Measuring Results and Behaviors:

Overview

Measuring Results
Measuring Behaviors

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Measuring Results: Overview

• Accountabilities
• Objectives
• Performance Standards

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Key questions
• Where should each individual focus efforts? (Key
accountabilities)

• What are the expected objectives?

• How do we know how well the results were

achieved? (Performance Standards)

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Accountabilities

 Broad areas of a job for which employee

is responsible for producing results

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Objectives

 Statements of important and

measurable outcomes

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Performance Standards

 Yardstick used to evaluate how well

employees have achieved objectives

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Determining Accountabilities
Collect information about job (Job Description)
Determine importance of task or cluster of
tasks
• % of employee’s time spent performing task
• Impact on unit’s mission if performed inadequately
• Consequences of error
• Example of Target Corporation (p-96)

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Determining Objectives
Statement of an important and measureable
outcomes, when completed, will help to
ensure success for accountability.

• Purpose: to identify
– Outcomes
• Limited number
• Highly important
– When achieved
• dramatic impact on overall organization success

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Characteristics of Good Objectives

• Specific and Clear • Bound by Time

• Challenging • Achievable
• Agreed Upon • Fully Communicated
• Significant • Flexible
• Prioritized • Limited in Number
Example of Target Corporation (P. 98)

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Determining Performance Standards
Standards refer to aspects of performance objectives,
such as:
• Quality
– How well the objective is achieved
• Quantity
– How much, how many, how often, at what cost
• Time
– Due dates, schedule, cycle times, how quickly

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Standards must include:

• A verb (Action)
• The desired result
• A due date
• Some type of indicator
– Quality and/or
– Quantity

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Characteristics of
Good Performance Standards
• Related to Position (Not Person)
• Concrete, Specific, Measurable
• Practical to Measure
• Meaningful
• Realistic and Achievable
• Reviewed Regularly
Example of Target Corporation (p.100)

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Measuring Behaviors: Overview

• Identify competencies
• Identify indicators
• Choose measurement system

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Identify Competencies
Measurable clusters of KSAs
– Knowledges
– Skills
– Abilities
That are critical in determining how results will
be achieved

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Types of Competencies
• Differentiating
– Distinguish between superior and average
performance

• Threshold
– Needed to perform to minimum standard

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Identify Indicators
Observable behaviors

Used to measure extent to which

competencies are present – or not

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Necessary Components for
Describing Competencies
• Definition
• Description of specific behaviors
– When competency demonstrated
– When competency not demonstrated
• Suggestions for developing the competency

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Choose Measurement System

• Comparative system
– Compares employees with each other
• Absolute system
– Compares employees with pre-specified
performance standard

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Comparative Systems

• Simple rank order

From Best performer to worst performer
• Paired comparisons
Compare the performance of each employ with the
performance of all.
• Forced distribution
(Exceeding expectations, Meeting expectations, Not
meeting expectations)

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Advantages of Comparative Systems
• Easy to explain
• Decisions are Straightforward
• Better control for biases and errors found in
absolute systems
– Leniency
– Severity
– Central tendency

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Disadvantages of Comparative Systems

• Rankings may not be specific enough for

– Useful feedback
– Protection from legal challenge
• No information on relative distance between
employees
• Specific issues with forced distribution method

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Absolute Systems

• Essays
• Behavior checklists
• Critical incidents
• Graphic rating scales

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Essays
• Advantage:
– Potential to provide detailed feedback
• Disadvantages:
– Unstructured and may lack detail
– Depends on supervisor writing skill
– Lack of quantitative information; difficult to use in
personnel decisions

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Behavior checklists
• Advantage:
– Easy to use and understand
• Disadvantage:
– Scale points used are often arbitrary
– Difficult to get detailed and useful feedback

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Critical incidents
Two kinds of measurement
– Report of specific employee behavior
• Allows focus on specific behavior
• Very time-consuming
– Examples of behavior illustrative of core
competencies
• Easier to use
• Describes behavior desired

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Graphic rating scales
• Clear meaning for each response
category
• Consistent interpretation by outside
readers
• Supervisor and employee should
have same understanding of rating

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Graphic rating scales:
BARS improvement
• Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)
– Use critical incidents as anchors
– Involves multiple groups of employees in
development
• Identify important job elements
• Describe critical incidents at various levels of performance
• Check for inter-rater reliability

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Measuring Performance
• Several types of methods
• Differ in terms of:
– Practicality (time and effort)
– Usefulness (quantifiable)

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

 Summary
• Measuring Results
– Identify accountabilities
– Set objectives
– Determine standards of performance
• Measuring Behaviors
– Identify competencies
– Identify indicators
– Choose measurement system

Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver