IMPROVING WORK PERFORMANCE THROUGH APPRAISAL William J. Kearney

Every experienced manager has a favorite story about performance appraisal. It often describes a bad situation made worse. Many employees can also recall a similar experience. Feelings about appraisal are strong On the whole, it is often not well re- ceived by superior or subordinate as a pleasant or useful experience. Yet, performance appraisal can improve work performance, though, like many other management activities, it cannot be conducted ef- fectively without recognizing its close ties to other variables.

Effective employee appraisal has its foundation in three necessary conditions: I ) a group of employees who are motivated to achieve organizational goals; 2) employees who have the ability or capacity, physical and mental, to perform; and 3) employees who clearly understand the demands of their jobs- what they are to do. Where any of these conditions are missing, performance appraisal will be ineffec- tive. When present and coupled with appropriately- designed job descriptions and appraisal instrument, performance can be improved. Managers must know the actions that establish the best possible founda- tion in each, for appraisal to have its greatest effect.

Motivation to Achieve Organizational Goals

Nothing happens in organizations unless employees are motivated. Problems of productivity on both a plant and nation-wide basis are seen as having their root principally in lack of motivation. The question practicing managers want answered is: How do you motivate people? This, in spite of the fact that every manager out of necessity has developed a personal approach to motivating people. Unfor- tunately, there is no simple answer that can be applied out of a recipe book. Furthermore, man- agers do not have direct and immediate control over all of the factors that influence a person’s motivational state.

Human

Perhaps the most useful way to approach motivation is by viewing it as a matter of linking actions and consequences and helping to clarify their linkages, as perceived by employees in the work setting’ Specifically, managers need to create a work setting where increased effort clearly leads to increased performance, and increased performance leads to meaningful and important personal rewards which the employee values. Equally important, these re- wards must be valued more highly than those associated with some other need satisfaction.

This approach to motivation presumes that em- ployees respond to the work environment on the basis of expectations about the consequences of their acts, the effectiveness of their actions in o b taining a result and the value they attach to the personal rewards associated with a result. Thus, for an employee to be motivated to achieve an organi- zation goal, the person must perceive a relationship between effort expended and performance. One must believe that increased effort does in fact lead to better performance. It should take only a minute of reflection to see that this is not always the case in woTk organizations, or elsewhere for that matter. For example, a salesperson may not be motivated to uncover more sales prospects because of the belief that people do not have the money to buy the product. Or similarly, the salesperson perceives the amount of effort required in sales prospecting

1 The following discussion utilized material from: Richard M. Steers and Lyman W. Porter, Motivation and W o r k Behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975). pp. 180-200. See also: Orlando Behling and Chester Schreishkim, Organizational Behavior: Theory, Research and Application (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976), pp. 72-91; L. L. Cummings and Donald P. Schwab, Per- formance in Organizations (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Fores- man and Company, 1973), pp. 9-54; Lyman W. Porter and Edward E. Lawler, 111, Managerial Attitudes and Per- formance (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968).

Resource Management, Summer, 1978 15

to be disproportionate to actual sales. Thc sales- person may conclude that the reward is simply not worth the effort. Other examples can be found in the shop and in the office. When no relationship is perceived betwcen effort and performance, em- ployees will not be motivated.

It is vital, too, that individuals believe that improved performance will lead to a reward that is valued (e.g., money, status, acceptance). The reward must be in the form of something that the employee values, not what management thinks the employee should value. Returning to our salesperson, if in- creased sales result from increased sales effort, there must be a clear linkage between improved per- formance and reward received. If no such relation- ship is seen, motivation will not be present. Examples of this situation are not hard to find. All too often, rewards in the form of increased salaries are contingent on length of service or posi- tion rather than performance. In addition, the rewards must satisfy some important need as the employee experienccs it. Our salesperson must see morc money as satisfying important needs, such as cgo needs.

