Difference between traditional and modern methods of performance appraisal pdf

Performance Appraisal Methods: Traditional and Modern Methods!

Each method of performance appraisal has its strengths and weaknesses may be suitable for one organisation and non-suitable for another one. As such, there is no single appraisal method accepted and used by all organisations to measure their employees’ perfor­mance.

All the methods of appraisal devised so far have been classified differently by different authors. While DeCenzo and Robbins’^ have classified appraisal methods into three categories: absolute meth­ods, relative methods and objective methods; Aswathappa has classified these into two categories past-oriented and future-oriented.

Michael R Carrell et. al. have classified all appraisal methods into as many as six categories: rating scales, comparative methods, critical incidents, 6ssay, MBO and combina­tion methods. Rock and Levis” have classified the methods into two broad categories: narrow interpre­tation and broad interpretation. Beatty and Schneier have categorised various methods of appraisal into four groups: comparative methods, absolute methods, goal setting, and direct indices.

A more widely used classification of appraisal methods into two categories, viz., traditional methods and modem methods, is given by Strauss and Sayles”. While traditional methods lay emphasis on the rating of the individual’s personality traits, such as initiative, dependability, drive creativity, integrity, intelligence, leadership potential, etc.; the modem methods, on the other hand, place more emphasis on the evaluation of work results, i.e., job achievements than the personal traits! Modem methods tend to be more objective and worthwhile. The various methods included in each of the two categories are listed in Table 28.4.

In the discussion that follows, each method under both categories will be described briefly.

Traditional Methods:

Ranking Method:

It is the oldest and simplest formal systematic method of performance appraisal in which employee is compared with all others for the purpose of placing order of worth. The employees are ranked from the highest to the lowest or from the best to the worst.

In doing this the employee who is the highest on the characteristic being measured and also the one who is L lowest, are indicated. Then, the next highest and the next lowest between next highest and lowest until all the employees to be rated have been ranked. Thus, if there are ten employees to be appraised, there will be ten ranks from 1 to 10.

However, the greatest limitations of this appraisal method are that:

(i) It does not tell that how much better or worse one is than another,

(ii) The task of ranking individuals is difficult when a large number of employees are rated, and

(iii) It is very difficult to compare one individual with others having varying behavioural traits. To remedy these defects, the paired comparison method of perfor­mance appraisal has been evolved.

Paired Comparison:

In this method, each employee is compared with other employees on one- on one basis, usually based on one trait only. The rater is provided with a bunch of slips each coining pair of names, the rater puts a tick mark against the employee whom he insiders the better of the two. The number of times this employee is compared as better with others determines his or her final ranking.

The number of possible pairs for a given number of employees is ascertained by the following formula:

N (N-1)/2

Where N = the total number of employees to be evaluated. Let this be exemplified with an imaginary example.

If the following five teachers have to be evaluated by the Vice Chanceller of a University:

(K), Mohapatra (M Raul (R), Venkat (V), and Barman (B), the above formula gives 5 (5 -1) / 2 or 10 pairs.

These are:

Thus, the pairs so ascertained give the maximum possible permutations and combinations. The number of times a worker is considered better makes his/her score. Such scores are determined for each worker and he/she is ranked according to his/her score. One obvious disadvantage of this method is that the method can become unwieldy when large numbers of employees are being compared.

Grading Method:

In this method, certain categories of worth are established in advance and carefully defined. There can be three categories established for employees: outstanding, satisfactory and unsatisfactory. There can be more than three grades. Employee performance is compared with grade definitions. The employee is, then, allocated to the grade that best describes his or her perfor­mance.

Such type of grading is done is Semester pattern of examinations and in the selection of a candidate in the public service sector. One of the major drawbacks of this method is that the rater may rate most of the employees on the higher side of their performance.

Forced Distribution Method:

This method was evolved by Tiffen to eliminate the central tendency of rating most of the employees at a higher end of the scale. The method assumes that employees’ performance level confirms to a normal statistical distribution i.e., 10,20,40,20 and 10 per cent. This is useful for rating a large number of employees’ job performance and promo ability. It tends to eliminate or reduce bias.

It is also highly simple to understand and easy to apply in appraising the performance of employees in organisations. It suffer from the drawback that improve similarly, no single grade would rise in a ratings.

Forced-Choice Method:

The forced-choice method is developed by J. P. Guilford. It contains a series of groups of statements, and rater rates how effectively a statement describes each individual being evaluated. Common method of forced-choice method contains two statements, both positive and negative.

Examples of positive statements are:

1. Gives good and clear instructions to the subordinates.

2. Can be depended upon to complete any job assigned.

A pair of negative statements may be as follows:

1. Makes promises beyond his limit to keep these.

2. Inclines to favour some employees.

Each statement carries a score or weight, which is not made known to the rater. The human resource section does rating for all sets of statements— both positive and negative. The final rating is done on the basis of all sets of statements. Thus, employee rating in this manner makes the method more objective. The only problem associated with this method is that the actual constructing of several evaluative statements also called ‘forced-choice scales’, takes a lot of time and effort.

Check-List Method:

The basic purpose of utilizing check-list method is to ease the evaluation burden upon the rater. In this method, a series of statements, i.e., questions with their answers in ‘yes’ or ‘no’ are prepared by the HR department (see Figure 28-2). The check-list is, then, presented to the rater to tick appropriate answers relevant to the appraisee. Each question carries a weight-age in relationship to their importance.

When the check-list is completed, it is sent to the HR department to prepare the final scores for all appraises based on all questions. While preparing questions an attempt is made to determine the degree of consistency of the rater by asking the same question twice but in a different manner (see, numbers 3 and 6 in Figure 28-2).

However, one of the disadvantages of the check-list method is that it is difficult to assemble, analyse and weigh a number of statements about employee characteristics and contributions From a cost stand point also, this method may be inefficient particularly if there are a number of job categories in the organisation, because a check-list of questions must be prepared for each category of job. It will involve a lot of money, time and efforts.

Critical Incidents Method:

In this method, the rater focuses his or her attention on those key or critical behaviours that make the difference between performing a job in a noteworthy manner (effectively or ineffectively). There are three steps involved in appraising employees using this method.

First, a list of noteworthy (good or bad) on-the-job behaviour of specific incidents is prepared. Second, a group of experts then assigns weightage or score to these incidents, depending upon their degree of desirability to perform a job. Third, finally a check-list indicating incidents that describe workers as “good” or “bad” is constructed. Then, the check-list is given to the rater for evaluating the workers.

The basic idea behind this rating is to apprise the workers who can perform their jobs effectively in critical situations. This is so because most people work alike in normal situation. The strength of critical incident method is that it focuses on behaviours and, thus, judge’s performance rather than personalities.

Its drawbacks are to regularly write down the critical incidents which become time-consuming and burdensome for evaluators, i.e., managers. Generally, negative incidents are positive ones. It is rater’s inference that determines which incidents are critical to job performance. Hence, the method is subject to all the limitations relating to subjective judgments.

Graphic Rating Scale Method:

The graphic rating scale is one of the most popular and simplest techniques for appraising performance. It is also known as linear rating scale. In this method, the printed appraisal form is used to appraise each employee.

The form lists traits (such as quality and reliability) and a range of job performance characteristics (from unsatisfactory to outstanding) for each trait. The rating is done on the basis of points on the continuum. The common practice is to follow five points scale.

The rater rates each appraisee by checking the score that best describes his or her performance for each trait all assigned values for the traits are then totaled. Figure 28-3 shows a typical graphic rating scale.

This method is good for measuring various job behaviours of an employee. However, it is also subjected to rater’s bias while rating employee’s behaviour at job. Occurrence of ambiguity in design- mg the graphic scale results in bias in appraising employee’s performance.

Essay Method:

Essay method is the simplest one among various appraisal methods available. In this method, the rater writes a narrative description on an employee’s strengths, weaknesses, past performance, potential and suggestions for improvement. Its positive point is that it is simple in use. It does not require complex formats and extensive/specific training to complete it.

However, essay method, like other methods, is not free from drawbacks. In the absence of any prescribed structure, the essays are likely to vary widely in terms of length and content. And, of course, the quality of appraisal depends more upon rater’s writing skill than the appraiser’s actual level of performance.

Moreover, because the essays are descriptive, the method provides only quali­tative information about the employee. In the absence of quantitative data, the evaluation suffers from subjectivity problem. Nonetheless, the essay method is a good start and is beneficial also if used in conjunction with other appraisal methods.

Field Review Method:

When there is a reason to suspect rater’s biasedness or his or her rating appears to be quite higher than others, these are neutralised with the help of a review process. The review process is usually conducted by the personnel officer in the HR department.

The review process involves the following activities:

(a) Identify areas of inter-rater disagreement.

(b) Help the group arrive at a consensus.

(c) Ensure that each rater conceives of the standard similarity.

However, the process is a time-consuming one. The supervisors generally resent what they consider the staff interference. Hence, the method is not widely used.

Confidential Report:

It is the traditional way of appraising employees mainly in the Government Departments. Evaluation is made by the immediate boss or supervisor for giving effect to promotion and transfer. Usually a structured format is devised to collect information on employee’s strength weakness, intelligence, attitude, character, attendance, discipline, etc. report.

Modern Methods:

Management by Objectives (MBO):

Most of the traditional methods of performance appraisal are subject to the antagonistic judgments of the raters. It was to overcome this problem; Peter F. Drucker propounded a new concept, namely, management by objectives (MBO) way back in 1954 in his book.

The Practice of management. The concept of MBO as was conceived by Drucker, can be described as a “process whereby the superior and subordinate managers of an organization jointly identify its common goals, define each individual’s major areas of responsibility in terms of results expected of him and use these measures as guides for operating the unit and assessing the contribution of each its members”.

In other words, stripped to its essentials, MBO requires the manager to goals with each employee and then periodically discuss his or her progress toward these goals.

In fact, MBO is not only a method of performance evaluation. It is viewed by the Practicing managers and pedagogues as a philosophy of managerial practice because .t .s a method by wh.ch managers and subordinates plan, organise, communicate, control and debate.

An MBO programme consists of four main steps: goal setting, performance standard, compari­son, and periodic review. In goal-setting, goals are set which each individual, s to attain. The superior and subordinate jointly establish these goals. The goals refer to the desired outcome to be achieved by each individual employee.

In performance standards, the standards are set for the employees as per the previously arranged time period. When the employees start performing their jobs, they come to know what is to be done, what has been done, and what remains to be done.

In the third step the actual level of goals attained are compared with the goals agreed upon. This enables the evaluator to find out the reasons variation between the actual and standard performance of the employees. Such a comparison helps devise training needs for increasing employees’ performance it can also explore the conditions having their bearings on employees’ performance but over which the employees have no control.

Finally, in the periodic review step, corrective measure is initiated when actual performance deviates from the slandered established in the first step-goal-setting stage. Consistent with the MBO philosophy periodic progress reviews are conducted in a constructive rather than punitive manner.

The purpose of conducting reviews is not to degrade the performer but to aid in his/her future performance. From a motivational point of view, this would be representative of McGregor’s theories.

Figure 28.4 present the MBO method of performance appraisal presently used by an engineering giant i.e., Larsen and Turbro Limited.

Limitation of MBO:

MBO is not a panacea, cure for all organisational problems.

As with other methods, it also suffers from some limitations as catalogued below:

(i) Setting Un-measurable Objectives:

One of the problems MBO suffers from is unclear and un-measurable objectives set for attainment. An objective such as “will do a better job of training” is useless as it is un-measurable. Instead, “well have four subordinates promoted during the year” is a clear and measurable objective.

(ii) Time-consuming:

The activities involved in an MBO programme such as setting goals, measuring progress, and providing feedback can take a great deal of time.

(iii) Tug of War:

Setting objectives with the subordinates sometimes turns into a tug of war in the sense that the manager pushes for higher quotas and the subordinates push for lower ones. As such, goals so set are likely to be unrealistic.

(iv) Lack of Trust:

MBO is likely to be ineffective in an environment where management has little trust in its employees. Or say, management makes decisions autocratically and relies heavily on external controls.

Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS):

The problem of judgmental performance evalu­ation inherent in the traditional methods of performance evaluation led to some organisations to go for objective evaluation by developing a technique known as “Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)” around 1960s. BARS are descriptions of various degrees of behaviour with regard to a specific performance dimension.

It combines the benefits of narratives, critical incidents, and quan­tified ratings by anchoring a quantified scale with specific behavioural examples of good or poor performance. The proponents of BARS claim that it offers better and more equitable appraisals than do the other techniques of performance appraisal we discussed so far.

Developing BARS typically involves five steps:

1. Generating Critical Incidents:

Critical incidents (or say, behaviours) are those which are essential for the performance of the job effectively Persons who are knowledgeable of the job in question (jobholders and/or supervisors) are asked to describe specific critical incidents of effective and ineffective performance. These critical incidents may be described in a few short sentences or phrases using the terminology.

2. Developing Performance Dimensions:

The critical incidents are then clustered into a smaller set of performance dimensions, usually five to ten. Each cluster, or say, dimension is then defined.

3. Reallocating Incidents:

Various critical incidents are reallocated dimensions by another group of people who also know the job in question. Various critical incidents so reallocated to original dimensions are clustered into various categories, with each cluster showing similar critical incidents. Those critical incidents are retained which meet 50 to 80% of agreement with the cluster as classified in step 2.

4. Scaling Incidents:

The same second group as in step 3 rates the behaviour described in each incident in terms of effectiveness or ineffectiveness on the appropriate dimension by using seven to nine points scale. Then, average effectiveness ratings for each incident are determined to decide which incidents will be included in the final anchored scales.

5. Developing Final BARS Instrument:

A subset of the incidents (usually six or seven per cluster) is used as a behavioural anchor for the final performance dimensions. Finally, a BARS instru­ment with vertical scales is drawn to be used for performance appraisal, as in Figure 27-5.

