Systems for Measuring Performance

Absolute Standards

Essay appraisal

The assessor writes a series of statements concerning an individual's strengths and weaknesses, past performance, and potential for promotion;

The length and quality of the content varies with the evaluator so there can be no consistency throughout an individual's career.

Forces the assessor to think seriously about the performance in question.

Graphic Rating Scale

Assessment of initiative, dependability, cooperation, attitude etc by awarding a score on a sliding scale, either very bad to very good, or 1-9.

Although the individual is supposedly assessed in isolation, it does give comparative data and is relatively inexpensive.

Most raters evaluate round about the average mark and very few systems indicate use of the whole range of available marks.

Critical Incident

The assessor keeps a log of good and bad activities.

The aim is to assess behaviour and not personality traits.

Individuals should be allowed to give their interpretation of incidents.

The danger is that

recorders only record bad incidents and even forget relative scales when they review the incidents;

they also forget to record items and make them up from memory at the time for appraisal.

Work Standards

The assessor records work completed according to objective and measurable standards

The darg is not measurable in many occupations, and is rarely applicable to professional and managerial tasks.

Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales [BARS]

The assessor marks along a scale which lists examples of definite, observable and measurable job behaviour.

Effective behaviours are rated higher than ineffective, and each behaviour is job specific rather than general.

Problems lie in the development of BARS for each job, though this can be turned to advantage by asking employees to make out the scales.

Relative Standards

Alternatives

• the evaluator writes a list of those being assessed on the left hand-side of a sheet of paper
• crosses off the best and puts that name at the top on the right;
• crosses off the worst and puts it at the bottom on the right .....

Pairs

• the evaluator writes down a list of criteria
• compares person No 1 with person No 2 and awards ticks for superior performance
• compares No 1 with No 3, and so on.

The individual with most ticks, wins; it is the same system that consumer affairs magazines use to decide which fridge to buy.

The system is unwieldy for large numbers.

Group Order

• the assessor is forced to rank employees in the top 5%, next 5% [or whatever] and so on
• prevents the sort of inflation which makes everyone look good
• the mediocre can seem good by being the best of a bad bunch
• good individuals can score seemingly badly if up against excellent peer competition.

Individuals

• the assessor lists employees in order 1 to whatever;
• no draws are allowed.

It has the same advantages and disadvantages as the group system.

Management by Objectives - MBO

Principles

• objectives are set jointly by subordinates and superiors
• goals are specific and measurable
• an explicit time period is set

Method

• Individuals are periodically and regularly evaluated [two or three times a year].
• Evaluations have to be constructive, not punitive, with mutual benefit arising for the individual and the supervisor.
• Objectives are amended

Suitable for

professional and managerial occupations in that it can be used to measure::

1. ability to handle routine responsibilities and duties,
2. ability to solve problems - achieve results in good time,
3. ability to originate innovative projects, and
4. ability to improve personal skills - of the four, this really reflects the responsibility of, and interest shown by, the organisation.

MBO is not effective

• in organisations that have little trust in subordinates, nor
• those that are autocratic

for it relies on self-control rather than external checks

Psychometric Tests

Myers-Briggs et al. Should be used as guides only?

Useful for team building and selection of staff initially.

There is a danger that people will take them too seriously and use them as their sole means of evauation.

Unfortunately, I do not know the source of the following aptitude test - my apologies to whomever the owner may be - I will be quite happy to acknowledge the source if you tell me.

Anderson Consulting Aptitude Test

The following short quiz consists of 4 questions and tells whether you are qualified to be a 'professional'. The questions are not difficult.

1. How do you put a giraffe into a refrigerator?

The correct answer is: Open the refrigerator, put in the giraffe and close the door. This question tests whether you tend to do simple things in an overly complicated way.

2. How do you put an elephant into a refrigerator?

Wrong Answer: Open the refrigerator, put in the elephant and close the refrigerator. Correct Answer: Open the refrigerator, take out the giraffe, put in the elephant and close the door. This tests your ability to think through the repercussions of your actions.

3. The Lion King is hosting an animal conference. All the animals attend except one. Which animal does not attend?

Correct Answer: The Elephant. The Elephant is in the refrigerator. This tests your memory. OK, even if you did not answer correctly the first three questions, you still have one more chance to show your abilities.

4. There is a river you must cross. But it is inhabited by crocodiles. How do you manage it?

Correct Answer: You swim across. All the crocodiles are attending the Animal Meeting. This tests whether you learn quickly from your mistakes.

According to Andersen Consulting World-wide, around 90% of the professionals they tested got all questions wrong. But many pre-schoolers got several correct answers. Anderson Consulting says this conclusively disproves the theory that most professionals have the brains of a four year old.

Distortions in Subjective Methods

Leniency Error

There are high and low markers, which would not matter if all staff were always assessed by the one individual

Halo Error

Assessments may be influenced by one particular characteristic or incident which overshadows all others.

Similarity Error

Otherwise known as imputation -

supervisors assess others by their own standards, often forgetting that if others were as good as the supervisors, they would be supervisors too.

Those with similar traits get higher marks.

Low Differentiation

Inability to use the whole marking scale.

I was on a selection board once assessing some 40 candidates in a week - marking them on a scale of 1-100. A panel of 5 professionals ranged them all from 48-55, and when I, as a temporary fill-in for a sick member, assessed somebody at 40, my mark was adjusted by the chairman to what he said the real member of the board would have given the candidate! [This being the navy and me being a junior officer, I learnt to adjust my marking scale - cowardly but sensible?]

Forcing

Awarding marks on the basis of preconceived opinions

eg, seniority is more important than actual performance - so seniors get higher marks

Deciding someone merits promotion and awarding marks to match.

Inflation

Everybody is getting, and expecting, higher marks

More in evidence since the l960s, with the growth in "equality" values in society, and greater fear of repercussions from negative assessments.

Inappropriate substitutes for performance

Because objective measures are not available, or appropriate, evaluators are tempted to play God or The Psychoanalyst; usually, the resulting sweeping generalisations are incorrect, and often offensive.

Beware of litigation if you are tempted to use the kind of comments quoted on the first page of this outline!

Go on to Improvements that can be made

Return to 30 Outlines