Key To Equitable Performance Evaluations: Effective Training
Employees must view appraisals of their performance as equitable if they are to accept the performance management system.? But managers tend to vary in the level of expectations they set for their employees.? The perception that standards are uneven across managers can create significant dissatisfaction and the feeling that the playing field is not level.? An additional concern is that uneven performance standards can cause statistically significant adverse impact on protected classes. Training managers is the most obvious strategy for gaining consistency but most traditional approaches that focus on identifying various types of rater error have been shown by research to be only moderately effective.? The approach that has shown to be the most effective is using “frame of reference” (FOR) training.
Frame of reference training focuses on developing a consistent set of performance standards.? Managers work in groups on a case that consists of several completed appraisals, that have commentary about job-related results and behaviors, but no ratings. During the training individual managers independently arrive at their own ratings, factor by factor and overall.? Their individual results are compiled and then presented to the group, which is tasked to come up with a common set of ratings.? Those whose ratings vary from the majority initially are invited to provide their rationale and through group discussion consensus ratings are arrived at.? The dialogue between participants leads to a common frame of reference as to what constitutes adequate performance, performance that significantly exceeds standards and performance that does not fully meet standards.? This consensus is used to develop rich definitions of what performance at the various rating levels looks like.? These standards then are used in the future to guide ratings.
When performance rating distributions across managers are first compared it is often found that significant differences exist.? A metropolitan utility that did a “dry run” of a new performance appraisal system found that the percentage of employees receiving “outstanding” ratings varied from 1% to 60% across departments.? Even though it is likely that distributions will have some legitimate variation due to the mix of the workforce in each unit this wide a difference is also likely to be caused by a significantly different understanding of what rating levels are intended to mean.? If these differences are not analyzed and addressed the result will be inequitable ratings across departments and a resulting inequity in the administrative consequences.? Employees are inherently suspicious that peers working for other managers are getting higher ratings for the same level of performance due to differences in the level of expectations held by managers.? Most of us suspected that when we did not get As in school it was due to bad luck, since we got the hardest grader as a teacher. This can erode satisfaction and can lead to legal action if pay or other outcomes are tied to appraisal ratings.?
An application of frame of reference training
To ensure pay administration was equitable and competitive an employer created a new performance appraisal format that would be used for all employees.? Management was committed to ensuring that equivalent performance standards were being used by all managers, so that appraisals were equitable across departments.? Employees not covered by a collective bargaining contract had their pay actions tied to performance appraisal ratings, thereby making equity even more important.?
A two-part training program was developed.? Part One consisted in a series of group sessions with both managers and employees in attendance.? The principles of sound performance management were presented, and open discussion was encouraged.? The decision to have all types of employees in the sessions together was based on the desire to openly discuss the challenges associated with performance appraisal and to ensure everyone knew they had all heard the same thing.? Organizations often train managers and employees separately, leaving the door open to the suspicion that not everyone heard the same thing.??
Once the fundamentals training was completed the consultants department heads and their key staff members began work on Part Two of the training.? Each of them were each provided with an explanation of the frame of reference approach and were asked to develop a set of dummy appraisals that could be used in the training.? The appraisals were written with commentary provided on job related results and behaviors but no ratings. Once the models were completed for each department they were distributed to the members of the management/command structure (everyone who would be doing appraisals).? The managers rated each of the model appraisals based on the commentary provided for each rating factor and for the overall rating.? The results were used to conduct dialogue sessions with all managers of each department participating in the same session.? The objective for these sessions was to establish a common understanding of how each of the rating levels should be interpreted and to ensure that the descriptions of what each level of rating meant on the appraisal form were adequate to promote consistency across raters.
To ensure the departments were aligned with each other a review session including the executive team and department heads was then held.? Definitions of performance standards that would be used City-wide were finalized.
Once the? frame of reference training aligns the level of expectations across managers the next challenge is implementation.? When the first round of appraisals is conducted it is often advisable to evaluate rating distributions across sections within each department to ensure that they seem to be consistent with each other.? No forced distribution of ratings should be imposed, since a different mix of employees performing at the various levels is expected across smaller units. Forced distributions are arbitrary and have not held up well in legal proceedings. On the other hand, expected distributions may be communicated as guidelines.?
?The message sent to managers should be that if their actual rating distributions vary significantly from the guidelines that supporting evidence will be needed to support them.? A further step that can improve alignment is the use of “calibration sessions” at each level.? Supervisors meet with their manager as a group and align their ratings… managers meet with their director to align their ratings… and so on.? During these alignment sessions everyone has an opportunity to recommend refinements to the rating level descriptors, to make them as clear and consistent as possible.
领英推荐
Conclusion
Each organization must concern itself with internal equity when performance standards are developed and then used to appraise performance.? Individuals vary in their interpretation of what constitutes adequate, superior and poor performance. To minimize the inconsistency across raters steps must be taken to moderate these differences and better align them.
?Cognitive bias leads to people believing they are better performers than they are.? This form of bias cannot be completely corrected.? But recognizing the bias exists can help to alleviate some unwarranted dissatisfaction with ratings that are believed to be too low.? People can accept to some degree the difference of opinion between raters and themselves.? But suspicions that inequity exists across raters will erode acceptance. When inconsistency across raters is apparent this reality (perception?) elicits strong feelings of inequity and organizations can take steps to minimize the amount of distortion it causes.? Frame of reference training has been shown to be the best way to do that.
by: Robert J. Greene, PhD
CEO at Reward $ystems, Inc., a Consulting Principal at Pontifex and a faculty member for DePaul University in their MSHR and MBA programs. Greene speaks and teaches globally on human resource management. His consulting practice is focused on helping organizations succeed through people. Greene has written 4 books and hundreds of articles about human resource management throughout his career.
YouTube & Website SEO Expert | Helping Brands Rank Higher and Grow Organically | Digital Marketing Strategist
2 周An evaluation is only as fair as the person conducting it. Effective training ensures every performance review is based on merit—not unconscious bias.