Onc more condition must be present. Rewards must not be perceived as coming at too great a sacrifice. If our salesperson sees increased money rewards as satisfying ego nccds, but at the sacrifice of affiliation needs because there is no time to socialize with others, the person must be willing to make this trade-off. If thcre is an unwillingness to forego fulfillmcnt of affiliation needs, then increased monetary rewards will not be a motivator.

In rctrospect, the answer to the question, how do you motivatc people, is not an easy one. There are many contingencics and pitfalls. What is proposed, howcver, is that people arc motivated on the basis of what they belicve the relationships are between cffort, performance, rewards, and necds. Spcci- fically, for peoplc to be motivated they must bclieve that:

1. Increased effort raiscs performance. 2. Incrcased pcrformance leads to rewards. 3. Rcwards lead to the satisfaction of needs. 4. Satisfaction of a given set of necds is valued morc highly than any bcnefits that must be foregone.

A brcak in any one of thesc relationships means that motivation will bc minimal. This view sugests

its fragile nature and why it is difficult to cstablish and maintain. Whilc i t is true that a manager will not have absolute control over the factors affecting these relationships, there are some steps that can be taken. For example, managers should work to design jobs that are intrinsically satisfying and that provide opportunities to feel personally responsible for results. Jobs should also be designed to provide fcedback about accomplishments. And resources to do a job must be readily available. The task of the manager is to engage in activities that identify and clarify employee expectancies about the rela- tionships between effort, performance and rewards. Undoubtedly, people with high needs for achieve- ment and high self-estecm will be more easily motivated, but these are variables over which the manager will have little control.

Ability to Perform Toward Achieving Goals

A second condition for effective performance a p praisal is the employee’s ability-the personal char- acteristics that can be physiological, psychological, or intellecutal in nature, and include special apti- tudes and skills as well as general knowledge. An individual’s level of ability acts as an upper constraint on performance. Organizations can in- fluence the level of ability of their employees in two ways. The direct approach is through employee selection which bcgins with careful job analysis. This analysis must reveal precisely the demands of the job and translate these accurately into the behaviors and spccific abilities needed to perform satisfactorily, i.e., valid criteria for selection. Next, appropriate selection tools must be applied to assess the prcsence of the requisitc abilities among the job candidates. The goal is an accurate job-person match. In the selection approach, high levels of ability are obtained through thc process of elimina- tion; however, since perfection is seldom reached, and because jobs changc too, organizations cannot rely completely on selection .

The second approach for influencing ability is through training, i.e., any activity whose purpose is the acquisition of job-related skills to obtain job results. Training is a process of interrelated steps:

1. Asessment of training needs. 2. Definition of behavioral objectives in terms of what the pcrson will be able to do. 3. Design of the training experience in terms of

16 Improving Work Performance Through Appraisal

skill or knowlcdge necessary to meet the bc- havioral objectives. 4. Selection of the methods of instruction and trainees. 5. Thc training session. 6. Evaluation of training effectiveness.’

The first of these steps is critical because the effec- tiveness of all subsequent action is based on diag- nosis. Whenever thcrc is a performance deficiency, the first step for the manager is to determine if the deficiency is due to lack of ability or motivation. If i t is duc to low motivation, then the prescriptions offered earlier apply; if the deficiency is due to lack of ability, the remedy may be training. The man- ager must determine whcther or not the person has ever displayed thc ability in the past. If not, training is called for and should be arranged. If the answer is yes, the manager should then deter- mine if the ability has not been used frequently enough, in which case practice is required and must be arranged. If the ability is used frequently, clear and timely fccedback of results must be pro- vided so that thc individual may make the neces- sary changes to i m p r ~ v e . ~

Role Clarity: Understanding the Demands of the Job

Role clarity is the mcticulous definition of activities and behaviors requircd to perform a job satisfac- torily: what to do and when it is to bc done.4 If job- holders’ understanding of this is incorrect, job per- formance will suff cr even though the individuals are motivated and possess the ability or potential to perform. Role clarity is usually achieved through job descriptions containing organized statements that identify thc content of a job; typically, 1) job identification, 2) work performed, 3) working con- ditions, and 4) equipmcnt used.5 Yet, job descrip- tions frequently do not clarify the behaviors a person is to display. As Schneier has pointed out,

‘Elmer H. Burack and Robert D. Smith, Personnel hlanagement: A Human Resources Approach (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 19771, p 235.

