Performance Evaluation in the Human Services

Simon Slavin, Wayne Matheson, Kenneth Millar, Cornelius Van Dyk

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781135906573
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Health Care Delivery

Performance Evaluation in the Human Services is a practical, specific book for managers on how to conduct performance evaluations. The book moves beyond the traditional rating scale and focuses on a new model involving the employee in the evaluation process. It stresses the need for evaluation scales to match the job description in a manner that is educational, future-oriented, and time-saving. Managers who must conduct performance reviews will find that this book presents a unique advancement on the use of behaviorally anchored rating scales for evaluation. The authors focus on the developmental/educational components of evaluation and stress employee empowerment as a result of evaluation.The authors have created an employee review system with three core components. The new appraisal model works on a "One Size Fits All" philosophy. It can be applied to all employees while the exact evaluating qualities differ as each job description does. Fundamental features of this new evaluative model include:

• the use of the "Benchmark" concept, a scale which indicates the level of the organization's expectations and balances the administrative (evaluative) components and professional (developmental) issues
• BARS, Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales
• CORE and A LA CARTE Dimensions which allows for evaluation of generic aspects of performance and job specific components
• the use of traditional approaches to evaluation such as trait-based scales and forced comparison techniquesThe rating system in Performance Evaluation in the Human Services serves as a means of identifying areas for middle and upper managers to identify areas for employees'professional growth and self-development. This approach is goal-oriented and can change and grow with the employee and the organization. Most importantly, it is built by both staff and management to be used as a tool for working together to define specific job requirements and how these requirements can be met and evaluated.

Chapter 1

Performance Evaluation: An Overview

INTRODUCTION

The evaluation of employee performance is an annual occurrence in nearly all human service agencies, and the consequences of this evaluation for the individual being evaluated, the evaluator, and the organization can be quite profound. On the positive side, a well-conducted performance appraisal may:

• Increase the person’s motivation to perform effectively;

• Increase the self-esteem of the person being evaluated;

• Allow new insights for the person or persons doing the appraisal;

• Result in more clarification and better definition of the job of the person being evaluated;

• Facilitate valuable communication among the individuals taking part;

• Promote a better understanding among participants, of themselves, and of the kind of development activities that are of value;

• Clarify organizational goals and facilitate their acceptance;

• Allow the organization to engage in human resource planning, test validation, and develop training programs.

On the other hand, a poorly conducted performance evaluation may:

• Cause individuals to quit as a result of the way they were treated;

• Create false and misleading data;

• Damage the self-esteem of the person being appraised and the person conducting the appraisal;

• Waste large amounts of time;

• Permanently damage the relationship among the individuals involved;

• Lower performance motivation;

• Waste money on forms, training, and a host of support activities;

• Lead to expensive lawsuits by those who feel unjustly evaluated. (Mohrman, Jr., Resnick-West, and Lawler III, 1989, pp. 3–5)

All too often, negative results are exactly what organizations get when they try to operate traditional appraisal systems. Frequently, the high hopes associated with a new performance evaluation system end up being destroyed by the reality of a system that produces more conflicts, problems, and resistance than positive results. In many organizations, performance appraisal systems simply become inoperative because of the problems and conflicts they generate. The challenge is to develop and implement a performance evaluation system that eliminates the many negative consequences and produces the important positive ones. Unfortunately, this is not an easy task.

Most people find the performance appraisal process a totally unrewarding, if not unpleasant, experience. Discomfort is often expressed by both supervisors and supervisees over the event (McGregor, 1972, Wiehe, 1980). Supervisors express anxiety at judging the performance of their supervisees, while the latter experience anxiety about being judged (Wiehe, 1980).

Supervisors frequently balk at the idea of performance appraisal because of: (1) an understandable dislike of criticizing a subordinate (and perhaps having to argue about it); (2) a lack of skill needed to handle the performance evaluation interview; and, (3) a mistrust of the validity of the appraisal instrument (McGregor, 1972). Cummings and Schwab (1973) add that supervisors may experience role conflict because of an inability to separate the judgmental/evaluative and educational/developmental components of performance evaluation. Supervisors also frequently lack an overall conceptual model of how appraisal contributes to other personnel functions such as recruitment, selection, placement, training, and utilization.

