Chapter 5measuring Resultsandbehaviors5 1copyright 2019 Chicago Busi ✓ Solved

Chapter 5 Measuring Results and Behaviors 5-1 Key Questions Where should each individual focus their efforts? What are the expected standards? How do we know how well the results were achieved? 5-2 Measuring Results: Overview Accountabilities Objectives Performance Standards 5-3 Accountabilities Broad areas of a job for which an employee is responsible for producing results 5-4 Determining Accountabilities Collect information about the job (Job Description) Determine importance of task or cluster of tasks Percentage of employee’s time spent performing tasks Impact on the unit’s mission if performed inadequately Consequences of error 5-5 Objectives Statements of important and measurable outcomes, that, when accomplished, will help ensure success for the accountability 5-6 Determining Objectives Purpose is to identify outcomes: Limited in number Highly important Achieving them will have a dramatic impact on overall organization success 5-7 Characteristics of Good Objectives 5-8 Setting SMART Objectives What are the benefits of using SMART objectives?

Choose a short-term personal or professional goal and frame the objective using the SMART technique 5-9 SMART Objectives Performance Standards Yardstick used to evaluate how well employees have achieved objectives Information about what to look for to determine the level of performance that has been achieved 5-10 Performance Standards Aspects of performance objectives: Quality How well the objective is achieved Quantity How much, how many, how often, and at what cost? Time Due dates, schedule, cycle times, and how quickly? 5-11 Standards Must Include An Action The Desired Result A Due Date A Quality or Quantity Indicator 5-12 Good Performance Standards 5-13 Measuring Behaviors: Overview Identify Competencies Identify Indicators Choose Measurement System 5-14 Identify Competencies Measurable clusters of KSAs Knowledge Skills Abilities Critical in determining how results will be achieved 5-15 Company Spotlight Xerox Capital Services (XCS) used leadership competencies to create leadership development program Steps followed: Senior managers and leaders identified the 12 most critical competencies for success at XCS 12-week curriculum developed with readings and course material 5-16 Types of Competencies Differentiating Distinguish between superior and average performance Threshold Needed to perform to minimum standard 5-17 Identify Indicators Observable behaviors Used to measure the extent to which competencies are present or not 5-18 Necessary Components for Describing Competencies Definition of competency Description of specific behaviors When competency is demonstrated When competency is not demonstrated Suggestions for developing the competency 5-19 Choose a Measurement System Comparative system Compares employees with one another Absolute system Compares employees with pre-specified performance standards 5-20 Choose a Measurement System 5-21 Types of Comparative Systems Simple rank order Alternation rank order Paired comparisons Relative percentile Forced distribution 5-22 Simple Rank Order Advantages: Simple and easy to do Results are clear Disadvantages: Judges performance based on one dimension only May be difficult to rank similar performance levels 5-23 Alternation Rank Order Advantages: Simple and easy to do Results are clear Uses two anchors (best and worst) Disadvantages: Judges performance based on one dimension only May be difficult to rank similar performance levels Does not specify threshold for acceptable performance 5-24 Paired Comparisons Advantages: Thorough Final rankings are more accurate Disadvantages: Very time consuming May encounter problem of comparing “apples and oranges†5-25 Relative Percentile Advantages: Simple and easy to use Evaluates specific competencies or overall performance Disadvantages: May be difficult to consider all ratees at the same time Time consuming if using several scales for different competencies 5-26 Relative Percentile 5-27 Example of Relative Percentile Method Scale Don Desiree Heather Forced Distribution Advantages: Categorizes employees into specific performance groups Facilitates reward assessment Competition may be good for organizational performance Disadvantages: Assumes performance scores are normally distributed May discourage contextual performance and teamwork 5-28 Company Spotlight General Electric (GE) has moved from forced distribution ratings to a more performance management approach Changes include: An app-based system to provide ongoing coaching Evaluating employees relative to desired traits 5-29 Forced Distributions Why might forced distributions demotivate employees?

How have forced distributions evolved over the years? 5-30 Forced Distribution Advantages of Comparative Systems Easy to explain Straightforward: Identifies top as well as underperformers Better control for biases and errors found in absolute systems: Leniency, Severity, and Central tendency Beneficial for jobs that are very autonomous Attracts individuals high in cognitive abilities 5-31 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 5-32 Company Spotlight Deloitte abandoned forced distribution ratings in favor of a system that provides feedback on a project or quarterly basis Changes include: Documented, weekly “check-ins†with employees Supervisor training on how to evaluate performance 5-33 Nature of Performance Distribution Forced distribution implies that performance is normally distributed Recent research shows that, instead, performance is distributed following a heavy-tail That is, There are more star performers Differences between top and average performers are much greater 5-34 Nature of Performance Distribution What does the “myth of the bell curve†refer to?

Under what situations are traditional assumptions of performance more likely to hold? 5-35 Nature of Performance Distribution 5-36 Nature of Performance Distribution Producing Star Performers 5-37 Identify and eliminate situational constraints Allow star performers to rotate across teams Invest sufficient resources in star performers Attend to stars developmental network Shield from financial challenges Give them preferential treatment, but explain why to all workers Invest disproportionate amount of resources in stars Absolute Systems Essays Behavior checklists Critical incidents Graphic rating scales 5-38 Behavior Checklists Advantages: Easy to use and understand Provides quantitative information Widespread use More objective than other systems Disadvantages: May feel impersonal and disconnected Scale points used are often arbitrary Difficult to get detailed and useful feedback 5-39 Behavior Checklists 5-40 Example of Behavior Checklist Item Essays Advantages: Simplest absolute method Individualized for each employee Can be done anytime Potential for detailed feedback Disadvantages: Unstructured and may lack detail Depends on supervisor’s writing skill Comparisons virtually impossible Lack of quantitative information; difficult to use in personnel decisions 5-41 Critical Incidents Advantages: Focus on actual job behavior Provides specific examples Employees identify with rating Disadvantages: Collecting critical incidents can be very time consuming Quantification is difficult 5-42 Critical Incidents 5-43 Example of Critical Incidents for Adaptability/Flexibility Graphic Rating Scales Advantages: Meanings, interpretations, and dimensions being rated are clear Useful and accurate Most popular tool Disadvantages: Time consuming and resource-laden to develop Lacks individualized feedback and recommendations 5-44 Graphic Rating Scales: BARS Improvement Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) Uses 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 5-45 BARS Improvement 5-46 Example of BARS Improvement scale Advantages and Disadvantages of Absolute Systems Advantages: Can be used in large and small organizations Evaluations more widely accepted by employees Disadvantages: Higher risk of leniency, severity, and central tendency biases Generally more time consuming than comparative systems 5-47 Role of Context Plays important role in determining how performance is measured Examples Competitive versus Collaborative Value of long-term relationships with customers Industry Trends Leadership 5-48 Measuring Performance Several types of methods Differ in terms of: Practicality (time and effort) Usefulness (quantifiable) 5-49 Quick Review Measuring Results Determine Accountabilities Determine Objectives Determine Performance Standards Measuring Behaviors Comparative Systems Nature of the Performance Distribution Absolute Systems Role of Context 5-50 All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. Supplemental Case Chapter 5: Gain Sharing at CircleWorks CircleWorks has been making custom bicycles for biking enthusiasts for nearly fifty years. The family-run company has had much success using small teams of employees to build bicycles to meet customer specifications. The custom built bikes have been in consistent demand and CircleWorks has maintained their position as a leader in the market.

But, as a new generation of bike builders enters the workforce, Human Resources Director Sheila Gaines is concerned about employee motivation. She is considering offering incentives to encourage better teamwork, more employee involvement and improved productivity. Introducing incentive pay is a challenge at CircleWorks as it runs contrary to the organizational culture. The family who started the company believed strongly in hard work and traditional management practices and this view dominates the organizational culture. The company President has suggested to Sheila that employees should be motivated only by the satisfaction of getting the job done.

Further, company management is somewhat resistant to employee involvement in decisions. While they have always had a suggestion box available, very rarely does management look to employees for input on operations. Advancing technology has allowed many changes in production techniques and management believes that the design engineers are in the best position to guide changes in the work processes. The bikes are built using teams of four to five workers who follow specific directions on building each bike. Because the bike designs are fairly intricate, each bike takes a designated amount of time to build and there is not much variability in the speed of production.

However, Sheila has noted that some teams do work together better than others and wants to reward such cooperation. She has considered productivity bonuses awarded to the teams, but has also considered implementing a gain sharing plan. Sheila believes that some incentives directed at all employees as opposed to the individual teams may promote more cooperation overall within the company. Further, as new workers with varied talents enter their workforce, Sheila wants to provide some incentives for the employees to make improvements to the production process. As she prepares to meet with the company President, she must decide if a gain sharing plan is the best recommendation.

Paper for above instructions

In today's competitive business environment, organizations are increasingly recognizing the importance of measuring performance outcomes and behaviors among employees. Effective performance measurement aligns individual objectives with organizational goals, fosters accountability, and enhances overall productivity. This assignment aims to explore key concepts in measuring results and behaviors, including accountabilities, objectives, performance standards, and measurement systems. The insights will be contextualized with a case study on CircleWorks, demonstrating the application of these concepts in a real-world scenario.

Measuring Results: Overview

Accountabilities refer to broad areas of responsibility for which employees are expected to produce specific results. Determining accountabilities involves a careful analysis of job descriptions, identifying key tasks, assessing the importance of each task, estimating the percentage of time spent on various tasks, and evaluating the impact on the organizational mission if tasks are not performed adequately (Chicago Business Press, 2019).
Objectives, as defined in the text, are specific and measurable outcomes that, when achieved, enhance organizational success. Good objectives should be limited in number, highly significant, and capable of dramatically influencing overall performance (Chicago Business Press, 2019). The SMART criteria—Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound—provide a useful framework for establishing effective objectives (Doran, 1981).