::Robert F. Mager and Peter Pipe, Analyzing Perform- ance Problems (Palo Alto, California: Fearon Publishers, I970), p. 100.

4 Steers and Porter, Motivation and Work Behavior, p. -181.

. I Herbert G . Zollitsch and Adolph Langsner, Wage and Salary Administration (Cincinnati: South-Western Publish- ing &., 1970), pp. 291-299.

job descriptions as typically b i t ten are often de- ficient in one or more of the following ways:

1. They fail to recognize the few critical elements that differentiate between successful and un- successfql performance. 2. They ’ignore decision-making and inhence aspects of the job. 3. They do not deal with the dynamic nature of jobs and people. 4. They distort actual job importance. 5. They either do not concentrate on job incum- bents’ actual behavior or merely define required behavior in very ambiguous terms. 6. They may contain statements of worker re- quirements or characteristics which are not neces- sary for success on the job.6

In order to counter these deficiencies, behavioral job descriptions should be written wherever pos- sible, that is, they should be stated in behavioral terms. A behavioral job description is an expression of what an individual does in specific and measur- able terms, with job objectives stated in the form of terminal behaviors a person is expected to dis- play. Figure 1 illustrates the difference between objectives as they are often stated and as they would be stated in the form of terminal job be- haviors. The procedure for writing the behavioral job descriptions is as follows:

1. Decide on job objectives and state them in the form of “terminal” behaviors. 2. List the tasks necessary for desired level of performance. 3. Differentiate between routine and critical task performance. 4. List alternative methods of performing jobs tasks. 5. Specify criteria used to determine if terminal behaviors have been evidenced and thus if the job has been performed successfully. 6. Specify favorable and unfavorable conditions for attainment of objectives. 7. Specify known job incumbent characteristics which would change the terminal behavior ob- jectives and/or performance criteria. 8. Specify other general job information regard- ing the job.

6 Craig Eric Schneier, “Content Validity: The Necessity of a Behavioral Job Description: The Personnel Adminis- trator, 1’01. 21, No. 2 (February, 1976), p. 39.

Human Resource Management, Summer, 1978 17

9. List worker’s qualifications, education and/or experience levels required.’

From a performance standpoint, job descripkws, whatever their form, should include some state- ments of behavioral job objectives because they facilitate role clarity. Failing to perform well can often be traced to a genuine disagreement between superior and subordinate over what is to be done and what constitutes satisfactory performance. A job description that states job objectives in the form of terminal behaviors deals with this problem in two ways. First, objectives are stated in specific quantifiable terms. This establishes a goal so that effort is expended in the proper direction. More- over, specific goals are more likely to raise perform- ance than general goals. Second, such goals are convenient benchmarks against which individuals can evaluate their work. They know what con- stitutes satisfactory performance. I t is defined in the objective. Thus, there is a built-in mechanism for feedback and knowing how well one is performing. Also, the expression of terminal behaviors in job objectives counters the common tendency of in- dividuals to inflate their self-evaluations. Individuals are confronted directly with what they have actually accomplished.

Not all jobs lend themselves equally well to the expression of terminal job behaviors. But specificity

Schneier, pp. 42-44.

and quantification should be explored in writing job descriptions wherever possible. Managers might also wish to consider the desirability of participation of job incumbents in the setting of these objectives. Such a practice has motivational value and con- tributes to additional role clarity.

