ORG 535 Wk 4 – Practice: Evaluations

Explaining Errors in Performance Evaluations

Research consistently reveals that humans have tremendous limitations in processing information. Because we are so limited, we often use “heuristics,” or simplifying mechanisms, to make judgments about many topics, including people. These heuristics, which appear often in subjective measures of performance, can lead to a variety of rater errors.

In this exercise, please read the mini-case and answer the questions that follow.

At the end of every semester, students fill out performance measures to evaluate the quality of instruction and the overall course. Professor Susan Young knew that these evaluations were subject to several errors in rating bias so she decided to investigate whether any of these errors were occurring on her own evaluations. In addition to conducting the evaluation, she had students fill out a brief demographic survey, and she conducted several random interviews with students to find out more information on why they rated her as they did. After gathering all of her data, Professor Young analyzed the information to see if she could identify any trends. What she found was quite interesting. First, after reviewing the evaluations themselves, she discovered that students who thought her tests were difficult tended to rate her negatively in all other areas. After interviewing her students, she found that some of them had rated all of their professors very high, very low, or right down the middle. They did not want to differentiate so they tended to only use one part of the rating scale.

Other students tended to compare Professor Young to other instructors that they had that semester. One student who was planning on taking another course from her in the spring said that if she somehow figured out or knew that the student had given her a high evaluation, she would be more lenient in grading that student’s performance next semester. Finally, in analyzing the demographic data provided by the students, Professor Young found out that the white females were giving her higher ratings than students with other demographic compositions in the class. Professor Young had certainly learned quite a bit in analyzing her performance evaluations. She decided that next semester she would discuss rating errors with her class before having them evaluate her own instruction.

Students who used the difficulty of exams as a basis for rating all other aspects of Professor Young’s performance were probably influenced by

Multiple Choice

Criteria for Conducting Evaluation

Once a company has determined, through job analysis and design, what kind of performance it expects from its employees, it needs to develop ways to measure that performance. Five criteria should be considered when designing performance evaluation measures. First, strategic congruence—alignment with an organization’s corporate strategy, goals, and culture—should be assessed. Next, the company must verify that each measure is valid (relevant) and reliable (consistent). Acceptability of the performance measure is also an important factor to consider. Finally, specificity—the amount of guidance the measure provides employees—should also be evaluated.

In this exercise, please read the mini-case and answer the questions that follow.

Heavenly Handbags was almost ready to roll out the newest version of its performance evaluation form to its sales associates. It had decided to revamp the performance evaluation process to make it more effective and use it as a means to improve employee performance. One element that was added to the form was diversity effectiveness. Heavenly Handbags wanted to emphasize a factor that it believed would give it a competitive edge over other organizations. It created a behavioral diversity measure that assessed employees’ ability to interact with a variety of customers, their use of cultural norms when interacting with co-workers who were different from themselves, and their ability to promote awareness of diversity in the organization. These behaviors were consistent with the overall approach and culture of the company. It also included a measure of actual sales, regardless of geographical area.

Heavenly Handbags assessed with its new performance measure not only for the consistency with the organizational viewpoints, but also because it produced common results. In order to assess this aspect, it did two things. First, it had multiple raters evaluate the same individuals to ensure that they gave similar ratings. Then, the raters evaluated individuals across multiple time periods to review the consistency over time. Another element evaluated on the performance measure was the relevancy of the content. Heavenly Handbags wanted to make sure that the measure assessed all aspects of performance that were relevant to the job and that employees could understand why they were measuring each factor, including sales, service, diversity, and interpersonal skills, and that the measures of these factors were fair. Finally, Heavenly Handbags clearly identified the guidelines and expectations that would be used in evaluating performance.

Having multiple raters evaluate the same employee’s job performance to ensure consistency is a way to assess which of the following?

Multiple Choice