of a person’s job performance
    Reliability increasing from capturing evaluations from multiple
    Responsiveness adds in the element of the person who is being evaluate have an input on the final outcome
    Flexibility leaves it open to modifications based on new information that surfaces
    Equitability ensures fairness in the evaluations against established performance criteria, regardless of differences.