Performance Appraisal

Motivation, ability, and role clarity are necessary conditions that must exist for performance appraisal to have an impact. But, appraisal instruments must provide an accurate picture of performance and should have the capability of delivering useful information for improvement. That they do not is often txaceable to one or more of the following: method of measurement, appraiser errors, unwilling- ness to appraise accurately, deficiencies in what is measured, disagreement over what constitutes satis- factory performance.

METHOD OF MEASUREMENT

While appraisal can be accomplished by such methods as written essays and critical incidents, ranking or rating of employees is frequently used. Ranking is simply specifying a person’s position among others with respect to a characteristic (e.g, “quality of output,” “effort”). Rating is the evalu- ation of a characteristic or trait against an absolute scale from high to low. Scale gradations may be expressed numerically or in short descriptive terms

FIGURE 1 Comparison of Ambiguous and Terminal

Ambiguous Job Objectives

1. To demonstrate satisfactory ability on the iob and perform at required standards.

2. To develop a positive attitude work and to be dependable.

toward the

3. To be able to communicate effective’ly with subordinates.

1

Behavior Job Objectives

Terminal Behavior Job Obiectives

To operate the press such that a minimum of 120 pieces are produced correctly each hour, with no more than 1 incorrect (defec- tive) piece produced in any hour.

To give evidence of willingness to perform the iob by not being absent from work except for those reasons and on those days specified by the union agreement; and by being at the proper work place when the shift bell sounds.

To notify each division head of all changes in the budget b’y written memo to each no later than one day after notification of such change reaches your desk.

Sourem: Craig Eric Schneier, ”Content Validity: The Necesity of a Behavioral Job Description,” The Personnel Administrotor. 21 (Februory, 1976): 38-44. Copyright 1976 by The American Society of Personnel Administration. Reprinted by permission.

18 Improving Work Performance Through Appraisal

or phrases. For appraisal to facilitate improved performance, ranking is to be avoided. Ranking causes attention to be focused on one’s standing relative to others-rather than upon what can be done to improve. It is coercivc and produces defen- sive behavior because it is a zero-sum game where people cannot improve their position except at someone‘s else’s expense. This encourages destruc- tive evaluation of the person. Furthermore, an in- dividual’s performance can improve on a charac- teristic, yet produce a lower ranking because the group has made greater improvement. The motiva- tional impact is obvious. While rating is subject to disadvantages too, such as those identified under appaiser errors, it is preferred over ranking; it avoids the zero-sum game and its destructive effect on motivation and improvement.

APPRAISER ERRORS

Among the common appraiser errors, especially in rating, arc halo, leniency and severity, central tend- ency, and recency. Halo error is evaluating a person on the basis of a general impression and then similarly on more specific characteristics. Leniency or severity crror is judging people consistently at the extremes of several dimensions. Central tend- ency error is evaluation within a narrow range at thc ccnter of a dimension. Last, recency error is simply the inclination to be influenced by a person’s most recent behavior. Fortunately, research in- dicates that training to recognize and offset these errors is effective in reducing their occurrence.8 Also, the construction of evaluation scales to lessen these errors, when coupled with training, has proved helpful.‘’

UNWILLINGNESS TO APPRAISE ACCURATELY

Sonic managers are unwilling to make accurate cvaluations of subordinates because they do not want them to be hurt. Where the consequence of a low evaluation is termination, no pay increase, an unpleasant work assignment, or no promotion, man- agers are reluctant to be precise. A study of 493

-Gary P. Latham, Kenneth N. Wexley and E. 0. Pursell, “Training Managers to Minimize Rating Errors in the Observation of Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 19 (1966)’ pp. 411421.

!I W. C. Borman, “Effects of Instructions to Avoid Halo Error on Reliability and Validity of Performance Evalu- ation Ratings,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (1975), pp. 556-560.

firms in a variety of indusmcs conducted by The Conference Board points out the dilemma for many managers.

