Traditional Methods in performance appraisals
There are number of performance appraisal methods
those have been developed over the time. One method would be best suited for a
company while another is for another company. The organizations follow
different types of appraisal methods since there is no any universal appraisal
method.
According to Lunenburg (2012), three are 3 main
categories of performance appraisals: the judgmental approach, the absolute
standards approach, and the results-oriented approach. According to Nash,
Winstone, Gregory and Papps (2018), the main two categories are Past-Oriented
and Future Oriented Performance appraisals. However, performance appraisals can
be broadly categorized into two categories: Traditional methods and Modern
Methods (Aggarwal and Thakur, 2013).
Traditional
Methods
- Ranking Method
The managers rank their subordinates from best to worst considering the performance or a particular trait. The practice is to write the name of best performer on the top and least performer at the bottom and to repeat the same until all subordinates are listed (Aggarwal and Thakur, 2013). This method is widely used when considering the promotions or merit salary increases (Lunenburg, 2012). The paired comparison ranking method is an extension to ranking method. The employees are compared as pairs until all are compared with each other. Then the manager can assign a rank for each employee depending on the results of the paired comparisons. The paired comparison ranking method is used to overcome the differentiation issues in the middle range employees in the ranking method (Lunenburg, 2012). The ranking method is fast, transparent, simple, and easy to use. However, the method is less objective, can’t determine strengths and weaknesses of the employees, and suitable for organizations with small number of employees (Aggarwal and Thakur, 2013).
- Graphic Rating Scales
The Graphic
scale was introduced by Peterson in 1922 for a Scott Company. The raters were
provided a list of defined qualities and abilities of employees, to mark the
most appropriate level of satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance of each
employee (Erdheim, Zickar and Yankelevich, 2007). The Graphic scale was further
improved by Bradshaw in 1931 by adding “behaviorism” to present the trait
(Aggarwal and Thakur, 2013). Table 1 below illustrates a sample of rating scale
for a manager in which leadership and management dimensions are included. For
each work dimension, 1 to 5 scale is provided for evaluation where 1 is
unacceptable level and 5 is outstanding level. Sum of values for each dimension
is the rating of the employee (Lunenburg, 2012). The graphic rating scale is simple, can obtain
standardized results, and reduce the personal bias of the rater. Still the
rating is subjective (Aggarwal and Thakur, 2013).
- Forced Ranking method
In the forced ranking method, the employees will be categorized into three, four or five performance categories or ‘baskets’ according to the predetermined percentages in each basket (Bates, 2003). By using the forced ranking method, managers are forced to differentiate the subordinates (Grote and Richard, 2005). “Grading on a curve” is an example for forced ranking method (Lunenburg, 2012).
- Critical Incident Method
Fitts and Jones introduced the critical incident method as ‘errors’ rather than ‘critical incidents’, in 1947 to analyze the instrument reading and interpretation errors of the pilots (Aggarwal and Thakur, 2013). In the Critical Incident Method, the manager needs to log both effective and ineffective “incidents” of each employee while doing the job and then to use the observed logs during the performance evaluation (Lunenburg, 2012). The method is based on direct observations however it’s a time-consuming approach to summarize and analyze (Aggarwal and Thakur, 2013).
- Narrative Essays
In
this method the managers need to write about strengths, weaknesses, and
performances of each employee with suggestions for improvements. In some
companies, managers are given a questionary to answer about each employee
(Lunenburg, 2012). The narrative essay method is time consuming; rater needs
effective writing skills (Aggarwal and Thakur, 2013).
The traditional methods of performance appraisals are mostly
dependent on the purview of the manager. The modern methods have been developed
to mitigate the disadvantages of the traditional methods.
- Aggarwal, A. and Thakur, G.S.M., 2013. Techniques of performance appraisal-a review. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), 2(3), pp.617-621.
- Bates, S. (2003). Forced Ranking. [online] SHRM. Available at: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/0603bates.aspx.
