II. Performance Appraisal is subject to many common perceptual errors. P.A. Systems seek to avoid these common errors. - not in book

• 1. those resulting from personality conflicts/personal affinities - who
• 2. Time based errors
• a. recency
• b. primacy
• 3. Distribution errors
• a. some judges are lenient
• b. some have central tendencies
• c. some are harsh judges
• 4. Logical errors
• 5. Errors of stereotyping
• 6. Halo effects: may be positive or negative

• 1. See Fig 9-2
• 2. The subordinate that threw me out of his office.

• 1. Criteria must be relevant - The Dr. Fox experiments on evaluation of teaching
• 2. Must be adequate - not deficient
• 3. Must be free from contamination - if you don't consider the sales region measuring sales performance by $$, volume is contaminated. Consider ice cream; what about the superlative machinist who is always assigned to the oldest machines because he can fix them when they break?
• 4. Of course they must be reliable

• If Performance appraisals produce disparate impact?? Then what?? You tell me??

• 1. Manager
• 2. Manager once or twice removed - what about it?
• 3. Self appraisal! Are you kidding?
• 4. Subordinate Appraisals. What if they are anonymous? What if they're not?
• 5. Peers?
• 6. What about teams?
• 7. And customers?

MIXED-STANDARD page 319

• Positive and negative statements: Judge indicates if ratee is above, equal or below standard description.
• Graphic rating scales
• Ranking method
• Critical Incidents
  define: make a difference in success or failure - - effectiveness
  behavior not traits or inferences,
  e.g. not: employee lacked initiative in getting job done
  G. M. project

  Behavioral Checklist

  Weighted Checklist

  Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)

  Management-by Objectives