Example of a SMART Objective

To illustrate the application of the SMART technique, take a personal professional goal: improving communication skills. A SMART objective could be framed as follows: "I will participate in a public speaking workshop by the end of Q2 2024, aiming to deliver a presentation to my team with at least 80% positive feedback based on a peer review form." This objective is specific (participation in a workshop), measurable (80% positive feedback), achievable (within my skill level), relevant (improving communication skills), and time-bound (by the end of Q2 2024).

Measuring Behaviors: Overview

Measuring behaviors involves identifying competencies—clusters of knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) critical for achieving results (Chicago Business Press, 2019). Competencies can differentiate between superior and average performance and need an appropriate measurement system that could be comparative (ranking employees against one another) or absolute (measuring against predefined standards).

Selecting a Measurement System

When selecting a measurement system, organizations can opt for comparative methods such as simple rank ordering or relative percentile methods, which organizes employee performance in comparison to others. Alternatively, absolute systems, like graphic rating scales and behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS), provide specific benchmarks against which performance can be evaluated (Chicago Business Press, 2019).
For instance, while the graphic rating scale is popular due to its clarity and ease of use, it can be time-consuming and may lack individualized feedback (Chicago Business Press, 2019). Conversely, BARS, which involve various groups in developing scales based on critical incidents, often yield better reliability and relevance, as they ground performance evaluations in actual job behaviors (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).

The Role of Context in Measuring Performance

The context in which performance measurement occurs plays a significant role in determining its success. Factors such as whether the environment is competitive or collaborative can influence what metrics are prioritized and how employee performance is interpreted (Chicago Business Press, 2019). For example, in a collaborative environment, measuring teamwork and collective outcomes may be more beneficial than focusing solely on individual performance.

Case Study: CircleWorks and Gain Sharing

CircleWorks, a custom bicycle manufacturer, presents an interesting case study when applying the concepts of performance measurement in real organizational settings. Under the leadership of Sheila Gaines, the Human Resources Director, the company faces challenges in employee motivation amid changing workforce demographics and technological advancements (Chicago Business Press, 2019).
Sheila's consideration of a gain-sharing plan aligns with modern trends in incentivizing employee cooperation. Gain sharing is an incentive pay system designed to enhance teamwork and improve productivity by distributing a portion of the company's financial gains back to employees (Kohn, 1993). This system differs from individual performance bonuses, as it emphasizes collective results rather than personal achievements.

Challenges and Cultural Considerations

Implementing a gain-sharing plan at CircleWorks, however, requires a nuanced approach due to the company's traditional culture emphasizing hard work and management-oriented processes. The family-owned nature of CircleWorks has fostered an environment that resists dramatic structural changes, and management's reluctance to embrace employee involvement further complicates the introduction of such incentives (Chicago Business Press, 2019).

Strategic Recommendations

1. Pilot Program: Before implementing a full-scale gain-sharing plan, Sheila could propose a pilot program that includes a small team within CircleWorks. This allows for monitoring of the impacts on productivity and employee morale without overwhelming the entire organization.
2. Employee Involvement: Increasing avenues for employee input on operational changes can foster a sense of ownership and collaboration. This can include regular feedback sessions, suggestion initiatives, or small focus groups that discuss potential improvements to production processes.
3. Alignment with Objectives: As new hires come into CircleWorks with varied talents, Sheila can tie the gain-sharing incentives to specific, measurable goals that align employee output with organizational objectives.

Conclusion

The measurement of results and behaviors is an intricate but essential process for enhancing employee performance within organizations. By applying structured frameworks for defining accountabilities and objectives, selecting appropriate measurement systems, and understanding contextual dynamics, organizations can foster a more productive and satisfied workforce. The CircleWorks case highlights the potential challenges organizations face in shifting from traditional practices to more contemporary performance measurement approaches. Ultimately, the successful incorporation of incentive strategies, like gain sharing, could lead to transformative changes in workplace culture and performance.

References

1. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 46(1), 29-45.
2. Chicago Business Press. (2019). Chapter 5: Measuring Results and Behaviors.
3. Doran, G. T. (1981). There's a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management's Goals and Objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35-36.
4. Kohn, A. (1993). Why Incentive Plans Cannot Work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 54-63.
5. Lockheed, M. E., & Nezlek, J. B. (1992). Performance feedback and group performance. Group & Organization Management, 17(3), 325-342.
6. McKinsey & Company. (n.d.). How companies can build a better performance culture. Retrieved from [https://www.mckinsey.com/](https://www.mckinsey.com/)
7. Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2018). Employee Engagement Through Effective Performance Management. Business Horizons, 61(6), 925-936.
8. Pulakos, E. D., & O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why Is Performance Management Broken? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(2), 86-99.
9. Risher, H. (2015). The Future of Performance Management. People & Strategy, 38(2), 20-25.
10. Stewart, G. L., & Brown, K. G. (2019). Human Resource Management: Linking Strategy to Practice. Wiley.