Performance Appraisal Systems How do organizations effectively use performance appraisals to improve individual job performance, and what are the limitations inherent in the use of various appraisal systems? Performance appraisals are one of the most important and often one of the most mishandled aspects of management. Typically, we think of performance appraisals as involving a boss evaluating a subordinate. However, performance appraisals increasingly involve subordinates appraising bosses through a feedback process known as 360 feedback, S. Johnson, “Tips on Evaluating your Boss,” Chron, July 1, 2018, https://work.chron.com/tips-evaluating-boss-7179.html. customers appraising providers, and peers evaluating coworkers. Whether appraisals are done by subordinates, peers, customers, or superiors, the process itself is vital to the lifeblood of the organization. Performance appraisal systems provide a means of systematically evaluating employees across various performance dimensions to ensure that organizations are getting what they pay for. They provide valuable feedback to employees and managers, and they assist in identifying promotable people as well as problems. However, such appraisals are meaningless unless they are accompanied by an effective feedback system that ensures that the employee gets the right messages concerning performance. Reward systems represent a powerful motivational force in organizations, but this is true only when the system is fair and tied to performance. Because a variety of approaches to appraising performance exists, managers should be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each. In turn, an understanding of reward systems will help managers select the system best suited to the needs and goals of the organization. Performance appraisal systems serve a variety of functions of central importance to employees. Appraisal techniques practiced today are not without problems, though. Managers should keep abreast of recent developments in compensation and reward systems so they can modify existing systems when more appropriate alternatives become available. A key management responsibility has always been to oversee and develop subordinates. In fact, it has been said that every manager is a human resource manager. Nowhere is this truer than with regard to evaluating and rewarding subordinates. Managers are consistently involved with employee training and development, monitoring employee performance, providing job-related feedback, and administering rewards. In this chapter, we examine three interrelated aspects of the performance appraisal and reward process. As shows, this process moves from evaluating employee performance to providing adequate and constructive feedback to determining discretionary rewards. Where effort and performance are properly evaluated and rewarded, we would expect to see more stable and consistent job performance. On the other hand, where such performance is only evaluated intermittently or where the appraisal and review process is poorly done, we would generally see less consistent performance. We begin our discussion with a look at the nature of appraisals. We begin by examining three aspects of performance appraisal systems: (1) the uses of performance appraisals, (2) problems found in performance appraisals, and (3) methods for reducing errors in the appraisal system. This overview will provide a foundation for studying specific techniques of performance appraisal. Those interested in more detailed information on performance appraisal systems may wish to consult books on personnel administration or compensation. The Performance Appraisal and Reward Process (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Uses of Performance Appraisals In most work organizations, performance appraisals are used for a variety of reasons. These reasons range from improving employee productivity to developing the employees themselves. This diversity of uses is well documented in a study of why companies use performance appraisals. C. J. Fombrum and R. L. Laud, “Strategic Issues in Performance Appraisal Theory and Practice,” Personnel, 601 (6), pp. 23–31. Traditionally, compensation and performance feedback have been the most prominent reasons organizations use performance appraisals. Feedback to employees. Performance appraisals provide feedback to employees about quantity and quality of job performance. Without this information, employees have little knowledge of how well they are doing their jobs and how they might improve their work. Self-development. Performance appraisals can also serve as an aid to employee self-development. Individuals learn about their strengths and weaknesses as seen by others and can initiate self-improvement programs (see discussion on behavioral self-management programs). Reward systems. In addition, appraisals may form the bases of organizational reward systems—particularly merit-based compensation plans. Personnel decisions. Performance appraisals serve personnel-related functions as well. In making personnel decisions, such as those relating to promotions, transfers, and terminations, they can be quite useful. Employers can make choices on the basis of information about individual talents and shortcomings. In addition, appraisal systems help management evaluate the effectiveness of its selection and placement functions. If newly hired employees generally perform poorly, managers should consider whether the right kind of people are being hired in the first place. Training and development. Finally, appraisals can help managers identify areas in which employees lack critical skills for either immediate or future performance. In these situations, new or revised training programs can be established to further develop the company’s human resources. It is apparent that performance appraisal systems serve a variety of functions in organizations. In light of the importance of these functions, it is imperative that the accuracy and fairness of the appraisal be paramount considerations in the evaluation of a system. Many performance appraisal systems exist. It is the manager’s job to select the technique or combination of techniques that best serves the particular needs (and constraints) of the organization. Before considering these various techniques, let us look at some of the more prominent problems and sources of error that are common to several of them. Problems with Performance Appraisals A number of problems can be identified that pose a threat to the value of appraisal techniques. Most of these problems deal with the related issues of the validity and reliability of the instruments or techniques themselves. Validity is the extent to which an instrument actually measures what it intends to measure, whereas reliability is the extent to which the instrument consistently yields the same results each time it is used. Ideally, a good performance appraisal system will exhibit high levels of both validity and reliability. If not, serious questions must be raised concerning the utility (and possibly the legality) of the system. It is possible to identify several common sources of error in performance appraisal systems. These include: (1) central tendency error, (2) strictness or leniency error, (3) halo effect, (4) recency error, and (5) personal biases. Central Tendency Error. It has often been found that supervisors rate most of their employees within a narrow range. Regardless of how people actually perform, the rater fails to distinguish significant differences among group members and lumps everyone together in an “average” category. This is called central tendency error and is shown in . In short, the central tendency error is the failure to recognize either very good or very poor performers. Examples of Strictness, Central Tendency, and Leniency Errors (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Strictness or Leniency Error. A related rating problem exists when a supervisor is overly strict or overly lenient in evaluations (see ). In college classrooms, we hear of professors who are “tough graders” or, conversely, “easy A’s.” Similar situations exist in the workplace, where some supervisors see most subordinates as not measuring up to their high standards, whereas other supervisors see most subordinates as deserving of a high rating. However, one cannot be overly strict and overly lenient at the same time or to the same person. Thus, while you can only be one side of the spectrum, what impacts whether one is overly strict or lenient could be based on the situation or the individual being graded. As with central tendency error, strictness error and leniency error fail to distinguish adequately between good and bad performers and instead relegate almost everyone to the same or related categories. Halo Effect. The halo effect exists where a supervisor assigns the same rating to each factor being evaluated for an individual. For example, an employee rated above average on quantity of performance may also be rated above average on quality of performance, interpersonal competence, attendance, and promotion readiness. In other words, the supervisor cannot effectively differentiate between relatively discrete categories and instead gives a global rating. These types of bias are based on our perceptions of others. The halo effect occurs when managers have an overly positive view of a particular employee. This can impact the objectivity of reviews, with managers consistently giving an employee high ratings and failing to recognize areas for improvement. Whether positive or negative, we also have a natural tendency to confirm our preconceived beliefs about people in the way we interpret or recall performance, which is known as confirmatory bias. For example, a manager may have a preconception that her male report is more assertive. This could cause her to recall instances more easily in which her report asserted his position during a meeting. On the other hand, she may perceive her female report to be less assertive, predisposing her to forget when the report suggested an effective strategy or was successful in a tough negotiation. The halo effect is often a consequence of people having a similarity bias for certain types of people. We naturally tend to favor and trust people who are similar to us. Whether it’s people who also have a penchant for golf or people who remind us of a