It seems very clear to many personnel executives that pay and performance will never be truly linked when the consequences of an honest low rating must be firing or early retirement. Unless a manager perceives himself to be truly free to pick and choose among a variety of rewards, punishments and remedies to follow up his per- formance rating, he will continue to lump every- one under the protection of an average to above- average rating”

Unwillingness EO evaluate accurately can also be caused by the necessity to give feedback to an em- ployee on performance. When feedback must be given as a part of the appraisal, evaluations tend to be higher than when explanations are not given.” In the case of a manager wishing to avoid being the source of harm, organizations must develop alternatives to the unpleasant outcomes envisioned, if they expect the majority of evaluations to be accurate. Only when the sting of a low evaluation for both the appraiser and appraisee is moderated can greater accuracy be realized. In the case of giving feedback, instructions in giving feedback in a non-threatening manner, one not producing a defensive reaction, is appropriate.

WHAT IS MEASURED AND WHAT IS SATISFACTORY

Employees are typically evaluated on the basis of traits, behavior, or results. Traits describe the person (e.g., “ambitious,” “industrious,” “responsible”). These are typically placed on a descriptive or numerical rating scale. Behavior describes what a person does in terms of some work activity (e.g., “writes reports”). When this behavior is scaled and evaluated it is performance. Performance, then, is evaluated behavior. Results refer to goal achieve- ments (e.8, “exceeded output goal by 5 percent”). It is simply what the person has accomplished.12

10 David A. Weeks, Compensating Employees: Lessons of the 1970’s (Washington, D.C.: The Conference Board, Report No. 707, 1976), p. 70.

11 L. Stockford and H. W. Bissell, “Factors Involved in Establishing a Merit-Rating Scale,” Personnel, 26 (1949), pp. 94-116.

1” John P. Campbell, Marvin D. Dunnette, Richard D. Arvey and Lowell V. Hellervik, “The Development and Evaluation Based Rating Scales,” Journal of Aplied Psychology, 57, No. 1 (February, 1973), p. 15.

Human Resource i\,lanagement, Summer, 1978 19

But evaluation of traits, behavior, or results do not produce data of equal usefulness for improving performance when fed back to individuals. As Goodale points out in the evaluation of traits:

If feedback is given to cmployees in order to change their job performance, then the most useful feedback is in terms of specific job per- formance. It is clear that ratings of employee traits fail to mect this criterion of useful feed- back. Telling a subordinate that he is average in initiative, low in attitude, and above average in maturity creats defensive feelings and gives him little help in how to change. Similarly, a rating of “barely mects acceptable standards” in quality of work is too unspccific to be very useful to an cmployee.13

But evaluation based on results does not provide very useful information to use in improving per- formance either:

Feedback about what he has or has not achieved, however, says little to the employee about what he must do in order to improve. W e may tell an employcc that hc missed his sales quota by 2 percent, but this information alone is not very useful. Hc nceds feedback about his daily on-the- job pcrformance which contributed to his failure to accomplish his goal. He needs feedback about how well hc communicates product knowledge, how well he establishes and maintains good relationsips with customers, how well he closes the sale, and so forth.l*

What is nceded is fccdback on what a person does. This is accomplished by focusing on behavior. Be- haviorally anchored rating scales are designed to do this. Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) identify thc critical areas of a job, and describe more effcctive and less effective job behaviors in getting rcsults. Figurc 2 is an illustration of a BARS per- formance dirncnsion. Several such scaled dimcn- sions constitutc a BARS appraisal instrument. BARS instrumcnts arc job specific because they are constructed on thc basis of thc characteristics of a job or job family. They provide a benchmark against which the actual job behavior of an individual may

1 James G. Goodale, “Behaviorally-Based Rating Scales: Toward an Integrated Approach to Performance Appraisal,” in W. Clav Harnner and Fred L. Schmidt (eds.), Con- temporary Problems in Personnel (Chicago: St. Clair Press, 1977, p. 247.

I * Goodale, p. 248.

