Business // MEASUREMENT ISSUES
Abstract
There has not been a foolproof method of accurately measuring the performance of employees. Many formats have been tried and many more are under study and experiment. In the past and even at present and despite a number of rating and ranking formats, performance is still – and perhaps cannot be helped but be – subjective. Most organizations do not have objective criteria to go by. And even if there are, performance will still be essentially subjective as human beings rate other human beings. Forced rankings are the choice of the most successful business organizations for their high profiles. These big users contend that the method allows them to appraise every employee independently of others and identity top performers and segregate poor ones. But absolute forced distribution systems are recommended by this paper because it has established rating and ranking norms or policies on appraising employee behavior in relation to his job for which he is hired. The absolute type is preferred to the relative type, which evaluates an employee in comparison and on his relation with other employees, This connection between the behavior and performance is what will make the team work and the organization achieve its goals, mission and vision. Its defects can be reduced or eliminated when adjusted to certain factors, including the size of an organization, the frequency of providing employees with feedback on their performance rating and ranking, protection of poor performers from harsh consequences of poor rating and ranking, the variability of performance ratings, and when work success is not equated with team work output.
How Performance is Measured
It is understandable why organizational managers and leaders focus their resources on the issues surrounding performance management, particularly performance measurement (Aguinis, 2009). Performance management spans supervision of skills and talents, leadership development and work intensification in enabling as well as motivating employee productivity (Aguinis, 2009).
Formats
Rating employee performance has been commonly used in the absence of objective measures in many types of job (Smither & London, 2009). Performance is rated even when there are objective measures that can be used or applied, according to research. Issues are not limited to a lack of objective measures. There too are a deficiency of criteria and what is called contamination. It may be safe to say that there is no genuine job performance. As it is, ratings and objective measures of employee productivity, for example, are mere indicators of different facets of employee performance (Smither & London, 2009).
This was why, for many decades, organizations continue to experiment on different formats to evaluate employee performance with the end-view of reducing errors (Smither & London, 2009). These formats include forced choice, critical incidents, behaviorally anchored rating scales, mixed standard scales, behavioral observation scales and performance distribution assessment. Raters attend training programs aimed at reducing rating errors (Smithe & London, 2009). Diamante (2009) called attention to other organizational components that accrue to the overall psychological and behavioral situations in the workplace. Among these are organizational citizenship, job satisfaction and employee commitment and other measures of employee productivity. The one goal is to upgrade these conditions to the highest possible level for the manager, the employee and organization itself (Diamente, 2009). Forced ranking is the most popular method today as used by successful businesses (Dominick, 2009). But research reveals that it is not an effective method of performance evaluation. It has garnered much popularity on account of the high profiles of the companies that use it. Nonetheless, human resource professionals, researchers and the private sector have criticized it. These companies include General Electric, Hewlett-Packard and Sun-Micro Systems (Dominick, 2009).
. Chosen Method: Forced Distributions
This method caught much attention in the media in recent years (Smither & London, 2009). It is either absolute or relative. The Absolute forced distribution systems appraise each employee on the basis of their specific job-related behaviors. These systems include behaviorally anchored rating scales and behavioral observation scales. With the use of the same behavior standards, employees tend to be rate alike. On the other hand, the relative distribution rating systems evaluate employees in their relation to one another in order to determine who among them should be classified as best, next best and downward. These systems include forced ranking or distribution. Most of them are categorized or ranked on a five-point rating basis. The rating may be 10% for the highest-ranking, 20% for the next highest, 60% for those in the middle, and 10% for the lowest-ranking (Smither & London, 2009).
Pros
Those who favor this method maintain that the systems decrease or get rid of artificially bloated ratings (Taylor & Wherry, 1951 as qtd in Smither & London, 2009). They claim that this capability leads organizations to discover best-performing employees in order to reward them. At the same time, the method, also determines the poor performers and make them accountable for their lukewarm performance. Advocates believe that this method is fair to low-performing employees in that it lets these employees know their status in the organization so that they may decide on what to do about it. They may decide to change jobs or employment, which will enhance their chances of succeeding (Smither & London, 2009).
The absolute method is rated as preferable to the relative method. It has established criteria or norms on which to evaluate behaviors appropriate to, and relate with, an employee’s job expectations. After all, employees are basically hired to accomplish concrete goals for which his position was created. Alongside, there are standards or policies on behavior in most or all organizations by which employees are expected to abide. They are hired not only on the basis of their aptitude but also for possessing traits of behaviors that accrue to the successful implementation of the description of his job. He is, thus, to be rated on the basis of these two criteria and this is appropriate and equitable.
Cons
Opponents of this method argue that it encourages favoritism, political agenda, and manipulation just like any other method (Smither & London, 2009). They also believe that the method is not advisable if the number of employees is small. McBriarty (1988 as qtd in Smither & London, 2009) noted its negative effect on fairness and the morale of the workforce. The high likelihood of comparison among employees will trigger contention and damage the spirit of teamwork and cooperation. A competitive attitude is thus likely to emanate from this chain reaction. It is particularly harmful to an employee’s self-identity and that threat in the employee tends to intensify when he is compared with another with whom he may feel equal to in productivity or better in their group or category. This is especially true because members of a team are familiar with one another’s performance and personality. In addition, the threatened employee has his own perception of his own productivity and behavior in comparison to others in the team that the rater cannot be as aware of as the employee himself. These factors are usual in the context in which most forced ranking and distribution systems are implemented. And this competitive or uneasy feeling is even more intense among employees in higher ranks or categories. The result is often a reluctance to cooperate with one another rather than improve group cooperation and team work (Smither &London, 2009).
Recommendations
Absolute forced distribution rating systems are most suitable for most organizations. More and more studies provide evidence of more favorable responses to the use of these systems (Smither & London, 2009). These favorable reactions have been found in organizations where the poor ratings of low-performing employees do not have harsh effects. Organizations that favor the systems are those with a comparatively large workforce. This is also true to those where there are variables in performance ranking, when employees receive periodic feedback of their performance rating and ranking, and where success is interpreted or is not dependent on results or team work (Smither & London, 2009). These are, thus, the recommended method.
A survey conducted among human resource professionals by Lawler (2003 as qtd in Smither & London, 2009) revealed that the use of these systems, as compared to companies not using them, enabled them to better able to distinguish between performance levels. This outcome allows raters to identity and reward the identified as best performing as well as supervise poor performers as to improving their output and behavior. Those not using the systems said that the systems they used proved less effective at developing those they discovered to possess talents. Other systems, thus, proved to be less effective than the forced distribution systems in the overall implementation, according to the survey (Lawles, 2003 as qtd in Smither & London, 2009). The benefits and merits of the systems appear to override the criticisms against them.
WORKS CITED
Aguinis, H. (2009). An expanded view of performance management. Performance Management
(pp 1-37). San Francisco, CA, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Diamante, T. (2009). The valuation of behavior in a negotiated business outcome. Performance
Management (pp. 411-440). San Francisco, CA, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dominick, P. G. (2009). Forced rankings: pros, cons and practices. Performance Management
(pp. 491-519). San Francisco, CA, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Smither, J. W. & London, Manuel (2009). Best practices in performance management.
Performance Management (pp. 585-614). San Francisco, CA, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2018/5324