younger version of ourselves, favoritism that results from a similarity bias can give certain employees an unfair advantage over others. This can impact a team to the point that those employees may receive more coaching, better reviews and, as a result, more opportunities for advancement. S. Maier, “5 unconscious factors impacting your performance appraisals,” The Business Journals , January 25, 2019, https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/human-resources/2019/01/5-unconscious-factors-impacting-your-performance.html. Recency Error. Oftentimes evaluators focus on an employee’s most recent behavior in the evaluation process. This is known as the recency error . That is, in an annual evaluation, a supervisor may give undue emphasis to performance during the past months—or even weeks—and ignore performance levels prior to this. This practice, if known to employees, leads to a situation where employees may “float” for the initial months of the evaluation period and then overexert themselves in the last few months or weeks prior to evaluation. This practice leads to uneven performance and contributes to the attitude of “playing the game.” Personal Biases. Finally, it is not uncommon to find situations in which supervisors allow their own personal biases to influence their appraisals. Such biases include like or dislike for someone, as well as racial and sexual biases. Personal biases can interfere with the fairness and accuracy of an evaluation and are illegal in many situations. Reducing Errors in Performance Appraisals A number of suggestions have been advanced recently to minimize the effects of various biases and errors on the performance appraisal process. R. L. Mathis, J. H. Jackson, and S. R. Valentine, Human Resource Management, 14th ed. (Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2014), p. 357. When errors are reduced, more accurate information is available for personnel decisions and personal development. These methods for reducing error include ensuring that each dimension or factor on a performance appraisal form represents a single job activity instead of a group of job activities. avoiding terms such as average , because different evaluators define the term differently. ensuring that raters observe subordinates on a regular basis throughout the evaluation period. It is even helpful if the rater takes notes for future reference. keeping the number of persons evaluated by one rater to a reasonable number. When one person must evaluate many subordinates, it becomes difficult to discriminate. Rating fatigue increases with the number of ratees. ensuring that the dimensions used are clearly stated, meaningful, and relevant to good job performance. training raters so they can recognize various sources of error and understand the rationale underlying the evaluation process. Using mechanisms like these, better employee ratings that can have greater meaning both for the individual employee and the organization will result. What are performance appraisals, and how are they used in organizations? How are performance appraisals used as a reward system, and what problems can they cause? How do organizations effectively use performance appraisals to improve individual job performance, and what are the limitations inherent in the use of various appraisal systems? If performance is to be changed or improved, it must be rewarded. To be rewarded, it must be measured. However, great care must be taken to (1) measure important behaviors and outcomes (individual, group, or organizational) and not just those that are easy to measure, (2) measure them with the appropriate technique(s), and (3) tie appropriate rewards to the desired behaviors and outcomes. Organizations use performance appraisals for several reasons: (1) to provide feedback to employees, (2) to allow for employee self-development, (3) to allocate rewards, (4) to gather information for personnel decisions, and (5) to guide them in developing training and development efforts. Central tendency error The failure to recognize either very good or very poor performers. Halo effect Results in a supervisor assigning the same rating to each factor being evaluated for an individual. Strictness or Leniency error Fails to distinguish adequately between good and bad performers and instead relegates almost everyone to the same or related categories. Performance appraisals A system that provides a means of systematically evaluating employees across various performance dimensions to ensure that organizations are getting what they pay for. Recency error Occurs when, in an evaluation, a supervisor may give undue emphasis to performance during the past months—or even weeks—and ignore performance levels prior to this. Reliability The extent to which the instrument consistently yields the same results each time it is used. Validity The extent to which an instrument actually measures what it intends to measure.

Business


Techniques of Performance Appraisal What practices are used in the performance appraisal process? Organizations use numerous methods to evaluate personnel. We will summarize several popular techniques. Although countless variations on these themes can be found, the basic methods presented provide a good summary of the commonly available techniques. Following this review, we will consider the various strengths and weaknesses of each technique. Six techniques are reviewed here: (1) graphic rating scales, (2) critical incident technique, (3) behaviorally anchored rating scales, (4) behavioral observation scales, (5) management by objectives, and (6) assessment centers. Graphic Rating Scales Certainly, the most popular method of evaluation used in organizations today is the graphic rating scale . One study found that 57 percent of the organizations surveyed used rating scales, and another study found the figure to be 65 percent. J. Smither and M. London, Performance Management Putting Research Into Action , (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2008), pp. 187–328. Although this method appears in many formats, the supervisor or rater is typically presented with a printed or online form that contains both the employee’s name and several evaluation dimensions (quantity of work, quality of work, knowledge of job, attendance). The rater is then asked to rate the employee by assigning a number or rating on each of the dimensions. An example of a graphic rating scale is shown in . A Sample of a Typical Graphic Rating Scale Name ________________ Dept. ______________ Date _______________ Quantity of work Outstanding Good Satisfactory Fair Unsatisfactory Volume of acceptable work under normal conditions Comments: Quality of work Outstanding Good Satisfactory Fair Unsatisfactory Thoroughness, neatness, and accuracy of work Comments: Knowledge of job Outstanding Good Satisfactory Fair Unsatisfactory Clear understanding of the facts or factors pertinent to the job Comments: Personal qualities Outstanding Good Satisfactory Fair Unsatisfactory Personality, appearance, sociability, leadership, integrity Comments: Cooperation Outstanding Good Satisfactory Fair Unsatisfactory Ability and willingness to work with associates, supervisors, and subordinates toward common goal Comments: Dependability Outstanding Good Satisfactory Fair Unsatisfactory Conscientious, thorough, accurate, reliable with respect to attendance, lunch periods, reliefs, etc. Comments: Initiative Outstanding Good Satisfactory Fair Unsatisfactory Earnestness in seeking increased responsibilities Self-starting, unafraid to proceed alone Comments: (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) By using this method, if we assume that evaluator biases can be minimized, it is possible to compare employees objectively. It is also possible to examine the relative strengths and weaknesses of a single employee by comparing scores on the various dimensions. However, one of the most serious drawbacks of this technique is its openness to central tendency, strictness, and leniency errors. It is possible to rate almost everyone in the middle of the scale or, conversely, at one end of the scale. In order to control for this, some companies have assigned required percentage distributions to the various scale points. Supervisors may be allowed to rate only 10 percent of their people outstanding and are required to rate 10 percent unsatisfactory, perhaps assigning 20 percent, 40 percent, and 20 percent to the remaining middle categories. By doing this, a distribution is forced within each department. However, this procedure may penalize a group of truly outstanding performers or reward a group of poor ones. Critical Incident Technique With the critical incident technique of performance appraisal, supervisors record incidents, or examples, of each subordinate’s behavior that led to either unusual success or unusual failure on some aspect of the job. These incidents are recorded in a daily or weekly log under predesignated categories (planning, decision-making, interpersonal relations, report writing). The final performance rating consists of a series of descriptive paragraphs or notes about various aspects of an employee’s performance (see ). An Example of Critical Incident Evaluation Source: Adapted from R. Daft and R. Steers, Organizations: A Micro/Macro Approach (Glenview, III.