|
|
The traits
assessed on these scales include employee attributes such as cooperation,
communications ability, initiative, punctuality and technical (work skills)
competence. The nature and scope of the traits selected for inclusion is
limited only by the imagination of the scale's designer, or by the organization's
need to know. The one major
provision in selecting traits is that they should be in some way relevant
to the appraisee's job. The traits selected by some organizations have
been unwise and have resulted in legal action on the grounds of discrimination. Each employee
is subjected to the same basic appraisal process and rating criteria, with
the same range of responses. This encourages equality in treatment for
all appraisees and imposes standard measures of performance across all
parts of the organization. Rating scale
methods are easy to use and understand. The concept of the rating scale
makes obvious sense; both appraisers and appraisees have an intuitive appreciation
for the simple and efficient logic of the bipolar scale. The result is
widespread acceptance and popularity for this approach. For example,
the trait "initiative" might not be very important in a job that is tightly
defined and rigidly structured. In such cases, a low appraisal rating for
initiative may not mean that an employee lacks initiative. Rather, it may
reflect that fact that an employee has few opportunities to use and display
that particular trait. The relevance of rating scales is therefore said
to be context-sensitive. Job and workplace circumstances must be taken
into account. Systemic
Disadvantage This is an
assumption very difficult to prove in practice. It is possible that an
employee's performance may depend on factors that have not been included
in the selected traits. Such employees may end up with ratings that do
not truly or fairly reflect their effort or value to the organization.
Employees in this class are systemically disadvantaged by the rating scale
method. Perceptual
Errors Selective
perception is the human tendency to make private and highly subjective
assessments of what a person is "really like", and then seek evidence to
support that view (while ignoring or downplaying evidence that might contradict
it). This is a
common and normal psychological phenomenon. All human beings are affected
by it. In other words, we see in others what we want to see in them. An example
is the supervisor who believes that an employee is inherently good (halo
effect) and so ignores evidence that might suggest otherwise. Instead of
correcting the slackening employee, the supervisor covers for them and
may even offer excuses for their declining performance. On the other
hand, a supervisor may have formed the impression that an employee is bad
(horns effect). The supervisor becomes unreasonably harsh in their assessment
of the employee, and always ready to criticize and undermine them. The horns
and halo effect is rarely seen in its extreme and obvious forms. But in
its more subtle manifestations, it can be a significant threat to the effectiveness
and credibility of performance appraisal. Perceived
Meaning For example,
to one appraiser, an employee may demonstrate the trait of initiative by
reporting work problems to a supervisor. To another appraiser, this might
suggest an excessive dependence on supervisory assistance - and thus a
lack of initiative. As well,
the language and terms used to construct a scale - such as "Performance
exceeds expectations" or "Below average skill" - may mean different things
to different appraisers. Rating
Errors The most
common rating error is central tendency. Busy appraisers, or those wary
of confrontations and repercussions, may be tempted to dole out too many
passive, middle-of-the-road ratings (e.g., "satisfactory" or "adequate"),
regardless of the actual performance of a subordinate. Thus the spread
of ratings tends to clump excessively around the middle of the scale. This problem
is worsened in organizations where the appraisal process does not enjoy
strong management support, or where the appraisers do not feel confident
with the task of appraisal. |
|