20 lmvrovin,a W o r k Performance Through

be compared to arrivc at judgments about quality of performance. Since thcy arc constructed from ob- served behavior that is evaluated as more or less effective in getting results, BARS contain built-in behavioral prescriptions for improving performancc when this is desirable. Moreover, these are the criti- cal areas of performance for a job, the areas in which performance makes a real difference in re- sults. In summary, BARS are job specific, they focus on the critical areas of a job, they are based on o b servable behavior, they distinguish between be- havior and results, and they emphasize improve- ment by offering behavioral prescriptions. As such, they focus on relevant measures of performancc and reduce disagreement over what constitutes sat- isfactory performance.

Construction of a BARS appraisal instrument is accomplished through the following procedure:

1. The jobs to which the instrument is to be applied are identified. 2. The job incumbents, their managers, or both, act as scale designers. They identify several areas of job performance which are deemed critical in getting desired results. These become perform- ance dimensions. Next, they write several state- ments describing especially effective job perform- ance. This is followed by writing several state- ments describing especially ineffective perform- ance. These statements must represent behavior that is job specific, and important in determining results. They must be actual observable behaviors that are controllable by the individual. Last, sev- eral statements are written that are descriptive of neither especially effective or ineffective behavior. 3. The statements are then grouped into the per- formance dimensions identified by the scale de- signers. Statements that are not job specific, ob- servable, etc., or which are vague, are discarded. Similarly omitted are any statements that do not fall within one of the performance dimensions. The sorting of the statements is performed by the scale designers. Statements assigned to a category by at least 75% of the job incumbents or managers are retained. Those not meeting this criteria are not used. 4. Each scale designer evaluates each statement and assigns to it a scale value ranging from 1 (in- dicating very ineffective performance) to 7 or 9 (very effective). The mean and standard devia- tions are calculated for all of the statements with- in the performance dimension. The mean rating

Avvraisal

FIGURE 2 Forming and Maintaining Interpersonal Relationships

Performance Aspect: Understanding, sensitivity, support, courtesy, tact, and cooperation in interaction with patients, customers, visitors, supervisors, and staff.

Always shows understanding, sentivity, support, 7- courtesy, tact, and cooperation in interaction . . . coold be expected to explain to patient thot with others. the nurse i s supposed to roll up the bed and

to show patient how to call the nurse.

Usually shows understanding, sensitivity, support, courtesy, tact, and cooperation in interaction with others.

Seldom shows understanding, sensitivity, support, courtesy, tact, and cooperation in interaction with others.

4-

. . . could be expected to remain calm and polite when confronted by an abrupt visitor, offer- ing assistance to help with the problem.

. . . could be expected to feel for "weaker" subordinates occasionally and trade her easy tosb for their more dificult ones.

. . .could be expected to become frustrated in

. . . could be expected to resent assistance of-

some staff dealings.

fered by co-worker or supervisor. 2.-

. . . could be expected to be concerned with own problems and not to help others.

. . . could be expected to speak abruptly and discourteously when answering a customer's inquiry about an entire dish that wos new

1- to the regular menu.

Source: James G. Goodale, "Behaviorally-based Rating Scales: Toward an Integrated Approach to Performance Appraisal," p. 249, in W. Clay Hamner and Frank 1. Schmidt (edr.) Contemporary Problems in Personnel (Chicago: St. Clair Press, 1977). Copyright 1977 by St. Clair Press. Reprinted by permission.

provides the scaled lcvel of effectiveness ascribed to cach statcmcnt. Thc standard dcviation pro- vides an indication of how much agreement there is aniong thc ratcrs concerning thc scale value. Typically, a statcinent is retained if its standard drviation is less than 1.5.15

The administration of thc instrument is relatively simple. Thc managcr determines the time span over Ivhich appraisal is to occur. Then, several brief ob- servation pcriods of cmploycc bchavior are schcd- ulcd systcniatically to insure a rcprcscntative samp- ling of cmploycc pcrformance. Thcsc observation periods may be as brief as two or thrce minutcs. Scheduling systcniatic obscrvations counteracts thc

1'' Campbell, Dunnette, Arvey and Hellervik, p. 16.

