Chapter 6

Gathering Performance
Information
This chapter describes:

• issues related to the administration of appraisal forms.

• how to choose the source(s) of performance data (e.g.,
supervisors, self, subordinates, peers, or customers).
• reasons why raters are likely, either intentionally or
unintentionally, to distort performance ratings and
• what can be done to improve the accuracy of ratings.
 Appraisal Forms
• An important component of the performance assessment
stage is the use of appraisal forms.
• These forms are instruments used to document and
evaluate performance.
• Information on performance is collected by using forms,
which can be filled out on paper or electronically.
• Advantages of filling out forms electronically is that the
information is stored and can easily be shared, modified
and updated.
Appraisal forms usually include a combination of the following
components:
• Basic employee information
• Accountabilities, objectives, and standards
• Competencies and indicators
• Major achievements and contributions
• Developmental achievements (could be included in a separate
form)
• Developmental needs, plans, and goals (could be included in a
separate form)
• Stakeholder input
• Employee comments
• Signatures
• Basic employee information :
This section of the form includes basic employee
information such as job title, division, department and
other work group information, employee number, and pay
grade or salary classification.
In addition, forms usually include the dates of the
evaluation period, the number of months and years the
rater has supervised or worked with the employee, an
employee’s starting date with the company and starting
date in the current job, the reason for the appraisal,
current salary and position in range, and the date of the
next scheduled evaluation.
• Accountabilities, objectives, and standards:
If the organization adopts a results approach, this section of the
form would include the name and description of each
accountability, objectives agreed upon by manager and employee,
and the extent to which the objectives have been achieved.
In many instances, the objectives are weighted in terms of
importance, which facilitates the calculation of an overall
performance score.
Finally, this section can also include a subsection describing
conditions under which performance was achieved, which may help
explain why the employee achieved the (high or low) performance
level described.
• Competencies and indicators:
If the organization adopts a behavior approach, this section of the
form includes a definition of the various competencies to be assessed,
together with their behavioral indicators.
• Major achievements and contributions :
Some forms include a section in which a rater is asked to list the two or
three major accomplishments of the individual being rated during the
review period. These could refer to results, behaviors, or both.
• Developmental achievements (could be included in a separate
form):
This section of the form includes information about the extent to which the
developmental goals set for the review period have been achieved. Evidence
of having learned new skills can be documented, for example, by obtaining a
professional certification.
• Developmental needs, plans, and goals (could be
included in a separate form):
This section of the form is future oriented and includes
information about specific goals and timetables in terms of
employee development. This information is optional as part of
the performance appraisal form.
• Stakeholder input:
In most cases, input from other stakeholders is by using
separate form because not all sources of performance
information are in the position to rate the same performance
dimensions. For example, an employee may be rated on the
competency “teamwork” by peers and on the competency
“reliability” by a customer.
• Employee comments:
This section includes reactions and comments provided by
the employee being rated. the inclusion of this section
helps with legal issues because it documents that the
employee has had an opportunity to participate in the
evaluation process.
• Signatures:
The final section of most forms includes a section in which
the employee being rated, the rater, and the rater’s
supervisor provide their signatures to show they have seen
and discussed the content of the form. The HR department
may also provide approval of the content of the form.
 Features of appraisal forms
• Simplicity
• Relevancy
• Descriptiveness
• Adaptability
• Comprehensiveness
• Definitional clarity
• Communication
• Time orientation
• Simplicity :
Forms must be easy to understand, easy to administer, quick to
complete, clear, and concise. Otherwise assessment process will not be
effective.
• Relevancy:
Good forms include information related directly to the tasks and
responsibilities of the job; otherwise, they will be regarded as an
administrative burden and not as a tool for performance improvement.
• Descriptiveness:
The form should be sufficiently descriptive that an outside party (e.g.,
supervisor’s supervisor or HR department) has a clear understanding of the
performance information conveyed.
• Adaptability :
Good forms allow managers in different functions and departments to
adapt them to their particular needs and situations.
• Comprehensiveness:
It include all the major areas of performance for a
particular position for the entire review period.
• Definitional clarity :
Desirable competencies and results are clearly defined for
all raters so that everyone evaluates the same attributes.
• Communication :
The meaning of each of the components of the form must be successfully
communicated to all people participating in the evaluation process.
• Time orientation:
Good forms help clarify expectations about performance. They
address not only the past but also the future.
 Determining overall rating
• After the form has been completed, there is usually a need to
compute an overall performance score. This is particularly
necessary for making administrative decisions such as the
allocation of rewards.
• Two approaches are available: judgmental and mechanical.
• The judgmental procedure consists of considering every
aspect of performance and then arriving at a fair and
defensible summary.
• The mechanical procedure consists of combining the scores
assigned to each performance dimension, usually taking into
account the relative weight given to each dimension.