How BARS is developed can be exemplified with an example of grocery checkout clerks working in a large grocery chain.

A number of critical incidents involved in checking out of grocery can be clustered into seven performance dimensions:

1. Knowledge and Judgment

2. Conscientiousness

3. Skill in Human Relations

4. Skill in Operation of Register

5. Skill in Bagging

6. Organisational Ability of Check stand Work

7. Skill in Monetary Transactions

8. Observational Ability

Now, a BARS for one of these performance dimensions, namely, “knowledge and judgment” can be developed, as in Figure 28-5. Notice how the typical BARS is behaviourally anchored with specific critical incidents.

BARS method of performance appraisal is considered better than the traditional ones because it provides advantages like a more accurate gauge, clearer standards, better feedback, and consistency in evaluation. However, BARS is not free from limitations.

The research on BARS indicates that it too suffers from distortions inherent in most rating scales. The research study concluded that “it is clear that research on BARS to date does not support the high promise regarding scale independence In short, while BARS may outperform conventional rating techniques, it is clear that they are not a panacea for obtaining high interrater reliability”

Assessment Centres:

The introduction of the concept of assessment centres as a method of performance method is traced back in 1930s in the Germany used to appraise its army officers. The concept gradually spread to the US and the UK in 1940s and to the Britain in 1960s.

The concept, then, traversed from the army to business arena during 1960s. The concept of assessment centre is, of course, of a recent origin in India. In India, Crompton Greaves, Eicher, Hindustan Lever and Modi Xerox have adopted this technique of performance evaluation.

In business field, assessment centres are mainly used for evaluating executive or supervisory potential. By definition, an assessment centre is a central location where managers come together to participate in well-designed simulated exercises. They are assessed by senior managers supple­mented by the psychologists and the HR specialists for 2-3 days.

Assessee is asked to participate in in-basket exercises, work groups, simulations, and role playing which are essential for successful performance of actual job. Having recorded the assessee’s behaviour the raters meet to discuss their pooled information and observations and, based on it, they give their assessment about the assesee. At the end of the process, feedback in terms of strengths and weaknesses is also provided to the assesees.

The distinct advantages the assessment centres provide include more accurate evaluation, mini­mum biasedness, right selection and promotion of executives, and so on. Nonetheless, the technique of assessment centres is also plagued by certain limitations and problems. The technique is relatively costly and time consuming, causes suffocation to the solid performers, discourages to the poor performers (rejected), breeds unhealthy competition among the assessees, and bears adverse effects on those not selected for assessment.

360 – Degree Appraisal:

Yet another method used to appraise the employee’s performance is 360 – degree appraisal. This method was first developed and formally used by General Electric Company of USA in 1992. Then, it travelled to other countries including India. In India, companies like Reliance Industries, Wipro Corporation, Infosys Technologies, Thermax, Thomas Cook etc., have been using this method for appraising the performance of their employees. This feedback based method is generally used for ascertaining training and development requirements, rather than for pay increases.

Under 360 – degree appraisal, performance information such as employee’s skills, abilities and behaviours, is collected “all around” an employee, i.e., from his/her supervisors, subordinates, peers and even customers and clients.

In other worlds, in 360-degree feedback appraisal system, an employee is appraised by his supervisor, subordinates, peers, and customers with whom he interacts in the course of his job performance. All these appraisers provide information or feedback on an employee by completing survey questionnaires designed for this purpose.

All information so gathered is then compiled through the computerized system to prepare individualized reports. These reports are presented to me employees being rated. They then meet me appraiser—be it one’s superior, subordinates or peers—and share the information they feel as pertinent and useful for developing a self-improvement plan.

In 360 – degree feedback, performance appraisal being based on feedback “all around”, an em­ployee is likely to be more correct and realistic. Nonetheless, like other traditional methods, this method is also subject to suffer from the subjectivity on the part of the appraiser. For example, while supervisor may penalise the employee by providing negative feedback, a peer, being influenced by ‘give and take feeling’ may give a rave review on his/her colleague.

Cost Accounting Method:

This method evaluates an employee’s performance from the monetary benefits the employee yields to his/her organisation. This is ascertained by establishing a relationship between the costs involved in retaining the employee, and the benefits an organisation derives from Him/her.

While evaluating an employee’s performance under this method, the following factors are also taken into consideration:

1. Unit wise average value of production or service.

2. Quality of product produced or service rendered.

3. Overhead cost incurred.

4. Accidents, damages, errors, spoilage, wastage caused through unusual wear and tear.

5. Human relationship with others.

6. Cost of the time supervisor spent in appraising the employee.