Rivas (1984), speaking expressly from a human services perspective, claims that evaluation is a troublesome process for supervisors because: (1) it specifically calls attention to the difference in status between supervisor and supervisee; (2) it reflects on the supervisor; (3) it can evoke strong negative feelings; and (4) it can be discouraging to workers.

Despite the inherent difficulties, evaluating performance is something that people do all the time. A great deal of informal evaluation takes place in organizations, just as it does in all sectors of people’s lives. The performance of each individual in an organization is constantly being appraised by the individual, as well as by his or her supervisors, peers, and subordinates. Formal appraisal is an inevitable consequence of the way organizations are structured, and jobs are designed. The assignment of responsibility to particular individuals for the accomplishment of certain tasks makes the assessment of individual performance both possible and necessary: possible because it identifies the results for which the person is responsible; necessary, because complex, differentiated organizations need information about job performance in order to operate effectively.

But why is performance appraisal so difficult? On the surface, it appears simple: One individual observes another executing a task and reaches a judgement about how adequately that task has been performed. Such judging occurs regularly throughout all human endeavors, but the situation is substantially more complex in work organizations than it is in most situations where performance judgements are reached. Two characteristics make the appraisal of work performance unique: (1) frequently, the evaluator has reward power over the evaluatee; and, (2) the appraisal occurs in the context of an ongoing relationship.

The problem of performance evaluation in the field of human services is further compounded by the lack of “hard” objective measures. Performance often goes unobserved by human service system administrators because of the nature of the services provided and the confidential nature of the employee-client relationship. In addition, because the service technologies of the helping professions are not able to be specified as clearly as those of other professions or those of production, there remains an aura of mystery about what constitutes an effective and efficient service (Ferris, 1982; Rivas, 1984).

Performance appraisal in a service organization involves some of the most important aspects of people’s sense of individuality and accomplishment since it deals with their competence and effectiveness. In addition, it is the point where the sometimes conflicting goals of organizations and individuals are addressed. It is also an activity that has important legal considerations and can lead to the courtroom. Most of all, perhaps, it is an interaction between two human beings, who often are nervous, tense, somewhat defensive, poorly prepared to discuss important issues, and full of their own misperceptions, biases, hopes, and values.

To use the words of Latham and Wexley, (1981, p. 2) “… performance appraisal systems are a lot like seat belts. Most people believe they are necessary, but they don’t like to use them.” As a result, evaluation systems are often used reluctantly to satisfy some formal organizational or legal requirement. However, employee evaluation remains an important management responsibility. Performance appraisal is crucial to the effective management of an organization’s human resources, and the proper management of human resources is a critical variable affecting an organization’s productivity. In addition, recent decisions by arbitration boards and the courts emphasize the importance for organizations to have well-documented objective records of employee performance relative to advancement, dismissal, or salary increases (Latham and Wexley, 1981; Wiehe, 1980).

In this book a substantially new way of approaching performance evaluation is proposed. However, before proceeding to a description of this model, a brief review of literature concerning the goals and mechanisms of performance appraisal is presented. An appreciation of this new approach will be enhanced by examining it in the context of traditional and commonly held views about this subject.

GOALS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Performance appraisal systems are typically viewed as a contract between the organization and an employee explicitly specifying what is required of that individual. In this context, appraising performance is seen as necessary because it serves as an audit for the organization about the effectiveness of each employee. In effect, performance appraisal functions as a control system based on key job behaviors that serve as standards, which enable the manager to specify what the employee must start doing, continue doing, or stop doing. From this traditional viewpoint, performance appraisal fulfills two important functions: the counseling (motivation), and the development (training), of employees. It is on the basis of an employee’s motivation and training that decisions are made regarding that employee’s retention, promotion, demotion, transfer, or termination (Latham and Wexley, 1981).

There are also legal necessities for having a valid and reliable performance appraisal system in place. The courts have become increasingly concerned with the impact of an evaluation system on an employee’s status within an organization.

For example, both Canada’s Bill of Rights and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the United States affirm that it is against the law to affect an individual’s status as an employee on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Although originally targeting unfair discrimination in the selection of employees, the courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the U.S. have broadened their jurisdictional limits to include close scrutiny of any measurement tool (“test”) or procedure that impacts on any significant personnel decision. Performance evaluations are viewed as “tests” which must be job-related and valid (Latham and Wexley, 1981). In both Brito v. Zia Company (1973) and Wade v. Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service (1974) the courts held that the rating systems in place were biased and not job-related. There must be (1) a relationship between the appraisal instrument and a job and (2) evidence that the appraisal instrument is a valid predictor of job performance.