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1986), p. 129. The following performance areas are designed to assist you in preparing this appraisal and in discussing an individual’s performance with her. It is suggested that areas of performance that you feel are significantly good or poor be documented below with specific examples or actions. The points listed are suggested as typical and are by no means all-inclusive. Examples related to these points may be viewed from either a positive or negative standpoint. Performance on Technology of the Job Safety Effectiveness —possible considerations: sets an excellent safety example for others in the department by words and action trains people well in safety areas gains the cooperation and participation of people in safety insists that safety be designed into procedure and processes is instrumental in initiating departmental safety program accepts safety as a fundamental job responsibility Item Related Examples Job Knowledge —Technical and/or Specialized—possible considerations: shows exceptional knowledge in methods, materials, and techniques; applies in a resourceful and practical manner stays abreast of development(s) in field and applies to job “keeps up” on latest material in her special field participates in professional or technical organizations pertinent to her activities Item Related Examples Performance on Human Relations Ability to Communicate —possible considerations: gives logical, clear-cut, understandable instructions on complex problems uses clear and direct language in written and oral reporting organizes presentations in logical order and in order of importance provides supervisor and subordinates with pertinent and adequate information tailors communications approach to group or individual keeps informed on how subordinates think and feel about things Item Related Examples Results Achieved through Others —possible considerations: develops enthusiasm in others that gets the job done has respect and confidence of others recognizes and credits skills of others coordinates well with other involved groups to get the job done Item Related Examples (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) The critical incident method provides useful information for appraisal interviews, and managers and subordinates can discuss specific incidents. Good qualitative information is generated. However, because little quantitative data emerge, it is difficult to use this technique for promotion or salary decisions. The qualitative output here has led some companies to combine the critical incident technique with one of the quantitative techniques, such as the rating scale, to provide different kinds of feedback to the employees. Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales An appraisal system that has received increasing attention in recent years is the behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS). This system requires considerable work prior to evaluation but, if the work is carefully done, can lead to highly accurate ratings with high inter-rater reliability. Specifically, the BARS technique begins by selecting a job that can be described in observable behaviors. Managers and personnel specialists then identify these behaviors as they relate to superior or inferior performance. An example of this is shown in , where the BARS technique has been applied to the job of college professor. As shown, as one moves from extremely poor performance to extremely good performance, the performance descriptions, or behavioral anchors, increase. Oftentimes, six to ten scales are used to describe performance on the job. evaluates the professor’s organizational skills. Other scales could relate to the professor’s teaching effectiveness, knowledge of the material, availability to students, and fairness in grading. Once these scales are determined, the evaluator has only to check the category that describes what she observes on the job, and the employee’s rating is simultaneously determined. The BARS technique has several purported advantages. In particular, many of the sources of error discussed earlier (central tendency, leniency, halo) should be significantly reduced because raters are considering verbal descriptions of specific behaviors instead of general categories of behaviors, such as those used in graphic rating scales. In addition, the technique focuses on job-related behaviors and ignores less relevant issues such as the subordinate’s personality, race, or gender. This technique should also lead to employees being less defensive during performance appraisals, because the focus of the discussion would be actual measured behaviors, not the person. Finally, BARS can aid in employee training and development by identifying those domains needing most attention. A Behaviorally Anchored Scale for Rating College Professors Source: Reprinted by permission of H. John Bernardin. (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) On the negative side, as noted above, considerable time and effort in designing the forms are required before the actual rating. Because a separate BARS is required for each distinct job, it is only cost-efficient for common jobs. Finally, because the technique relies on observable behaviors, it may have little applicability for such jobs in such areas as research science (and sometimes management), where much of the work is mental and relevant observable behaviors are difficult to obtain. Behavioral Observation Scales The behavioral observation scale (BOS) is similar to BARS in that both focus on identifying observable behaviors as they relate to performance. It is, however, less demanding of the evaluator. Typically, the evaluator is asked to rate each behavior on a scale from 1 to 5 to indicate the frequency with which the employee exhibits the behavior. Evaluation of an employee’s performance on a particular dimension is derived by summing the frequency ratings for the behaviors in each dimension. For example, in we can see an example of a form to evaluate a manager’s ability to overcome resistance to change. The rater simply has to circle the appropriate numbers describing observed behaviors and get a summary rating by adding the results. The BOS technique is easier to construct than the BARS and makes the evaluator’s job somewhat simpler. Even so, this is a relatively new technique that is only now receiving some support in industry. Example of a Behavioral Observation Scale for Managers: Overcoming Resistance to Change Almost Never Almost Always Source: Adapted from K. Wexley and G. Latham, Increasing Productivity Through Performance Appraisal, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001. 1. Describes the details of the change to subordinates 1 2 3 4 5 2. Explains why the change is necessary 1 2 3 4 5 3. Discusses how the change will affect the employee 1 2 3 4 5 4. Listens to the employee’s concerns 1 2 3 4 5 5. Asks the employee for help in making the change work 1 2 3 4 5 6. If necessary, specifies the date for a follow-up meeting to respond to employee’s concerns 1 2 3 4 5 Total: 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30 Below adequate Adequate Full Excellent Superior (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Management by Objectives A popular technique for evaluating employees who are involved in jobs that have clear quantitative output is management by objectives (MBO). Although the concept of MBO encompasses much more than just the appraisal process (incorporating an organization-wide motivation, performance, and control system), we will focus here on its narrower application to evaluating employee performance. MBO is closely related to the goal-setting theory of motivation. Under MBO, individual employees work with their supervisor to establish goals and objectives for which they will be responsible during the coming year. These goals are stated in clear language and relate to tasks that are within the domain of the employee. An example of these goals for a sales representative is shown in . Following a specified period of time, the employee’s performance is compared to the preset goals to determine the extent to which the goals have been met or exceeded. MBO Evaluation Report for Sales Representative Goals Categories Goal Actual Performance Variance 1. Number of sales calls 40 38 95% 2. Number of new customers contacted 10 10 100% 3. Number of customer complaints 5 10 50% 4. Sales of product #1 10,000 units 11,000 units 110% 5. Sales of product #2 15,000 units 14,000 units 93% 6. Sales of product #3 25,000 units 30,000 units 120% (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Several advantages of MBO have been observed. These include the ability to do better planning; improved motivation, because of knowledge of results; fairer evaluations, done on the basis of results rather than personality; improved commitment through participation; and improved supervisory skills in such areas as listening, counseling, and evaluating. On the negative side, however, MBO has been criticized because it emphasizes quantitative goals at the expense of qualitative goals and often creates too much paperwork. It is difficult to compare performance levels among employees because most are responsible for different goals. Sometimes the implementation of MBO goals are autocratic and therefore ineffective or even counterproductive. As discussed in the study of motivation, goals must be accepted to be effective. Finally, in order to be successful, MBO implementation must have constant attention and support from top management; MBO does not run itself. In the absence of this support, the technique loses legitimacy and often falls into disrepair. Assessment Centers A relatively new method of evaluation is the assessment center . Assessment centers are unique among appraisal techniques in that they focus more on evaluating an employee’s long-range potential to an organization than on her performance over the past year. They are also unique in that they are used almost exclusively among managerial personnel. An assessment center consists of a series of standardized evaluations of behavior based on multiple inputs. Over a two- or three-day period (away from the job), trained observers make judgments on managers’ behavior in response to specially developed exercises. These exercises may consist of in-basket exercises, role-playing, and case analyses, as well as personal interviews and psychological tests. An example of an assessment center program is shown in . Example of Two-Day Assessment Center Schedule Day #1 Day #2 8:00–9:00 A.M. Orientation session 8:00–10:30 A.M. In-basket exercise 9:00 –10:30 A.M. Psychological testing 10:30–10:45 A.M. Coffee break 10:30–10:45 A.M. Coffee break 10:45–12:30 P.M. Role-playing exercise 10:45–12:30 P.M. Management simulation game 12:30–1:30 P.M. Lunch 12:30–1:30 P.M. Lunch 1:30–3:15 P.M. Group problem-solving exercise 1:30–3:15 P.M. Individual decision-making exercise 3:15–3:30 P.M. Coffee break 3:15–3:30 P.M. Coffee break 3:30–4:30 P.M. Debriefing by raters 3:30–4:30 P.M. Interview with raters (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) On the basis of these exercises, the trained observers make judgments on employees’ potential for future managerial assignments in the organization. More specifically, information is obtained concerning employees’ interpersonal skills, communication ability, creativity, problem-solving skills, tolerance for stress and ambiguity, and planning ability. This technique has been used successfully by some of the largest corporations in the United States, including AT&T, IBM, and General Electric. Results from a series of assessment center programs appear promising, and the technique is growing in popularity as a means of identifying future managerial potential. For example, Coca-Cola USA experimented with using assessment centers to select its managerial personnel. After a detailed study, the company found that those selected in this way were only one-third as likely to leave the company or be fired than those selected in the traditional way. Although the assessment center approach added about 6 percent to the cost of hiring, the lower turnover rate led to large overall savings. L. Slavenski, “Matching People to Jobs,” Training and Development Journal, August 1986, pp. 54–57. Some problems with the technique have been noted. In particular, because of the highly stressful environment created in assessment centers, many otherwise good managers may simply not perform to their potential. Moreover, the results of a poor evaluation in an assessment center may be far-reaching; individuals may receive a “loser” image that will follow them for a long time. And, finally, there is some question concerning exactly how valid and reliable assessment centers really are in predicting future managerial success. F. D. Frank, D. W. Bracken, and M. R. Smith, “Beyond Assessment Centers,” Training and Development Journal, March 1988, pp. 65–67. Despite these problems, assessment centers remain a popular vehicle in some companies for developing and appraising managerial potential. Tesla’s Performance Review At Tesla, the automotive giant, the standards are set extremely high for their employees. In 2017, Tesla conducted its annual performance reviews as it does each year. Due to the review process, the company sees both voluntary and involuntary departures. During the review process, the managers discuss “results that were achieved, as well as how those results were achieved” with their employees.* Tesla also has a performance recognition and compensation program that includes equity rewards as well as promotions in some cases, along with the constructive feedback. The departure of employees during the review period is not unique to Tesla; however, in 2017 there was a large exodus of approximately 700 employees following their employee reviews. Elon Musk, who recently has stepped down from the role of chairman and has been under scrutiny for his behavior,* saw the media coverage of this news as “ridiculous.” “You have two boxes of equal ability, and one’s much smaller, the big guy’s going to crush the little guy, obviously,” states Musk. “So, the little guy better have a heck of a lot more skill or he’s going to get clobbered. So that is why our standards are high . . . if they’re not high, we will die.” Overall, approximately 17 percent of their employees were promoted, almost half in manufacturing. As Tesla continues to grow and develop new vehicles, it is consistently pushing the boundaries and pushing its employees to new limits. Performance reviews are of the highest importance for Tesla’s business to succeed; the company needs the best people with the best skills. It is constantly growing and attempting to “suck the labor pool dry” to fill positions at many of its locations and factories. Questions: What factors do you feel could have changed in Tesla’s approach to its performance reviews? How can a high-pressure environment affect an employee’s performance? What factors should be considered to combat these issues? Sources: K. Korosec. “Tesla Fires Hundreds of Workers After Their Annual Performance Review.” Fortune , October 14, 2017, http://fortune.com/2017/10/13/tesla-fires-employees/; D. Muoio. “Tesla fired 700 employees after performance reviews in the third quarter.” Business Insider , November 1, 2017, https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-fired-700-employees-performance-reviews-2017-11; J. Wattles. “Elon Musk agrees to pay $20 million and quit as Tesla chairman in deal with SEC.” Money , September 30, 2018, https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/29/technology/business/elon-musk-tesla-sec-settlement/index.html. Comparison of Appraisal Techniques It is important to consider which appraisal technique or set of techniques may be most appropriate for a given situation. Although there is no simple answer to this question, we can consider the various strengths and weaknesses of each technique. This is done in . It is important to keep in mind that the appropriateness of a particular appraisal technique is in part a function of the purpose for the appraisal. For example, if the purpose of the appraisal is to identify high potential executives, then assessment centers are more appropriate than rating scales. Major Strengths and Weaknesses of Appraisal Techniques Rating Scales Critical Incidents BARS BOS MBO Assessment Centers Meaningful dimensions Sometimes Sometimes Usually Usually Usually Usually Amount of time required Low Medium High Medium High High Development costs Low Low High Medium Medium High Potential for rating errors High Medium Low Low Low Low Acceptability to subordinates Low Medium High High High High Acceptability to superiors Low Medium High High High High Usefulness for allocating rewards Poor Fair Good Good Good Fair Usefulness for employee counseling Poor Fair Good Good Good Good Usefulness for identifying promotion potential Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair Good (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) As would be expected, the easiest and least expensive techniques are also the least accurate. They are also the least useful for purposes of personnel decisions and employee development. Once again, it appears that managers and organizations get what they pay for. If performance appraisals represent an important aspect of organizational life, clearly the more sophisticated—and more time-consuming—techniques are preferable. If, on the other hand, it is necessary to evaluate employees quickly and with few resources, techniques such as the graphic rating scale may be more appropriate. Managers must make cost-benefit decisions about the price (in time and money) they are willing to pay for a quality performance appraisal system. What are the techniques and scales used in performance appraisals? What are MBOs, and how do they relate to performance appraisals? What are assessment centers? What practices are used in the performance appraisal process? Performance appraisals are subject to several problems, including central tendency error, strictness or leniency error, halo effect, recency error, and personal biases. Assessment center Consists of a series of standardized evaluations of behavior based on multiple inputs. Behaviorally anchored rating scale A system that requires considerable work prior to evaluation but, if the work is carefully done, can lead to highly accurate ratings with high inter-rater reliability. Behavioral observation scale Identifies observable behaviors as they relate to performance and is less demanding of the evaluator. Critical incident technique A technique where supervisors record incidents, or examples, of each subordinate’s behavior that led to either unusual success or unusual failure on some aspect of the job. Graphic rating scale A performance appraisal technique where the supervisor or rater is typically presented with a printed or online form that contains both the employee’s name and several evaluation dimensions (quantity of work, quality of work, knowledge of job, attendance). The rater is then asked to rate the employee by assigning a number or rating on each of the dimensions. Management by objectives Closely related to the goal-setting theory of motivation.

Business


Feedback How do managers give effective feedback to subordinates? As previously noted, feedback represents a critical variable in determining the success or failure of the goal-setting process. The same applies to the performance appraisal process. Without effective knowledge of results, the motivational impact of the appraisal process is lost. To better understand how feedback in work settings affects employee behavior, consider the model shown in . M. S. Taylor, C. D. Fisher, and D. R. Ilgen, “Individuals’ Reactions to Performance Feedback in Organizations: A Control Theory Perspective,” in K. M. Rowland and G. R. Ferris, eds., Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 2, (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1984), pp. 81–124. Effects of Feedback on Job Performance (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Feedback comes from many sources, including the task at hand, the supervisor, coworkers, and oneself. This input is then cognitively evaluated by the employee, who considers such factors as the perceived accuracy of the feedback (e.g., does the employee consider the information to be correct?); the credibility of the source of the feedback (e.g., does the employee trust the supervisor’s opinion?); the employee’s opinion concerning the fairness of the evaluation-process; the extent to which the feedback met the employee’s expectations (e.g., does the employee think she could have done better?); and the reasonableness of the performance standards. If one or more of these evaluations prove negative (for example, the employee believes she is being unfairly evaluated), the credibility of the feedback is dismissed, and the employee may increase her resistance to task effort. On the other hand, where the feedback is accepted, it reinforces the employee’s direction, effort on the task, and persistence on the task. Thus, although feedback is essential, it is the nature and quality of the feedback that ultimately determines employee response. What types of feedback do performance appraisals provide to all organization members? How do managers give effective feedback to subordinates? Among the most common appraisal systems are graphic rating scales, critical incident technique, behaviorally anchored rating scales, behavioral observation scales, management by objectives, and assessment centers. Assessment centers represent a special case of evaluations in that they focus on assessing an employee’s long-term potential to an organization.

Business


Reward Systems in Organizations How do organizations choose the best appraisal system for their organization? After a company has designed and implemented a systematic performance appraisal system and provided adequate feedback to employees, the next step is to consider how to tie available corporate rewards to the outcomes of the appraisal. Behavioral research consistently demonstrates that performance levels are highest when rewards are contingent upon performance. Thus, in this section, we will examine five aspects of reward systems in organizations: (1) functions served by reward systems, (2) bases for reward distribution, (3) intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards, (4) the relationship between money and motivation and, finally, (5) pay secrecy. Functions of Reward Systems Reward systems in organizations are used for a variety of reasons. It is generally agreed that reward systems influence the following: Job effort and performance. Following expectancy theory, employees’ effort and performance would be expected to increase when they felt that rewards were contingent upon good performance. Hence, reward systems serve a very basic motivational function. Attendance and retention. Reward systems have also been shown to influence an employee’s decision to come to work or to remain with the organization. This was discussed in the previous chapter. Employee commitment to the organization. It has been found that reward systems in no small way influence employee commitment to the organization, primarily through the exchange process. R. T. Mowday, L. W. Porter, and R. M. Steers, Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Employee Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, (New York: Academic Press, 1982). That is, employees develop ties with organizations when they perceive that the organization is interested in their welfare and willing to protect their interests. This exchange process is shown in . To the extent that employee needs and goals are met by the company, we would expect commitment to increase. Job satisfaction . Job satisfaction has also been shown to be related to rewards, as discussed in the previous chapter. Edward E. Lawler, a well-known researcher on employee compensation, has identified four conclusions concerning the relationship between rewards and satisfaction: (1) satisfaction with a reward is a function of both how much is received and how much the individual feels should have been received; (2) satisfaction is influenced by comparisons with what happens to others, especially one’s coworkers; (3) people differ with respect to the rewards they value; and (4) some rewards are satisfying because they lead to other rewards. E. E. Lawler, “New Approaches to Pay Administration,” Personnel Vol. 5, 1976, pp. 11–23. Occupational and organizational choice. Finally, the selection of an occupation by an individual, as well as the decision to join a particular organization within that occupation, are influenced by the rewards that are thought to be available in the occupation or organization. To prove this, simply look at the classified section of your local newspaper and notice how many jobs highlight beginning salaries. The Exchange Process Between Employee and Organization (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Reward systems in organizations have far-reaching consequences for both individual satisfaction and organizational effectiveness. Unfortunately, cases can easily be cited where reward systems have been distorted to punish good performance or inhibit creativity. Consider, for example, the Greyhound Bus Company driver who was suspended for 10 days without pay for breaking a company rule against using a CB radio on his bus. The bus driver had used the radio to alert police that his bus, with 32 passengers on board, was being hijacked by an armed man. The police arrested the hijacker, and the bus driver was suspended for breaking company rules. Cited in Eugene Register-Guard, July 15, 1980, p. B1. Such incidents hardly encourage employees to focus their efforts on responsible performance. Bases for Reward Distribution A common reality in many contemporary work organizations is the inequity that exists in the distribution of available rewards. One often sees little correlation between those who perform well and those who receive the greatest rewards. At the extreme, it is hard to understand how a company could pay its president $10 to $20 million per year (as many large corporations do) while it pays its secretaries and clerks less than $15,000. Each works approximately 40 hours per week, and both are important for organizational performance. Is it really possible that the president is 1,000 times more important than the secretary, as the salary differential suggests? How do organizations decide on the distribution of available rewards? At least four mechanisms can be identified. In more cases than we choose to admit, rewards go to those with the greatest power (either market power or personal power). In many of the corporations whose presidents earn eight-figure incomes, we find that these same people are either major shareholders in the company or have certain abilities, connections, or status that the company wants. Indeed, a threat of resignation from an important or high-performing executive often leads to increased rewards. A second possible basis for reward distribution is equality . Here, all individuals within one job classification would receive the same, or at least similar, rewards. The most common example here can be found among unionized workers, where pay rates are established and standardized with little or no reference to actual performance level. Instead of ability or performance, these systems usually recognize seniority as the key factor in pay raises or promotions. Team Based Rewards Performance appraisals, whether team or individual, provide feedback to workers or organizational teams. Traditionally, performance evaluations provide information to help improve individual performance, increase efficiency and define management's expectations. Performance appraisals compare work performed against measurable objectives that the employee and supervisor agreed to at the beginning of the appraisal period. As work has become more team oriented, performance appraisals now measure how a team of workers perform rather than just how an individual performs his job. (Attribution; Deb Nystrom/ flickr/ Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)) The basis for the social welfare reward system in this country is need. In large part, the greater the need, the greater the level of support. It is not uncommon to see situations in business firms where need is taken into account in layoff situations—where an employee is not laid off because she is the sole support of a family. A fourth mechanism used by organizations in allocating rewards is distributive justice . Under this approach, employees receive (at least a portion of) their rewards as a function of their level of contribution to the organization. The greater the contribution (such as performance), the greater the reward. This mechanism is most prominent in merit-based incentive programs, where pay and bonuses are determined by performance levels. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Rewards The variety of rewards that employees can receive in exchange for their contributions of time and effort can be classified as either extrinsic or intrinsic rewards. Extrinsic rewards are external to the work itself. They are administered externally—that is, by someone else (usually management). Examples of extrinsic rewards include wages and salary, fringe benefits, promotions, and recognition and praise from others. On the other hand, intrinsic rewards represent those rewards that are related directly to performing the job. In this sense, they are often described as “self-administered” rewards, because engaging in the task itself leads to their receipt. Examples of intrinsic rewards include feelings of task accomplishment, autonomy, and personal growth and development that come from the job. In the literature on employee motivation, there is considerable controversy concerning the possible interrelationship of these two kinds of reward. It has been argued (with some research support) that extrinsic rewards tend to drive out the positive effects of some intrinsic rewards and can lead to unethical behavior. Stephen J. Sauer, Matthew S. Rodgers, William J. Becker, “The Effects of Goals and Pay Structure on Managerial Reporting Dishonesty,” Journal of Accounting, Ethics & Public Policy , 2018. Consider, for example, the child next door who begs you to let her help you wash your car. For a young child, this task can carry considerable excitement (and intrinsic motivation). Now, consider what happens on a Saturday afternoon when you need your car washed but the child has other options. What do you do? You offer to pay her this time to help wash your car. What do you think will happen the next time you ask the neighbor to help you wash the car for free? In other words, when extrinsic rewards such as pay are tied closely to performance (called performance-reward contingency), intrinsic motivation —the desire to do a task because you enjoy it—can decrease. Also, it is important to keep in mind that because extrinsic rewards are administered by sources external to the individual, their effectiveness rests on accurate and fair monitoring, evaluating, and administration. Implementation can be expensive, and the timing of performance and rewards may not always be close. For example, you may perform well on a task, but unless there is a way for that to be noticed, evaluated, recorded, and rewarded within a reasonable time frame, an extrinsic reward may not have a significant impact. Intrinsic rewards are a function of self-monitoring, evaluation, and administration; consequently, these rewards often are less costly and more effectively administered. For example, even if no one else notices or rewards you for superior performance on a task, you can still reward yourself with a mental pat on the back for a job well done or a sense of satisfaction for overcoming a challenge. The implications of this finding will become apparent when exploring efforts to enrich employees’ jobs. Money and Motivation: A Closer Look A recurring debate among managers focuses on the issue of whether money is a primary motivator. Some argue that most behavior in organizational settings is motivated by money (or at least monetary factors), whereas others argue that money is only one of many factors that motivate performance. Whichever group is correct, we must recognize that money can have important motivational consequences for many people in many situations. In fact, money serves several important functions in work settings. R. L. Opsahl and M. D. Dunnette, “The Role of Financial Compensation in Industrial Motivation,” Psychological Bulletin Vol. 66 , 1966, pp. 94–96. These include serving as (1) a goal or incentive, (2) a source of satisfaction, (3) an instrument for gaining other desired outcomes, (4) a standard of comparison for determining relative standing or worth, and (5) a conditional reinforcer where its receipt is contingent upon a certain level of performance. Even so, experience tells us that the effectiveness of pay as a motivator varies considerably. Sometimes there seems to be an almost direct relationship between pay and effort, whereas at other times no such relationship is found. Why? Lawler suggests that certain conditions must be present in order for pay to act as a strong motivator: E. E. Lawler, Rewarding