• The mechanical procedure is recommended over the
judgmental procedure, which is more prone to biases.
• Rounding of overall scores can be implemented
(upward or downward) based on the information
included in the “comments” section of the appraisal
forms.
• However, for this to happen, there must be a
systematic analysis of this text-based information and
raters must be provided clear guidelines regarding
what to include in these “comments” sections.
 Appraisal period and number
meetings
• It is recommended that the period for review be six
months (i.e., semiannual) or three months (i.e.,
quarterly).
• This provides fairly frequent opportunities for a formal
discussion about performance issues between the subordinate
and the supervisor.
• It is more convenient if the completion of the appraisal form
coincides with the fiscal year so that rewards can be allocated
shortly after the employee has received his or her
performance review.
• Performance management systems can include up to six
separate formal meetings between the supervisor and the
subordinate:
• (1) system inauguration,
• (2) self-appraisal,
• (3) classical performance review,
• (4) merit/salary review,
• (5) development plan, and
• (6) objective setting.
• In practice, these meetings are usually condensed into two or so meetings
during each review cycle. One point that should be emphasized is that
these are formal meetings. Informal meetings involving a discussion of
performance issues should take place on an ongoing basis.
 Sources of performance information
• Several sources can be used to obtain performance
supervisors, peers,
information:
subordinates, self, and customers.
• Before selecting a source, one needs to be sure that the
source has firsthand knowledge of the employee’s
performance.
• Using each of these sources has advantages and
disadvantages, none of which are foolproof, and not all
may be available in all situations.
• However, it is important that employees take part in
the process of selecting which sources will evaluate
which performance dimensions.
• Active participation in the process is likely to enhance
acceptance of results and perceptions that the system
is fair.
Disagreement Across Sources: Is This a
Problem?
• When multiple sources of performance information are
used, there may be disagreements about an
employee’s performance level, even if these multiple
sources are rating the same performance dimension.
• same employee may be drawn from different
organizational levels, and they may observe different
facets of the employee’s performance, even if they are
evaluating the same general competency (e.g.,
“communication”).
If an overall score is needed that considers all sources, then
a weighting mechanism is needed.
For example, a decision needs to be made regarding
whether performance information provided by the
supervisor has more or less relative importance than that
provided by customers.
There is no need to summarize the information across
the sources for feedback purposes; in fact, it is beneficial
for the employee to receive feedback broken down by
source so that the employee can place particular attention
and effort on the interactions involving any source that has
detected performance deficiencies.
 A model of rater motivation
• In providing performance information, raters may make
intentional errors.
• These errors may involve inflating or deflating
performance scores.
• For example, a supervisor may want to avoid a
confrontation with his or her employees and inflate ratings.
• A peer may believe that providing accurate ratings may
jeopardize the relationship with a colleague and may,
consequently, provide inflated ratings.
• When raters provide performance ratings, they are faced with
providing either accurate or inaccurate ratings. They weigh
costs and benefits of choosing one or the other path.
• If the cost/benefit equation does not favor providing accurate
ratings, it is likely that ratings will be distorted.
• When this happens, incorrect decisions may be made,
employees are likely to feel they have been treated unfairly,
and the organization is more prone to litigation.
• In other words, when performance ratings are distorted
because raters are not motivated to provide accurate scores,
the performance management system not only will fail to
achieve desired outcomes but also may lead to very negative
consequences for the organization.
• When raters provide performance ratings, they are faced with
providing either accurate or inaccurate ratings. They weigh
costs and benefits of choosing one or the other path.
• If the cost/benefit equation does not favor providing accurate
ratings, it is likely that ratings will be distorted.
• When this happens, incorrect decisions may be made,
employees are likely to feel they have been treated unfairly,
and the organization is more prone to litigation.
• In other words, when performance ratings are distorted
because raters are not motivated to provide accurate scores,
the performance management system not only will fail to
achieve desired outcomes but also may lead to very negative
consequences for the organization.
• Rating behaviors are influenced by (1) the motivation to
provide accurate ratings and (2) the motivation to
distort ratings.
• • Reasons for implementing the performance
management system. This includes an overview of the
entire system, its purpose, and benefits for all
employees.
• Reasons for Rating Distortion:
 Preventing rating distortion through rater rating
programmes
• Intentional and unintentional distortion in
performance ratings can be minimized by providing
raters with extensive training.
• Such training programs include content related to
information, motivation, and skills.
• For example, regarding information, training
programs address an overview of the entire
performance management system.
• Regarding motivation, raters are given information about
how rating employees accurately will provide them with
direct and tangible benefits.
• Training programs can demonstrate how to conduct an
appraisal interview.
• No performance management system is foolproof, and
performance ratings are inherently subjective; however,
the implementation of such training programs, together
with accountability (i.e., having to justify ratings to
superiors in a face-to-face meeting) and rewards
associated with accurate ratings, provides raters with the
needed motivation and skills to minimize rating errors.