The U.S. Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 puts even more responsibility on organizations to have valid and reliable performance appraisal systems in place. Section 430 of this act deals specifically with performance appraisal systems and states that performance standards must be based on critical elements of the job; that the manner in which these critical elements are established be recorded in writing; that the employee be advised of these critical requirements before rather than after the appraisal; and that most importantly, an employee appraisal must be based solely on an evaluation of his or her performance of these critical requirements.

COMMON PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL MECHANISMS

A variety of appraisal methods have been employed in an attempt to achieve these goals. Any evaluation system depends on the use of some kind of mechanism to form the basis of judging employee performance. The best appraisal mechanisms come closest to evaluating the behaviors that actually distinguish between successful and unsuccessful job performance. Any rating system used should be based on objective criteria. Although this may seem obvious to the reader, it is common for human service organizations to use arbitrary and subjective performance measures. The nature of many commonly used appraisal mechanisms makes their validity and reliability questionable and can easily lead to allegations of subjective evaluator bias.

Traditional Trait-Based Rating Scales

Most people have used (or have been subjected to), appraisal systems based on trait-based rating scales. Usually, a list of characteristics is presented and the assessor is asked to rate the employee on each quality listed. Ratings are usually on three-, four-, or five-point scales, from “excellent” to “poor” or “needs improvement,” with gradations between.

The problem with these scales is that the characteristics listed are often vague and subjective. Evaluators are asked to rate employees in terms of their personal characteristics rather than in terms of specific skills or work-related behaviors. “Appraisal” of employees’ initiative, enthusiasm, honesty, attitudes, or dependability is common.

Such ratings can be questioned on the basis of their fairness. Evaluator bias is a serious problem with such a rating instrument. Biases include a “halo effect,” where the evaluator’s total perception of the employee affects each separate rating, or a tendency among evaluators to: rate everyone as “average” (a central tendency effect); rate everyone “low” (a strictness effect); or, rate everyone “high” (a leniency effect).

Traditional rating scales are also limited in their practicality. If the purpose of evaluation is to improve performance, the mechanism used must point the way toward behavior that needs strengthening. If an employee receives low ratings on his or her personal characteristics, there is little that can be done to improve.

Ranking, Paired Comparison, and Forced Distribution Systems

In this method, each employee is compared with other employees in comparable positions in accordance with some criterion or criteria. The evaluator might rank employees from best to worst or compare each individual in turn with all others. There are a number of variations on the ranking method. In the paired comparison approach, the assessor is asked to first select the best and the worst employee along some criterion or criteria, then the second-best and second-worst, then the third, and so forth until all employees are ranked. The forced distribution variation specifies to the evaluator what percentage of the total number of employees can occupy a particular rank.

Ranking methods help make distinctions among employees when selections must be made for differential compensation or for promotion but they serve little other useful purpose. In fact, they have the potential for breeding distrust and cynicism about the performance appraisal system because employees frequently see little connection between their performance and how they are ranked. The tendency to promote unhealthy competition among employees is readily apparent and, like the trait-based scales, there is little guidance to the employee on how to take corrective action in order to improve performance.

Performance Tests

Tests of job-related skills are most often based on simulations, demonstrations, or work samples. Employees are asked to show they have the competencies related to effective job performance. This can work only if the system designers have validated the methods used and if the skills being tested can lend themselves to objective measurement. In human service work, the use of video or audiotapes of sessions with clients is an example of a performance test. Its use requires that the evaluators agree on what characteristics they want employees to demonstrate, and this can be a very difficult task. In addition, human service workers normally have a number of responsibilities beyond direct service delivery, so other appraisa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1. Performance Evaluation: An Overview
• Chapter 2. Two Cases in Performance Evaluation
• Chapter 3. The “Ideal” System for Human Service Performance Evaluation
• Chapter 4. Constructing the Ideal Performance Evaluation Instrument for a Human Service Agency
• Chapter 5. The Performance Evaluation Instrument
• Chapter 6. Implementing the Process/Using the Instrument
• Chapter 7. The “Ideal” Performance System in Action
• Chapter 8. The Ideal Performance Evaluation System: Applications and Implications
• References
• Index