Excellence, (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2001). Trust levels between managers and subordinates must be high. Individual performance must be able to be accurately measured. Pay rewards to high performers must be substantially higher than those to poor performers. Few, if any, negative consequences for good performance must be perceived. Under these conditions, a climate or culture is created in which employees have reason to believe that significant performance-reward contingencies truly exist. Given this perception (and assuming the reward is valued), we would expect performance to be increased. L. W. Porter, G. Bigley, and R. M. Steers, Motivation and Work Behavior, 7th ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003). Pay Secrecy Secrecy about pay rates seems to be a widely accepted practice in work organizations, particularly among managerial personnel. It is argued that salary is a personal matter and we should not invade another’s privacy. Available evidence, however, suggests that pay secrecy may have several negative side effects. To begin, it has been consistently found that in the absence of actual knowledge, people have a tendency to over estimate the pay of coworkers and those above them in the hierarchy. As a result, much of the motivational potential of a differential reward system is lost. E. E. Lawler, Rewarding Excellence, op. cit. Even if an employee receives a relatively sizable salary increase, she may still perceive an inequity compared to what others are receiving. This problem is highlighted in the results of a study by Lawler. In considering the effects of pay secrecy on motivation, Lawler noted: Almost regardless of how well the individual manager was performing, they felt they were getting less than the average raise. This problem was particularly severe among high performers, since they believed that they were doing well yet received minimal reward. They did not believe that pay was in fact based upon merit. This was ironic, since their pay did reflect performance. . . . Thus, even though pay was tied to performance, these managers were not motivated because they could not see the connection. Ibid., p. 136. Pay secrecy also affects motivation via feedback. Several studies have shown the value of feedback in motivating performance (see previous discussion). The problem is that for managers, money represents one of the most meaningful forms of feedback. Pay secrecy eliminates the feedback. When salary information is open (or at least when the range of percentage increases within a job classification are made known to the people in that group), employees are generally provided with more recognition for satisfactory performance and are often more motivated to perform on subsequent tasks. It is easier to establish feelings of pay equity and trust in the salary administration system. On the other hand, publicizing pay rates and pay raises can cause jealousy among employees and create pressures on managers to reduce perceived inequities in the system. There is no correct position concerning whether pay rates should be secret or open. The point is that managers should not assume a priori that pay secrecy—or pay openness—is a good thing. Instead, careful consideration should be given to the possible consequences of either approach in view of the particular situation in the organization at the time. What is the best appraisal system for organizations to adopt? How are rewards tied to performance appraisals? How do organizations choose the best appraisal system for their organization? Rewards serve several functions, including (1) stimulating job effort and performance, (2) reducing absenteeism and turnover, (3) enhancing employee commitment, (4) facilitating job satisfaction, and (5) facilitating occupational and organizational choice. Rewards may be distributed on the basis of power, equality, need, or distributive justice. Distributive justice rests on the principle of allocating rewards in proportion to employee contribution. Intrinsic rewards represent those outcomes that are administered by the employee (e.g., a sense of task accomplishment), whereas extrinsic rewards are administered by others (e.g., wages). Gain-sharing incentive plans base some of the employees’ pay on corporate profits or productivity. As a result, employees are generally more interested in facilitating corporate performance. Skills-based incentives reward employees on the basis of the skills they possess, not the skills they are allowed to use at work. As a result, employees are encouraged to continually upgrade their skill levels. A lump-sum salary increase simply provides employees with their pay raises at one time (possibly shortly before summer vacation or a major holiday). Participative pay decisions allow employees some input in determining their pay raises. Distributive justice Where employees receive (at least a portion of) their rewards as a function of their level of contribution to the organization. Extrinsic rewards Rewards that are external to the work itself. Intrinsic motivation The desire to do a task because you enjoy it. Intrinsic rewards Rewards that are external to the work itself. Skills-based incentives Rewards employees on the basis of the skills they possess and not just the skills they are allowed to use at work.

Business


Individual and Group Incentive Plans How do managers and organizations use incentives and rewards effectively to secure the best possible performance from employees? We now turn to an examination of various employee incentive programs used by organizations. First, we consider the relative merits of individuals versus group incentive programs. Next, we focus on several relatively new approaches to motivation and compensation. Finally, we suggest several guidelines for effective incentive systems. Individual versus Group Incentives Companies usually have choices among various compensation plans and must make decisions about which is most effective for its situation. Incentive systems in organizations are usually divided into two categories on the basis of whether the unit of analysis—and the recipient of the reward—is the individual or a group. Among individual incentive plans, several approaches can be identified, including merit-based compensation (commonly known as merit compensation), piece-rate incentive programs (where people are paid according to the quantity of output), bonus systems of various sorts, and commissions. In each case, rewards are tied fairly directly to the performance level of the individual. Although individual incentive systems often lead to improved performance, some reservations have been noted. In particular, these programs may at times lead to employees competing with one another, with undesirable results. For instance, department store salespeople on commission may fight over customers, thereby chasing the customers away. After all, customers don’t care who they deal with, only that the service is good. Second, these plans typically are resisted by unions, which prefer compensation to be based on seniority or job classification. Third, where quality control systems are lax, individual incentives such as piece rates may lead employees to maximize units of output while sacrificing quality. And, finally, in order for these programs to be successful, an atmosphere of trust and cooperation is necessary. In order to overcome some of these shortcomings, many companies have turned to group or organizational incentive plans. Group incentive programs base at least some of an employee’s rewards on group or organization performance. Hence, employees are encouraged to cooperate with one another and with the corporation so that all employees can benefit. Programs such as profit-sharing or gain-sharing plans (discussed below) are designed to tie the employees’ future rewards and prosperity to that of the company and reduce the age-old antagonism between the two. The results are often dramatic. Creative Pay Practices Recently, we have seen several innovations in the way corporations approach reward systems. These efforts are designed to facilitate the integration of employee and company interests in a way that maximizes both productivity and quality of working life. Five such creative pay practices should be noted: (1) gain-sharing plans, (2) skills-based incentives, (3) lump-sum pay increases, (4) participative pay decisions, and (5) flexible benefits programs. These approaches, along with their major advantages and drawbacks, are summarized in . Advantages and Disadvantages of New Pay Practices Pay Practice Advantages Disadvantages Gain sharing Ties pay to performance; encourages group cooperation Plans that focus exclusively on productivity may lead employees to ignore other important objectives, such as quality. Skills-based incentives More flexible and skilled workforce; increased satisfaction Higher training and salary costs Lump-sum increase Greater visibility of pay increases; increased pay satisfaction Cost of administration Participative pay decisions Increased trust in a satisfaction with pay decisions; better pay decisions Time-consuming Flexible benefits Increased satisfaction with pay and benefits Cost of administration (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) Gain-Sharing Plans. Giving executives and senior managers bonuses to reflect their contributions to organizational effectiveness is commonplace. In fact, in some companies executive bonuses are often larger than salaries. Recently, companies have increasingly applied this same principle to all employees in the form of gain-sharing (profit-sharing) plans. Here, employees are given a chance to share in corporate productivity gains through increased earnings. The greater the productivity gains, the greater the earnings. Several variations on this theme can be found, including the Scanlon Plan, IMPROSHARE, the Ruker Plan, and the Lincoln Electric Plan. Regardless of the title, the basic plan is similar. For example, under the Scanlon Plan (probably the oldest such program), three operating guidelines are used: (1) each department or division is treated as a business unit for purposes of performance measurement, (2) specific cost measures associated with the production process are identified and agreed to by all parties, and (3) bonuses are paid to all employees according to a predetermined formula tying the amount of the bonus to the actual cost savings realized during the time period. Under such a plan, it is clearly in the employees’ best interest to contribute to cost savings, thereby increasing their own incomes. Providing Feedback in Different Countries Global workplaces are increasing within the world businesses, and it has become a trend to have managers from one country, most likely the country in which the headquarters arise, manage employees abroad. An important consideration when managing globally is how cultural differences can have a profound effect on performance evaluations, negotiations, and criticisms. For example, oftentimes in the United States, a method of critical feedback in the “hamburger method” (Step 1: Identify tasks. As a group, identify technical steps that would be involved in implementing. Step 2: Identify options for tasks. Split the team into several small groups. Step 3: Combine results.) is acceptable, while other countries give their feedback with just the meal alone. This strategy in the Netherlands and Germany can be off-putting to other cultures, and when you read into another culture’s technique with your own lens of reference, it can feel wrong. Managing globally means that you need to do your research on which approach for feedback is best received for the