Human

natural tendency of managers to fall victim to re- ccncy error. Since recall may be a problcm, mana- gers may wish to record thcir obscrvations in a diary. Later, when the appraisal instrument must be completed the manager rcfers to the diary, cx- amincs thc incidents, sorts thcm by pcrformance dimension, and assigns a scale value which most closely approximates the pcrformancc exhibited.

BARS do have thcir disadvantagcs, howevcr: 1) the jobs of thosc to bc appraised must be relatively stable in contcnt; 2) thcrc must be scvcral pcoplc performing a job to sprcad the costs of scalc dcvel- opmcnt; 3) managers must bc able to obscrve sub ordinatcs on a systcniatic basis; 4) since pooled judgmcnts are used, cnough managers and job in- cumbcnts must bc available to construct thc scale.

Resource Management, Summer, 1978 2 1

But, thcy also yosscss somc compelling advantages that addrcss major problcins in appraisal: 1) clari- fication of thc diff crcnccs bctnwn bchavior, per- formancc and rcsults; 2) cniphasis of appraisal bascd on obscrvcd and measurable job spccific bc- havior; 3) improvcd obscrvation and evaluation skills of nianagcrs through thcir participation in scalc construction; 4) participation of job incum- bents in identifying pcrformancc dimensions and idcntifying and scaling job bchaviors rcduccs dis- agrccmcnt ovcr what constitutes satisfactory per- formance.

Making Appraisal Work

Thc inter-rclationships bctwccn thc conditions for pcrformance appraisal cffcctivcncss, behavioral job dcscriptions, and BARS can now bc obscrved. If behavioral job descriptions and BARS arc develop ed and used, they work togcthcr to cnhance per- formance. Behavioral job descriptions, through terminal behavioral job objectives encourage goal directed behavior, as well as provide role clarity. Individuals know what is cxpcctcd of thcm, when it is cxpccted, and under what conditions. In addi- tion, terminal bchavior job objcctivcs cstablish at lcast minimum standards of pcrformancc.

BARS complemcnt bchavioral job dcscriptions by tying togcthcr mcans and cnds. BARS providc in- formation on thc bchaviors that arc more likcly to lead to results. They provide useful data for train- ing, thus contributing to the dcvclopment of greater ability to perform. T o thc extcnt thcre is participa- tion of job incumbcnts in thc formulation of be- havioral job dcscriptions and the construction of BARS, research in bchavior suggests greater moti- vation to perform bccausc of increased commitment. A major point, thcn, is that motivation, ability and rolc clarity must be prcsent for performancc ap- praisal to be effective. Given these, job descriptions and appraisal instruments can help by improving ability (through training) and role clarity (through specificity).

Both also scrve as important nicdia to coinmunicatc cxpectations about work performance, and equally as important, provide feedback on the quality of n7ork done. Feedback is essential for improvcrnent and is a step in many performance appraisal systems. But N. R. F. Maier believes it is bascd on two mis- leading assumptions: “I) that employees want to know where thcy stand; 2) that an employee will

improve if he is told his weakncsscs.”“’ W c all cn- joy positive information and hope for it, if not ex- pect it, because of thc natural inclination to think wcll of our accomplishments. But, whenever nega- tive information is forthcoming the response is like- ly to be negativc. The negative feelings around appraisal may be traceable to: 1) the focus of the appraisal-what is appraised; 2) the manner in which feedback is provided.

