Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences Volume 23, Number 1 issn 1946-8113 Spring 2011 inthis issue
Download 1.4 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Standards of evaluation
- TABLE 1 - FACTORS TAKEN IN THE STUDY
- Minimum score Maximum score
- TABLE 2 – DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
- TABLE 3 – INTER - CORRELATION MATRIX
- Factors 1 2 3
Central tendency - This occurs when a rater avoids using high or low ratings and assign average ratings. The rater may believe that all the employees are equal, and do not want to rock the boat. The result is a failure to reflect the true range of differences among the employees. Standards of evaluation - Problems with evaluation standards arise because of perceptual differences in the meaning of the words used to evaluate employees. Thus, good, satisfactory, and excellent may mean different things to different raters. Some raters are ―easy A‘s‖, while others almost never give an A. Leniency effect - Giving undeserved high ratings is referred to as leniency. This behaviour is often motivated by a desire to avoid controversy over the appraisal. The downside of this error is that even poor performers may get good ratings and this could create resentment among the good performers. Strictness effect - Being unduly critical of an employee‘s work performance is referred to as strictness. Some managers apply an evaluation more rigorously than the company‘s standards. Contrast effect - This occurs when another employee‘s performance influences the ratings that are given to someone else. For example, when performance of an average employee is evaluated immediately after the performance of an outstanding employee, the rater might end up rating the average person as ―below average‖ or ―poor‖. Similar-to-me error - This error reflects a tendency on the part of raters to judge employees more favourably who they perceive as similar to themselves. It has been shown that the more closely an employee resembles the supervisor in attitude or background, the stronger the tendency of the supervisor to judge that person positively. Personal bias - Consciously or unconsciously, a rater may systematically rate certain employees lower or higher than others on the basis of race, origin, gender, age, or other factors. 159
Dixit and Kumar Recency effect - This error occurs when a rater overemphasises an employee‘s most recent behaviour. Most supervisors do not have the time or resources to closely monitor an employee‘s performance over a year or make detailed notes. Before the appraisal, the rater is forced to consult memory, which is clearer and more dependable in the months leading up to review, as opposed to the earlier part of the rating period. Relationship effect - Employees in high-quality trusting relationships with supervisors receive higher ratings regardless of how long they have worked for the supervisor, whereas employees in distant, low-quality relationships do better than average when the relationship is long-term. LITRATURE REVIEW In many organizations performance appraisal systems remain one of the great paradoxes of effective human resource management. On one hand, appraisal systems can provide valuable performance information to a number of critical human resource activities, such as the allocation of rewards, e.g., merit pay, promotions; feedback on the development and assessment of training needs; other human resource systems evaluation, e.g., selection predictors; and performance documentation for legal purposes (Cleveland, Murphy, and Williams, 1989). It has been recognized long back that performance appraisal plays an important role in organization (Borman, 1979; Landy and Farr, 1980 ; Saal, Downey and Lahey, 1980). It serves a variety of purposes such as providing the base for making selection decisions, determining salary increase according to the appraisal feedback. Landy, Barnes and Murphy (1978) examined employee perceptions of the fairness and accuracy of a performance evaluation system. They found several reliable correlates of these perceptions: frequent evaluations by supervisors, familiarity with performance levels of the person evaluated, agreement with the subordinate on job duties and engaging in helping subordinates form plans for eliminating performance weaknesses. A study conducted by Ilgen, Petersen, Martin and Boeshen (1981) compared supervisor and subordinate reactions to performance appraisal sessions. They found only moderate agreement between subordinate and supervisors regarding the supervisor‘s task and interpersonal skills and the nature of subordinate performance. Until recently, most research has been directed toward establishing methods from improving the psychometric properties of performance ratings. 160
Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences These efforts have shown an increase in rating accuracy (Bernardin and Pence, 1980; Borman, 1975: Latham, Wexley and Pursell , 1975; Spool. 1978; Warmke and Billings, 1979).Some researchers have suggested investigating into the cognitive processes employed by the raters in making an evaluation ( DeNisi, Cafferty and Meglino, in press; Feldman, 1981; Ilgen and Feldman, 1983; Landy and Farr, 1980) or designing cognitively oriented Training Programme (Feldman, 1983). METHODOLOGY The present study is aimed at studying Performance Appraisal Rating Errors in both nationalized and private banks located in National Capital Region (NCR). The selected organizations are top performers in terms of profit, customer base and turnover. The study was conducted in Four organizations namely, SBI, PNB, Syndicate Bank and HDFC. The data were obtained using a questionnaire which contained 33 questions to assess ten variables. The total sample size was 66 respondents . Participants were asked to respond in their role as a ratee in the performance appraisal. The respondents were from the middle management level. The study is based upon secondary data as well as primary data. The information has been collected through questionnaires The data collected has been tabulated and analysed by using Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation. The factors taken for study are given in Table 1. TABLE 1 - FACTORS TAKEN IN THE STUDY
161 Dixit and Kumar DATA ANALYSIS The SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) 17 .0 was used to analyse the data. Both descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (Pearson correlation) were used for data analysis. RESULT AND DISCUSSION The results are given in Table 2 and 3. Table 2 represents the mean and standard deviation on all the ten variables affecting performance appraisal system in banking sector. These ten variables were namely : importance of appraisal system, satisfaction from the appraisal system, halo effect, first impression error, leniency error, projection error, create superiority complex, factors affecting appraisal, best appraisal time and outcome of appraisal. TABLE 2 – DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
The mean score and standard deviation represents the normal distribution of the data. Table 3 represents the Pearson correlation among all the variables. The perusal of table 3 reflects that most of the variable are having significant inter correlation. Factor-1, which represents the importance of performance appraisal system have a significant correlation with satisfaction from existing appraisal system (factor 2) with a correlation of 0.28 which is significant at 0.05 probability level. This shows that importance of performance appraisal system lies in employees satisfaction with that particular appraisal system. Factor 1, also has a significant correlation with leniency error (factor 5). But the correlation is negative with a value of -0.39 (significant at 0.01 p level). It shows that importance of performance appraisal system is negatively affected by leniency error in any appraisal system the purpose of appraisal will not be fulfilled. 162 Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences Factor 2 (satisfaction with appraisal system) also have significant negative correlation with factor 3, 4 and 5 respectively. It represents that is an appraisal system have errors such as halo effect, first impression and leniency error will not satisfy the employees which is justified with the negative and significant intercorrelation. Factor 3 also has significant correlation with factor 5,6,7,8 and 9 respectively. Table 2 shows that halo effect can lead to leniency and projection error. It can also create superiority complex, competency of subordinate, subjectivity of manager towards the appraisal system. Factor 4 shows significant correlation with factor 5, 7 and 10 with a value of 0.36, 0, 34 and 0, 26 respectively. It means that first impression error can lead to leniency error, superiority complex and impact on the outcome of appraisal. TABLE 3 – INTER - CORRELATION MATRIX
Factor 5, has significant correlation with factor 7 i.e, superiority complex. If some subordinates try to put efforts and make their superiors feel important then the superior can be lenient in marking their appraisal report. Factor 6 (projection error) shows significant correlation with factor 9 with a value of -.389 at 0.01 p level of significance. It means that sometimes the superiors try to project themselves into their superiors few months before the appraisal. This is a very crucial stage and time. Factor 7(making superiors feel important) has significant correlation with factor 8 and factor 9. It can be understood as making superiors feel important is considered as an important factor to impress the superior to get good scores which is the outcome of the performance appraisal. Factor 8 (factors affecting appraisal) have significant correlation with factor 9 and 10. It means the major factors which have an impact on appraisal are the time factor, salary decisions, promotion decisions, performance feedback, appraisal related rewards and finally performance improvement. 163 Dixit and Kumar Factor 9 shows significant correlation with factor 10 which means that appraisal time is related to outcome of appraisal. In other words it can be interpreted as few months before the appraisal are very crucial and lay great impact may be favourable or unfavourable on the appraisal of people employed in banking industry. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.4 Mb. Share with your friends:
|