employee’s cultural differences. For example, being direct is key when communicating with a Dutch person. In contrast, in England or the United States, criticism is not delivered directly, but with positive pieces wrapped around the negative. In Asian countries, feedback is often avoided or the message is blurred in order to “save face.” With all of these complications and considerations, it is ever more important to acutely understand the culture, the cultural understandings of employees who are direct reports, and also the lens through which feedback is being viewed as well. Questions: How can a new manager that is working with international employees ensure she is providing reviews in an appropriate manner? What methods can a manager employ in her preparation for the review to be successful when providing feedback to employees of different cultures? Sources: C. Solbach. “Feedback through cultural looking glass.” Krauthammer , September 16, 2015, https://www.krauthammer.com/en/publications/personal-development/2017/04/12/12/07/feedback-through-cultural-looking-glass; M. Abadi. “The exact same sentence from your boss can mean 'yes,' 'no,' or 'maybe' depending on the country where you work.” Business Insider , December 7, 2017, https://www.businessinsider.com/direct-feedback-work-depends-on-culture-2017-12; J. Windust. “An International Approach to 360-Degree Feedback.” Cognology , July 26, 2016, https://www.cognology.com.au/international-approach-360-degree-feedback/; “Giving Employee Feedback To A Culturally Diverse Workforce.” Impraise Blog , accessed January 26, 2019, https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/how-to-handle-cultural-differences-between-branchescountries-in-feedback-behavior-performance-review. Skills-Based Incentives. Typical compensation programs are tied to job evaluations. In these, jobs are analyzed to assess their characteristics, and then salary levels are assigned to each job on the basis of factors such as job difficulty and labor market scarcity. In other words, pay levels are set on the basis of the job, not the individual. This approach fails to encourage employees to improve their skills on the job, because there is no reward for the improvement. This thinking also keeps all employees in their places and minimizes the possibility of inter-job transfers. Under the skills-based incentive program , employees are paid according to their skills level (that is, the number of jobs they can perform), regardless of the actual tasks they are allowed to perform. This approach has proved successful in organizations such as Procter & Gamble and General Foods. Employees are encouraged to learn additional skills and are appropriately rewarded. The organization is provided with a more highly trained and more flexible workforce. However, training and compensation costs are necessarily increased, so the program is appropriate only in some situations. The technique is most often seen as part of a larger quality-of-working-life program, where it is associated with job redesign efforts. Lump-Sum Pay Increases. Another technique that has received some attention is to allow employees to decide how (that is, in what amounts) they wish to receive their pay raises for the coming year. Under the traditional program, pay raises are paid in equal amounts in each paycheck over the year. Under the alternate plan, employees can elect to receive equal amounts during the year, or they can choose to take the entire raise in one lump-sum pay increase . This plan allows employees greater discretion over their own financial matters. If an employee wants to use the entire pay raise for a vacation, it can be paid in a lump sum in June. Then, if the employee quits before the end of the year, the unearned part of the pay raise is subtracted from the final paycheck. This plan increases the visibility of the reward to the employee. The employee receives, for example, a $600 pay raise (a rather sizable amount) instead of twelve $50 monthly pay raises. As with the flexible rewards system discussed below, however, the administration costs of the lump-sum plan are greater than those of the traditional method. Participative Pay Decisions. In addition, of concern to many managers is the extent to which employees should be involved in decisions over pay raises. This is the issue of participative pay decisions . Recently, several organizations have been experimenting with involving employees in pay raise decisions, and the results seem to be quite positive. By allowing employees to participate either in the design of the reward system or in actual pay raise decisions (perhaps through a committee), it is argued that decisions of higher quality are made on the basis of greater information. Also, employees then have greater reason to place confidence in the fairness of the decisions. On the negative side, this approach requires considerably more time for both the manager and the participating subordinates. Costs must be weighed against benefits to determine which approach is most suitable for the particular organization and its goals. Flexible Benefits Systems . A typical fringe benefit package provides the same benefits—and the same number of benefits—to all employees. As a result, individual differences or preferences are largely ignored. Studies by Lawler indicate variations in benefit preferences. Lawler, Rewarding Excellence, op. cit. For instance, young unmarried men prefer more vacation time, whereas young married men prefer to give up vacation time for higher pay. Older employees want more retirement benefits, whereas younger employees prefer greater income. Through a flexible benefits program (also called a “cafeteria benefits program”), employees are allowed some discretion in the determination of their own packages and can make trade-offs, within certain limits. Organizations such as PepsiCo, TRW, and the Educational Testing Service already use such programs. Although certain problems of administration exist with the programs, efforts in this direction can lead to increased need satisfaction among employees. We have seen a number of different creative solutions to the compensation dilemma. Which approaches are most effective in motivating employees? This is obviously a difficult question to answer. However, one way to get relevant information on this question is to see what corporations actually use. One such study asked major employers which of a variety of approaches had been used with a high success level. The results are shown in . As can be seen, skills-based compensation, earned time off, and gain sharing all received high marks from personnel executives, although other programs are also widely supported. It would appear from these results that many approaches can be useful; the choice of which one to use would depend upon the circumstances and goals of a particular organization. Guidelines for Effective Incentive Programs Whatever incentive plan is selected, care must be taken to ensure that the plan is appropriate for the particular organization and workforce. In fact, a simple test of the effectiveness of an incentive plan would be as follows: M. Wallace, cited in N. Perry, “Here Come Richer, Riskier Pay Plans,” Fortune, December 19, 1988, pp. 50–58. Does the plan capture attention? Do employees discuss the plan and take pride in their early successes? Do employees understand the plan? Can employees explain how the plan works, and do they understand what they must do to earn the incentive? Does the plan improve communication? As a result of the plan, do employees understand more about corporate mission, goals, and objectives? Does the plan pay out when it should? Are incentives being paid for desired results, and are they withheld for undesirable results? Is the company performing better as a result of the plan? Are profits or market share up or down? Have any gains resulted in part from the incentive plan? Companies Successfully Using Creative Incentive Plans Type of Incentive Percent of Companies Reporting Success Source: Data adapted from J. Horn, Psychology Today, July 1987, pp. 54–57. Skills-based compensation 89% Earned time off 85 Gain-sharing plans 81 Small-group incentives 75 Individual incentives 73 All-salaried workforce 67 Lump-sum bonus 66 (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) If a new (or existing) pay plan can meet these tests, it is probably fairly effective in motivating employee performance and should be retained by the organization. If not, perhaps some other approach should be tried. On the basis of such a test, several specific guidelines can be identified to increase the effectiveness of the programs. These include the following: Perry, op. cit. Any reward system or incentive plan should be as closely tied to actual job performance as possible. This point was discussed earlier in this chapter. If possible, incentive programs should allow for individual differences . They should recognize that different people want different outcomes from a job. Flexible benefits programs such as the ones discussed here make an effort to accomplish this. Incentive programs should reflect the type of work that is done and the structure of the organization. This simply means that the program should be tailored to the particular needs, goals, and structures of a given organization. Individual incentive programs, for example, would probably be less successful among unionized personnel than would group programs such as the Scanlon plan. This point has been clearly demonstrated in research by Lawler, which points out that organizations with traditional management and those with more participative management might approach reward systems quite differently in order to be effective. E. E. Lawler, “The Design of Effective Reward Systems,” Technical Report, University of Southern California, April 1983. As shown in , both types of company can be effective as long as their reward systems are congruent with their overall approach to management. The incentive program should be consistent with the culture and constraints of the organization. Where trust levels are low, for example, it may take considerable effort to get any program to work. In an industry already characterized by high levels of efficiency, basing an incentive system on increasing efficiency even further may have little effect, because employees may see the task as nearly impossible. Finally, incentive programs should be carefully monitored over time to ensure that they are being fairly administered and that they accurately reflect current technological and organizational conditions. For instance, it may be appropriate to offer sales clerks in a department store an incentive to sell outdated merchandise because current fashion items sell themselves. Responsibility falls on managers not to select the incentive program that is in vogue or used “next door,” but rather to consider the unique situations and needs of their own organizations. Then, with this understanding, a program can be developed and implemented that will facilitate goal-oriented performance. Matching Reward Systems to Management Style Reward System Traditional Participative Source: Adapted from E. E. Lawler, The Design of Effective Reward Systems, Technical Report (Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1983), p. 52. Fringe benefits Vary according to organizational level Cafeteria—same for all levels Promotion All decisions made by top management Open posting for all jobs; peer group involvement in decision process Status symbols A great many, carefully allocated on the basis of job position Few present, low emphasis on organization level Pay type Hourly and salary All salary Base rate Based