An cxarnination of the nature of behavioral job descriptions and BARS suggests their advantage in providing feedback. Behavioral job descriptions focus on results. Since these appear on the job de- scription, they are conveniently available for the job incumbent to use in self evaluation through the appraisal period. Thus, there should be few surprises in the appraisal interview because con- tinuous feedback is available. If for no other reason, this advantage should cncourage serious considera- ation of behavioral job descriptions. BARS provide data on behavior, not the person. Thus, feedback does not challenge the individual as a person and therefore causes less defensiveness. Moreover, as illustrated in Figure 2, information is in a form that most closely meets the rules for giving effective feedback:

-it is specific rather than general -it is descriptive rather than evaluative -it concentrates on behavior that can be changed -it avoids the “why” of behavior -it is capable of validation by the receiver -it is timely.”

But, appropriate feedback must also be presented in a climate conducive to changing behavior. Pre- eminent here is the understanding among individ- uals that their changed behavior is a path to a valued reward, one that satisfies a personal need. The link behveen the changed behavior and a valued reward must be clear and unequivocal. If individuals value more money, prestige, or accep- tance, the relationships between achieving these and superior job performance must be made ob- vious. The inherent value of behavioral job de- scriptions and BARS is lost if this linkage is not

16 Norman R. F. NIaier, Psychology in Industrial Organi- zations (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1973, p. 194.

I i Cyril R. Mill, “Feedback: The Art of Giving and Receiving Help,” in Douglas T. Hall, Donald D. Bowen, Roy J. Lewicki, Francine S. Hall (eds.), Experiences in Management and Organizational Behavior (Chicago: St. Clair Press, 1975), p p 201-205.

22 Improving W o r k Performance Through Appraisal

clcar in an individual’s mind. Moreover, helping the pcrson to change behavior must bc donc in such a way that it is not threatening. The atmosphere should be one in which change is acceptable and encouraged. Specifically, immediate supervisors and other managers should cultivate the attitude that changing one’s behavior is not an indicator of failure. Finally, when new behavior is adopted, top management and the person’s supervisor, as well as peers, must be supportive through positive rewards. Only if the atmosphere is one in which people are cncouragcd to give up old behavior, learn new be- havior, and practice that behavior can we expect the efforts to improve performance.

Neither behavioral job descriptions nor BARS guar- antcc that ernployccs will want to know where they stand. Nor do they guarantee they will improve if told their shortcomings. But, they do address many of the sources of resistance. Together they provide clear-cut goals, a useful method of measuring be- havior for improvement, and feedback in a form that makes changing behavior and performance easier.

Summary

Performance improvement, if it occurs, does not happen by itself. Someone makes it happen. That someone is most often a manager. The task is not casy. Some minimum levels of motivation, ability and role clarity must be established. These are the major inputs every manager must grapple with. Since these conditions have many important inter- nal elements, they are themselves complicated. Yet, the manager must have a basic understanding of each, as well as their relationship to one another. Techniques for performance improvement that draw upon and contribute to these conditions must be selected. Behavioral job descriptions and be- haviorally anchored rating scales help the managers improve employee performance. They do this through their emphasis on specific, measurable goals, identifying more effective observable be- haviors for adoption, and by providing feedback on performance that maximizes the chances for change.

William J. Kearney

is Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business Administration, University of Cincinnati. He teaches in the areas of management, organizational be- havior, and personnel. He has authored and co-authored several articles for professional journals.

A University of Michigan Seminar Graduate School

of Business Administration Division of Management Education

CENTER METHOD

for measuring and developing

management potential

Today’s organizations are often faced with insufficient or unreliable information when considering selection, promotion or develop- ment of their management. This lack of information is very costly . . . and unneces- sary. The Assessment Center method can eliminate the guesswork in selecting and developing your managers.

The University of Michigan’s Assessment Center program will provide you with:

rn FIRST HAND experience in planning and administering a model center

rn The opportunity to be trained as an as- sessor

rn Detailed information on the types of ex- ercises available and their specific uses

rnA means of determining the cost- benefit of an Assessment Center for your organization.

dates

5026 July 10-12, 1978 5040 October 16-18, 1978

For additional information call or write Juliana Lord, Program Assistant Division of Management Education Graduate School of Business

University of Michigan 1735 Washtenaw Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

Administration

(313) 763-1000