[Accessed 18 August 2022].
- Erdheim, J., Zickar, M. and Yankelevich, M., 2007. Remembering Donald G. Paterson: Before the separation between industrial–organizational and vocational psychology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(1), pp.205–221. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.09.001.
- Grote, D., Richard C. 2005. Forced Ranking: Making Performance Management Work. Harvard Business Press.
- Lunenburg, F.C., 2012. Performance appraisal: Methods and rating errors. International journal of scholarly academic intellectual diversity, 14(1), pp.1-9.
- Nash, R.A., Winstone, N.E., Gregory, S.E. and Papps, E., 2018. A memory advantage for past-oriented over future-oriented performance feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(12), p.1864.
Aguinis,(2019) have discussed, To overcome central bias, performance assessments should be based on specific capabilities. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses. Maybe one of your employees is not a powerful speaker, but they are a good writer. Instead of focusing on public speaking, push them to improve their writing skills, assign them preparation, and build them there. The most valuable information employees can get from the review process is insights into their strengths and areas that need improvement. Managers are encouraged to really emphasize these two aspects in the evaluation of each employee so that they can later develop an effective development plan.
ReplyDeleteHi Isham,
DeleteYes, some one is good at one capability while another one is good at another capability. The appraiser should try to minimize the rating errors. In the research done by Curtis, Harvey and Ravden (2005), it was revealed that appraisal accuracy depends on the ‘accountability of the rater’ and ‘purpose of the appraisal’
The company I work for also uses Graphic rating scales to measure employee performance. To make this method more successful, each response category should be very clear, and the person who provides the ratings should understand and be able to tell what the response was intended and the performance dimension rated should be clearly explained to the rater (AGUINIS, 2013).
ReplyDeleteThe Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) method is a modern method which can be used instead of Graphical Rating Scale method. The BARS method was introduced by Smith and Kendall as a combination of critical incident and graphic rating scale methods to overcome the reliability and validity issues in the performance ratings. In this method the raters are observers not the judgers. The scale is more informative and descriptive than just a number scale (Aggarwal and Thakur, 2013).
DeleteThe school I work for also use the Graphical rating scale to measure the performance of the employees. In my school they clearly mention all the aspects they consider in the appraisal form. Apart from that peer reviews which are also another form of performance appraisals are also conducted for the probationary teachers until the probation period is over.
ReplyDeleteHi Nimshi,
DeleteYes peer review will reduce the rating errors. Not only the peer review, it's better to extend for other stake holders also. I suggest to have 360 degree feedback method first then can extend to 720 degree appraisal method. The 360-degree appraisal method is a multi-rated technique which relies on the feedback of the manager, subordinates, colleagues, customers, suppliers or even the spouse. The 360-degree method is more objective, accurate and reliable compared to other methods (Aggarwal and Thakur, 2013).
Also Grading Scale strategy surveys the level of specific characteristics required for the activity, for example, unwavering quality and steadfastness. The degree is usually reliability and dependability. The degree is normally estimated on a scale (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor). An employee will be evaluated according to these grades and assigned to the level that best describes their performance (Cardy, Balkin, Gómez-Mejía, 2014).
ReplyDeleteThe modern approach, Behavioral Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) is more effective than the grading scale strategy. As you have mentions here the scale is more informative and descriptive than just a number scale (Aggarwal and Thakur, 2013).
DeleteHello Dulshan
ReplyDeletesome of the human traits cannot actually be measured as they rely on the perception of the appraiser due to their subjective nature. These failures of performance appraisal can be attributed to ambiguous performance standards, rater bias, lengthy process of form filling and documenting, and wrong selection of performance criteria.
Do you agree with my statement regarding on traditional appraisal method?
Yes Archana, I totally agree with you. In contrast to the Traditional methods of performance appraisals, Modern performance appraisal methods have been developed to mitigate the shortcomings such as bias and subjectivity (Aggarwal and Thakur, 2013).
Delete