FORGET THE DON TS LETS FOCUS ON WHAT WE DO KNOW ABOUT PM

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "FORGET THE DON TS LETS FOCUS ON WHAT WE DO KNOW ABOUT PM"

Hector Dorsey
5 years ago
Views:

1 FORGET THE DON TS LETS FOCUS ON WHAT WE DO KNOW ABOUT PM Paul E. Levy, Ph.D. Professor and Chair, Department of Psychology Fall 2016

2 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Performance Appraisal: Systematic review and evaluation of job performance (Levy, 2016). Performance Management: Continuous process of identifying, measuring, and developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organization (Aguinis, 2013).

3 PM: THE GOOD, THE BAD WHEN IT GOES WELL, THESE GET BETTER 1 WHEN IT DOESN T, IT S NOT PRETTY 1 Motivation Increased turnover Managers insight Self-insight Fairness of decisions Employee competence Better legal protection Differentiation among EEs EE engagement Clarification of duties Supervisor communication Use of misleading information Wasted time and money Damaged relationships Decreased motivation Job burnout Increased risk of litigation Unjustified demands Emerging biases 1 Aguinis, 2013

4 IT S NOT EASY!

6 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT MATTERS! Man never gets away from measurement during his stay on earth. At birth he is measured to ascertain his weight, and at death he is measured to determine his length. After death, two dates are carved on his tombstone to indicate the span of his life. Measures permeate and influence all of his activities. Progress in any line depends largely on ability to measure exactly. (F.A. Moss, 1927). We can t measure exactly. For decades all of the PM research was focused on measurement. Measurement will always be important, but we can t forget that PM takes place within a social context and that context affects every facet of the process.

7 WHAT DO WE KNOW? Feedback: Most researchers and practitioners believe that feedback is the backbone of PM Characteristics of the Recipient Individual Differences: Locus of Control Self-esteem Conscientiousness Feedback Orientation Learning Goal Orientation Feedback Seeking Motivation to Use Fdbk Intention to Use Fdbk Performance Lam & Schaubroeck, 2000; Fedor et al, 2001; Colquitt, et al., 2000; Brown et al., 2001; Heslin et al., 2005; Dominick et al., 2004; Krasman, 2010; Cianci et al., 2010; Linderbaum & Levy, 2010; Dahling, et al., 2012; Whitaker & Levy, 2012

8 WHAT DO WE KNOW? Characteristics of the Feedback Source Recipient s Perspective on the Source: Credibility/Expertise Trustworthiness Relationship Quality Leadership Style Power Feedback Seeking Satisfaction w/ Fdbk Usefulness of Fdbk Accuracy of Fdbk Fairness of Fdbk Performance Turnover Intentions Albright & Levy, 1995; Ilgen et al., 1979; Stone et al., 1984; Vancouver & Morrison, 1995; Williams, et al., 1999; Moss et al., 2009; Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008; Pat-El, et al., 2012; Levy, et al., 2002; Van den Bossche et al., 2010; Strijbos et al., 2010; Ashford et al., 2003;

9 WHAT DO WE KNOW? Feedback Message Timing of feedback is important immediacy leads to more behavior change and better performance Regular, informal feedback helps EEs understand where they excel and where there is room for improvement Frequent, informal feedback conversations lead to better formal PA feedback sessions Ilgen et al., 1979; Hays et al., 2013; van der Kleij et al., 2012; London, 2003; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996;

10 FREQUENT INFORMAL FEEDBACK Many of the proposed changes to the PA process involves frequent, informal feedback. We know a lot about that as well. Contextual factors shape the feedback process Feedback Environment: The day-to-day feedback process taking place within organizations among employees, coworkers, and supervisors Creating an environment that is supportive of constructive day-to-day feedback exchanges

11 WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE FE Steelman, et al., 2004; Anseel & Lievens, 2007; Peng & Lin, 2016; Gregory & Levy, 2011; Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008; Rosen et al., 2006; Whitaker et al., 2007; Dahling et al., 2015; Gabriel et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2007; Peng & Chiu, 2010; Norris-Watts & Levy, 2003; Dahling et al., 2012; Dahling et al., 2016; Chawla et al., 2016

, 2004; Kuvaas, 2006; Jawahar, 2010; Salimaki & Jamsen, 2010; Kavanaugh, et al.

12 WHAT DO WE KNOW APPRAISAL REACTIONS?? Keeping & Levy, 2000; Whiting et al., 2008; Elicker et al., 2006; Lizzio et al., 2008; Kinicki, et al., 2004; Kuvaas, 2006; Jawahar, 2010; Salimaki & Jamsen, 2010; Kavanaugh, et al., 2007; Chory & Westerman, 2009; Pichler, 2012; Levy & Williams, 2004; Levy et al., in press; Giles & Mossholder, 1990; Denisi & Pritchard, 2006; Taylor et al, 1995; Cawley et al., 1998;

13 RATER MOTIVATION AND ACCOUNTABIILTY Rater errors may stem from the complexity and difficulty of the task, but may also stem from alternative motivation. So, rater motivation is really important and accountability goes hand-in-hand with that. When context encourages accuracy, raters are more accurate. When context encourages leniency or favorability toward certain groups, you get leniency or favorability. Managers hold EEs accountable for specific behaviors and outcomes which affects EE performance. Biased (lenient) ratings are most likely when managers are not held accountable. Inadvertent biases too such as those driven by an Implicit Bias race, gender, etc. Mero & Motwidlo, 1995; Mero et al, 2006, 2007, 2014; Spence & Keeping, 2011; Bernardin et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2013; Heilman & Chen, 2005; Stauffer & Buckley, 2005

14 RATER MOTIVATION AND ACCURACY 3 main reasons for intentional rating distortion: Avoid negative consequences how can I avoid conflict? Compliance with organizational norms what s everybody else doing? Pursuit of self-interest how can this help me? Individual Differences Rater experience more expertise, less affected by pressure to rate leniently Most lenient ratings from managers who are high on Agreeableness, low on Conscientiousness, and low on Assertiveness Spence & Keeping, 2010; Bernardin et al, 2000; Villanova et al., 1993; Tziner et al., 2005; Longenecker et al., 1987; Villanova & Bernardin, 1989; Bernardin et al., 1981; Spence & Keeping, 2011; Bernardin et al., 2015

15 SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? without a perfect system.. welcome to the real world! with lots of info about how the feedback source, message, and recipient co-exist in a social context that has large implications for how the PM system works. with a good (not great) knowledge base around rating errors, rater motivation, holding raters and ratees accountable, and rating accuracy. frustrated with the feeling that the performance ratings part of PM is more trouble than it s worth. with most (almost all) CEOs wanting to know something about the performance of each of their employees at a place where an informed, thoughtful, and open discussion around PM (and ratings) that is based on research and organizational experiences/needs is dope.

Lesson 12. Understanding and Managing Individual Behavior

Lesson 12. Understanding and Managing Individual Behavior Lesson 12 Understanding and Managing Individual Behavior Learning Objectives 1. Identify the focus and goals of individual behavior within organizations. 2. Explain the role that attitudes play in job