on job performed; high enough to attract job applicants Based on skills; high enough to provide security and attract applicants Incentive plan Piece rate Group and organization-wide bonus, lump-sum increase Communication policy Very restricted distribution of information Individual rates, salary survey data, all other information made public Decision-making locus Top management Close to location of person whose pay is being set (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY NC-SA-NC-SA 4.0 license) What are the differences between individual and group incentives? What is the variety of reward incentives available to organizations? How do managers and organizations use incentives and rewards effectively to secure the best possible performance from employees? Flexible benefits allow employees to choose the fringe benefits that best suit their needs. A good reward system (1) is closely tied to performance, (2) allows for individual differences, (3) reflects the type of work that is being done, (4) is consistent with the corporate culture, and (5) is carefully monitored over time. Chapter Review Questions Identify the various functions of performance appraisals. How are appraisals used in most work organizations? What are some problems associated with performance appraisals? Define validity and reliability . Why are these two concepts important from a managerial standpoint? How can errors in appraisals be reduced? Critically evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the various techniques of performance appraisal. Discuss the role of feedback in employee performance. What is the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards? Identify the major bases of reward distribution. How does money influence employee motivation? Discuss the relative merits of individual and group incentive programs. Describe the benefits and drawbacks of several of the new approaches to reward systems. Which ones do you feel would be most effective in work organizations? Management Skill Exercises How Would You Rate Your Supervisor? Instructions: Think of your current supervisor or one for any job you have held, and evaluate her on the following dimensions. Give a “1” for very poor, a “3” for average, a “5” for outstanding, etc. Very Poor Average Outstanding Your boss’s knowledge of the job 1 2 3 4 5 Your boss’s leadership skills 1 2 3 4 5 Your boss’s communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 Your boss’s ability to motivate subordinates 1 2 3 4 5 Your boss’s attendance and promptness 1 2 3 4 5 Your boss’s commitment to the organization 1 2 3 4 5 Your boss’s long-term potential for promotion 1 2 3 4 5 What is your overall assessment of your supervisor? 1 2 3 4 5 Think of a current or previous job, and evaluate the source and quality of the feedback you received from your supervisor. When you are through, refer to Appendix B for scoring procedures. How Much Feedback Are You Getting from Your Job? Instructions: Think of a current or previous job. With this in mind, answer the following questions as accurately as possible. My boss lets me know when I make a mistake. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My coworkers help me improve on the job. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I receive formal evaluations from the company on my job. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My boss always tells me when I do a good job. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 This company really appreciates good performance. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 When I do something especially well, I receive a “thanks” from my boss. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My coworkers are very appreciative when I do a good job. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My coworkers compliment me on the quality of my work. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My coworkers are very supportive of my efforts. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I know when I have done a good job. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My job provides me with solid feedback on my performance. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I can see the results when I learn to do something better. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Management Decision Exercises You are the general manager of a floral supplies distributor that provides independent florists with things that they need for their business, such as vases, ribbons, and balloons. You have read that many organizations use incentive pay plans that reward employees when the organization does well. You have 6 drivers, 12 warehouse workers, 3 inside salespeople, and an assistant that reports to you. What types of incentive plan would you propose for an organization like yours? You are the HR manager at a midsized auto parts manufacturer. What are the pros and cons of establishing a 360-degree performance appraisal system in your organizations? Write a memo to the CEO outlining what you think should be done. Critical Thinking Case HubSpot Focus on Flexible Benefits What would your manager say to you if you came up with the idea of traveling with Justin Timberlake on tour for an entire year? This would not just be a work from home agreement but an actual out of office plan for one full-year sabbatical. That is exactly what happened at HubSpot when Rosalia Cefalu had a crazy idea that actually got approved. HubSpot, a global inbound marketing company, has approximately 19,000 customers in over 90 countries and 1,960 employees, stretching from Cambridge, MA, to Sydney, Australia. “We don’t think that culture is about free beer and ping-pong and dogs in the office, it’s about what you believe, why you do what you do, and who you choose to work with,” states CTO and cofounder Dharmesh Shah. Although HubSpot has plenty of free snacks on hand for their employees to enjoy, other flexible benefits HubSpotters enjoy are unlimited vacation time, tuition reimbursement, flexible hours, and an overall environment that balances freedom with accountability. At HubSpot it goes deeper than just the perks. The focus from the top down instills pride and passion within its employees, which then translates into happy customers. Although flexible benefits are a big perk of working at the third-best tech company to work for, according to Glassdoor’s annual Employee Choice awards, the culture isn’t for everyone. The company practices a sense of understanding, knowing that employees will move on and do not need to stay to be loyal and that sometimes someone is no longer needed—either because of performance, or changes in the company’s needs. This isn’t taken personally, and HubSpot is able to grow and continue to grow because it objectively sees the performance of its employees and what is best for the company and employee. Questions: How does HubSpot’s focus on culture affect employee performance? What concerns would you have regarding giving employees countless flexible benefits such as HubSpot does; for example, a yearly sabbatical? Sources: S. Leibowitz. “What it's like to work at HubSpot, one of the best workplaces of 2018.” Business Insider , January 21, 2018, https://www.businessinsider.com/hubspot-best-workplaces-united-states-2018-1; K. M. Newman. “Inside the Company Culture of Hubspot.” Tech.co , April 5, 2013, https://tech.co/company-culture-of-hubspot-2013-04; InHerSight. “Company Profile: Hubspot.” The Motley Fool , October 5, 2016, https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/10/05/company-spotlight-hubspot.aspx. Flexible benefits system A rewards program where employees are allowed some discretion in the determination of their own packages and can make trade-offs, within certain limits. Gain sharing An incentive plan in which employees or customers receive benefits directly as a result of cost-saving measures that they initiate or participate in. Lump-sum pay increase A technique that allows employees to decide how (that is, in what amounts) they wish to receive their pay raises for the coming year. Participative pay decisions Involving employees in pay raise decisions.

Business


Introduction Wolves (Credit: Neil McIntosh/ flickr/ Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)) Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to answer these questions: How do you manage group and intergroup processes effectively? How do group norms, roles, and status systems affect employee behavior and performance? How do managers develop group cohesiveness, which facilitates organizational goal attainment? What are barriers to intergroup cooperation, and how do you take action to minimize such impediments and understand how to get the most out of the collective actions of groups in organizations in order to enhance industrial competitiveness? EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. In the modern workplace, it is more common that an employee is not assigned to just one team in their role. More currently, individuals are being tasked with multiple roles that allow them to work within many teams on many projects. Research done estimates that 81 to 95 percent of employees around the world serve on multiple teams simultaneously. In some cases, this alone can have a negative effect on the way that employees are able to focus on the impact on their stress levels. Leadership plays a big role in combating the negative effects of multiple team memberships, or MTM. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. employees the MTM structure on a daily basis, with its employees working on up to six different projects concurrently. The environmental consulting company based in Baltimore, MD, has to collaborate often and work in a team-based environment to balance stakeholder management and profits. Juggling six different projects at one given time can be stressful to any employee, but structuring the work within different teams gives employees a sense of autonomy so that they know specifically what piece of the project to focus on and contribute their skills to the overall group. Leaders naturally form within groups and take ownership of different tasks, which also is very helpful to both the overall success of the team and individual satisfaction of the employee. Research done with this group and others has shown that when leaders showcase empowering qualities to their employees, subsequently the employees are more proactive. Despite the fact that these individuals worked on many teams under a variety of leaders, the individuals often carried over the empowerment qualities of one leader to their other team even when the other leader was less empowering. Being a part of many teams can help employees with job satisfaction and give them exposure to many leadership types within your organization. It is important to understand the basic dynamics such as those showcased within EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. to best approach tasks and, in this case, multiple team memberships is a highly positive strategy to help bring the best outcome to its business. Based on our earlier analysis of individual behavior, we are now in a position to consider what happens when individuals are placed in work units to perform their tasks. We do this in the next four chapters. The nature of groups and intergroup relations is discussed in this chapter. The topics of job design and organization design as well as effectiveness and productivity may be discussed later in this course. Taken together, these topics provide a solid understanding of organizational structure —that is, how people and work units are put together for purposes of task accomplishment.

Business