PMAS
PMAS
PMAS
2 Marks Questions:
7 Marks Question:
20. What are the various implications of Performance Linked Reward System?
15 Marks Question:
23. Discuss the process of Performance Planning along with the barriers to it.
The rating form typically covers various factors like job knowledge, judgment,
dependability, leadership, etc. Supervisors mark these factors horizontally, often
using descriptive phrases to guide their evaluation. This method is straightforward
and easy to use. It helps identify areas where employees need improvement, and
the scores on specific factors can be added up to get an overall performance score.
However, traditional rating systems face criticism for being unclear, leading to
differing perceptions, being too lenient or strict, having a central tendency to rate
everyone as average, exhibiting the halo effect where one positive trait influences
the rating of other traits, and being influenced by an individual's job rather than
their actual performance. The main criticism is that they focus on personality traits
rather than job performance, making them highly subjective without clear
standards.
These new procedures aim to address the shortcomings of traditional rating scales.
Let's break them down:
1. Rank-Order Procedure: Employees are ranked from first to last based on
their performance or traits. Simple to understand but gets complex with
many employees.
2. Paired-Comparison System: Each employee is compared with every other
employee, and the appraiser marks who they consider better. The final
ranking is based on these comparisons, but it becomes difficult with many
employees.
3. Critical Incident Method: Superiors track critical incidents in
accomplishing job requirements, building a record of each employee's
performance. Relies on objective evidence rather than subjective ratings.
4. Field Review: An appraisal by someone outside the employee's department,
often from the corporate or HR department. Involves reviewing employee
records and interviews. Useful for managerial promotions and when
comparing employees from different units.
5. Forced Distribution Procedure: Imagine you have a group of employees,
and you want to rate their performance. With forced distribution, you're told
to rate them in a specific way, like saying a certain percentage must be rated
as top performers, a certain percentage as average, and a certain percentage
as needing improvement. This helps prevent biases like being too easy or too
hard on everyone.
6. Forced Choice Technique: In this method, instead of just rating employees
on a scale, you're given pairs of statements about them, and you have to
choose which statement fits them best and which fits them least. Each
statement has a score, but you don't know what that score is. This makes it
harder for you to be biased because you're not just picking the most positive
option. It helps make evaluations more fair and objective.
Perception and value systems can greatly influence evaluations in the workplace,
leading to various biases that can compromise the credibility of performance
appraisals. Here are some common syndromes related to biases in evaluations:
1. Halo Effect:
This bias occurs when the assessment of one positive trait of an
employee influences the evaluation of the individual on other traits.
For example, if an employee is perceived as friendly, this may
positively impact how they are rated on other qualities, regardless of
their actual performance.
2. Horns Effect:
Conversely, the Horns Effect happens when one negative trait of an
employee colors the entire appraisal. If an employee is seen as having
one flaw, such as being occasionally late, this may unfairly lower their
overall rating.
3. Leniency or Strictness:
Leniency or Constant Error occurs when appraisers consistently rate
employees too highly or too harshly, regardless of their actual
performance. Lenient raters may give high ratings to all employees,
while strict raters may consistently undervalue performance.
4. Central Tendency:
This is when appraisers assign middle-range scores to all individuals
under appraisal, avoiding extreme ratings. This can result in average
ratings being given to employees, regardless of their actual
performance.
5. Spill-over Effect:
The Spill-over Effect happens when past performance influences the
evaluation of present performance. For example, if an employee had a
particularly strong performance in the past, this may influence how
their current performance is evaluated.
6. Personal Bias:
Personal Bias is perhaps the most significant error and stems from
individuals' values and prejudices influencing their judgments. Few
people can make completely objective judgments independent of their
personal biases.
1. Halo Effect: Imagine you have a friend who's always smiling and friendly. You might assume
they're good at everything, even if you haven't seen them do it. That's the Halo Effect - one good
trait makes you think everything about them is good.
2. Horns Effect: Now, imagine you have a classmate who's often late to class. You might start
thinking they're not good at anything, even if they're great at other things. That's the Horns Effect
- one bad trait makes you judge everything about them negatively.
3. Leniency or Strictness: Some people always give high scores, no matter what. Others are
always tough graders. These biases can make it hard to get a fair evaluation.
4. Central Tendency: Imagine you have a teacher who always gives everyone a "C" grade, no
matter how well they did. That's central tendency - they avoid giving high or low scores, sticking
to the middle.
5. Spill-over Effect: If someone did really well in the past, you might assume they're still doing
great, even if they're not. That's the spill-over effect - past success affects how you see their
current performance.
6. Personal Bias: We all have our own opinions and beliefs. Sometimes, these can sneak into our
judgments, making them unfair. It's important to try to be objective and judge based on facts, not
feelings.