Appraisal of the Performance Evaluation Systems in the Workplace - Cineworld Group - Case Study Example

Appraisal of the Performance Evaluation/Measurement Systems in Workplace (Cineworld_UK) Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Table of Contents Introduction 2 Methods of measurements 4 Management by Objectives Method (MBO) 4 Critical Incident Method 6 360 Degree Performance Appraisal Method 11 Conclusion 14 My experience on the module 14 References 16 Introduction The Cineworld Group is one of the leading cinema groups in the UK and Ireland. It has a portfolio of 74 cinemas and 770 screens which operate under the Cineworld brand (Cineworld, 2010). It was founded in 1995. The group is committed to offering its customers a very wide range of films (Landy and Conte, 2009). The group shows Hollywood blockbusters and is one of the biggest exhibitors of Bollywood films in UK. The group has also introduced Tamil films and a wide mix of independent art house and foreign films. The firm is committed to provide an excellent level of customer service and a wide range of products. Performance evaluation/measurement methods are based on a few aspects. Performance evaluation/measurement methods are employed to judge a particular employee’s work performance to enable the employee gain the jobs’ benefits (Clements-Croome, 2006). Employee’s appraisal, career development and performance reviews are based on the performance evaluation/measurement methods. Performance evaluation/measurement of employees is based on the analysis of their success, failures, strengths and weaknesses (Moseley and Dessinger, 2009). This helps the firm to know the worthiness of its employees. Performance evaluation/measurement of employees involves observation of productivity of individual employee towards the work assigned to him/her in a given period of time to prove their ability (Landy and Conte, 2009). Although performance evaluation/measurement methods are used for the above mentioned objectives, some of them are used for performance appraisal of the employee. Performance evaluation/measurement methods are based on three main aspects: quantity and quality of work done, time for doing the work and benefits to the firm in terms of costs (Watkins and Leigh, 2009). Performance evaluation/measurement methods gives employees feedback about their work, record the work of employees to give them a few rewards from the firm, and provide employees with opportunities to further their careers (Biech, 2008). They also enable employees to improve their performance via training and coaching sessions that are provided by the firm’s management. Work experiences of employees are often influenced by common techniques employed by a firm’s management. Employees are able to attain better performance and increase a firm’s revenue if the firm embraces good communication patterns and recreation (Jeffrey and Dyson, 2008). There are several methods of performance evaluation/measurement which are critically discussed below. Methods of measurements Management by Objectives Method (MBO) This method of performance evaluation/measurement is argued to be one of the best methods which allow employees and managers to set specified objective for employees and evaluate them periodically. This method is based on the results rather than how the objective is attained. The concept of this method was first in mid 1950s (Landy and Conte, 2009). The method involves employees and managers coming together to identify common objectives. The method allow employees to set their objectives to be attained, the standards to be undertaken as the criteria for measurement of their performance and contribution and deciding the course of action to be followed. For instance in case of Cineworld, the employee say in the marketing department can set to have a certain number of visitors to the cinema’s of the group and hence their performance will be based on the number of customers visiting the group cinemas and that target set by the employee (Watkins and Leigh, 2009). The method is credited for its aspect of measuring and comparing employee’s actual performance with the set objectives (Moseley and Dessinger, 2009). The involvement of employees in the goal setting and the choice of action to be followed contribute to employee commitment to attain their responsibilities (Clements-Croome, 2006). This method has several stages. First, the goals of the firm are defined. This is then followed by employees defining their objectives. Once the employee objectives are defined, a continuous monitoring of performance and progress follows (Watkins and Leigh, 2009). Performance is then evaluated and reviewed and feedback is provided (Jeffrey and Dyson, 2008). The employees are then appraised and either rewarded or punished based on their performance. Management by objective creates empowered employees who have clearly defined roles and responsibilities expected from them, understand their objectives and assists in the attainment of the firms and personal goals (Clements-Croome, 2006). The method clear goals which are SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound and this implies that the set goals are clear, motivating and provides a linkage between the firm’s goals and performance targets of the workers (Landy and Conte, 2009). The MBO allows the employees and managers of the firm to focus on the future instead of the future since goals and standards are devised for future performance of the firm and involve periodic reviews and feedback (Biech, 2008). The method ensures that employees are motivated since the method involves employees in setting goals and their empowerment which increase their satisfaction and commitment. The method also provides a better avenue for communication and coordination of employees because of frequent reviews and interactions between the management and employees of a firm (Moseley and Dessinger, 2009). This fosters harmonious relationships within the firm and allows active resolution of problems that arise during the reviews and interactions carried out frequently. The method has however been criticized because in some instances managers use it to allocate employees some tasks which are impossible to be accomplished. This is often seen in instances where managers are lazy or use it a deliberate ploy such as forcing people to work beyond their normal working hours (Clements-Croome, 2006). The effectiveness of the method is also said to require several years to be realized. It is also criticized for requiring a lot of paper work without measuring key operations. It is also said to be disadvantageous since personal objectives of employees might be achieved at the expense of the goals of the firm. This is based on the argument that by sacrificing everything the management might have poor judgment capabilities (Watkins and Leigh, 2009). The method is also criticized because some firms often raise the target which is too high for employees to attain hence making them frustrated (Biech, 2008). It is also argued that in some cases performance appraisal is based on personality traits instead of being based on performance. Since some firms use results for promoting their employees, this may result in setting easy targets to allow employees to get promoted. The method does not allow for measurable objectives to be set in instances where groups of staff are only in existence to help the line attain its objectives (Landy and Conte, 2009). The method is also argued to have ineffective way of reviewing and counselling managers. In some instances employees do not want to be held responsible and when goals are forced upon them they may feel bad (Moseley and Dessinger, 2009). It is also argued that people involved in performance appraisal in this method may not be properly trained and hence they might not be motivated to make the system work and may tend to treat the system in mechanical manner. Critical Incident Method This method is based on behavioural performance of employees and involves recording the positive and negative behavioural performance of the employees. For instance, employees at Cineworld working in cinema halls may be evaluated based on how they handle various crises during the shows. This process is undertaken throughout the performance period and the final report is submitted as the assessment of the desired employees (Watkins and Leigh, 2009). The method is hailed for being able to help employees in performance management and improving their quality of work. The method involves collecting reports on incidents which can result in significant changes to the workplace and how the employees are involved in such incidents. In this method judgment does not play any role (Biech, 2008). The method was also designed in mid 1950s. The method has various steps. In the first step, facts about what actually happened prior, during and after the incident are gathered (Clements-Croome, 2006). The content of information gathered is then analyzed. This is followed by inferring about how to improve the performance. The fact gathering stage employs either interviews or questionnaires to gather data. It requires that the event ought to have taken place in recent time to avoid respondents from giving imagined or stereotypical responses. The analysis stage involves compiling incidents into categories (Landy and Conte, 2009). Membership to a certain category is based on being identical, closely similar or probability of being similar. The percentage response in each category is then calculated and a report is then prepared based on the analysis results (Watkins and Leigh, 2009). The inference stage is said to help improve performance. At this stage poor features and good features are arranged in order of frequency based on the number of responses per category. This stage also involves analysis of the circumstances which resulted in each category of critical incidence and improving upon it (Moseley and Dessinger, 2009). The proponents of this method argue that individual’s calibre is best judged based on existing critical conditions. This method advocates for continuous appraisal instead of year end judgment. Thus the method eliminates the biasness that might arise due to recency effect when judgment is done at the end of the year (Biech, 2008). Given that evaluation is based on specific incidences taking place at the firm, the person appraising employees is not biased in most cases. It is also argued that feedback provided by this method can help in improving the performance of employees (Watkins and Leigh, 2009). The method is also argued to be able to provide greater role clarity and allows improvement of methods used to carry out employee’s duties. The method is also hailed for being able to identify the near misses which can have bearing on the safety critical applications. However, the method is criticized for being subjective in nature even in its name. Moreover, the method is criticized for having insufficient time for the appraiser and this is argued to the major hindrance for this method (Clements-Croome, 2006). The method furthermore faces criticism for neglecting some positive attitudes such as obedience, honest and faithfulness (Watkins and Leigh, 2009). The reliance of the method on memory is also criticized because major incidents that have taken place in the firm might be forgotten. The method is also said to have restrictive scope and ought only to be used for disciplinary purposes. Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) The BARS method is used for describing the rating of the performance of employees. The method lays focus on specified behaviour as indicators of effective and ineffective performances. This method is often a combination of two other methods like the rating scale and critical incident techniques of employee evaluation (Landy and Conte, 2009). This method is described as a graphic rating scale which has specific behavioural descriptions which utilize various points along each scale. This method involves both the appraiser and the employees in the development of dimensions and generation of behavioural description. For instance the management and employee of Cineworld may come with dimension and behavioural descriptions to be measured. The method is said to advantageous since ratings are not easily subjected to varied interpretations of appraiser. The method is also hailed for being able to meet equal employment opportunity commission guidelines which ensure fair employment practices (Moseley and Dessinger, 2009). This is because the criterion for job assessment is derived from actual job performance and is related to it. The method faces various difficulties. One of such difficulties is that it is often difficult to decide the contents of the behavioural dimension (Clements-Croome, 2006). The method is moreover criticized for decreasing in judgmental quality with the increase in behavioural dimension. The method is also subjective in nature and in most cases appraisers are generally misled due to difficulties arising from flip flopping of anchors. Behavioral Observation Scales Method (BOS) The rationale of this method is that good performance results from good behaviour and that performance is distorted by bad behaviour (Watkins and Leigh, 2009). The measurement undertaken in this method is based on the determination of behaviours in workplace that are related to the failure or success of the jobs. For instance, in the case of Cineworld employee’s behaviours that may result in increased number of visitors to cinemas may be used to evaluate employees at the group’s cinema. This may include things such as how employees interact with customers and the assistance they give them (Clements-Croome, 2006). For the method to be effective, various considerations need to be made. First the behaviours on the job ought to be based on the analysis of job evaluation. It also requires that critical incident method be performed to reduce biasness resulting from performance measurement (Biech, 2008). The method needs also to be performed by a supervisor with better qualification for it to be effective. This method is a frequency rating of critical incidents which the employee has performed over a specific duration of time in the firm (Landy and Conte, 2009). The method was developed due to vagueness in judgment of methods such as graphic rating scales and behaviourally anchored rating scales (BARS). The method differs from BARs in that appraisers in this method rate subordinates based on the frequency of crucial incidents as they are observed over a specified period of time. The ratings in this method are assigned on a 5-point ordinal scale. The overall performance of an employee is the sum of the scores of the questionnaire and thus a better performer based on this method has a higher score. The method is advantageous because it meets equal employment opportunity commission guidelines since these are clearly related to the behaviours needed for successful performance on the job (Watkins and Leigh, 2009). This method allows managers to justify low ratings and to improve the quality of the feedback and results in a more comprehensive appraisal of employees. The method is also argued to be more defensible in court than BARS or trait rating systems. Opponents of this method argue that it requires the appraiser to have observational skill and proper determination of critical behaviours. The method is moreover criticized for its inadequacies which can result in misleading data. 360 Degree Performance Appraisal Method This method is also known as the multi rater feedback. It is said to be the most comprehensive appraisal method in which feedback about the performance of employees comes from all sources which come in contact with the employee while performing his/her job (Watkins and Leigh, 2009). This performance evaluation method is a system or process in which employees receive some performance feedback examples, which are anonymous and confidential from co-workers (Landy and Conte, 2009). This process is carried out by managers and subordinates who through the 360 degrees, measure specific factors about the employees. These factors include behaviour and competence, skills such as planning, listening, and goal-setting, character, teamwork, and leadership effectiveness. Thus in the case of Cineworld employees will be evaluated by both their managers and fellow employees. The method has four major components. They include self appraisal, superior’s appraisal, subordinate appraisal and peer appraisal. Under self appraisal component, the employee has a chance of looking at her/his strengths and weaknesses, his attainments and to judge his own performance. It is recommended that if this method is to be used in the evaluation process that there is need for using structured forms and formal procedures (Moseley and Dessinger, 2009). This component is heralded for contributing to improved communication between employees and their supervisors. For this component to be useful, the entire cycle of performance management need to involve the employee in self assessment. For instance, the employee needs to keep records of tasks he/she has accomplished and failed throughout the period of performance monitoring (Clements-Croome, 2006). For this component to be effective, it should be focused around the development of the employee by being structured around the performance plan and emphasizing training needs and the potential of employee advancing in the firm. It is widely accepted that self rating contributes to fair and well rounded performance appraisal (Landy and Conte, 2009). This component is especially important in instances where the manager is not able to readily observe the work behaviours and task outcomes. It is argued that self assessment is an indispensible component of 360 degree appraisal and as such this method has a high degree of employee involvement and it has a strong impact on behaviour and performance of employee. On the other hand superior’s appraisal component is the traditional part of the method which involves rating the responsibilities and actual performance employee’s superior (Yates and Hinchliffe, 2010). It is argued that first line supervisors are usually in the best position to effectively carry out the full cycle of performance management (Watkins and Leigh, 2009). The individual assessment of employees by supervisors enables the supervisors to redesign and reassign employees based on their capabilities. Studies have however indicated that appraisal programs that rely solely on superior ratings are less reliable and valid. On the other hand subordinate appraisal component allows the employee to be judged on parameters such as his ability to communicate and motivate and his/her ability to delegate the work and to show leadership skills (Landy and Conte, 2009). It is argued that a formalized subordinate feedback program often gives supervisors a more comprehensive picture of employee needs and issues. It also empowers the employees to feel that they have a greater voice in the decision making process of the firm. This component is said to be effective in measuring the supervisor’s interpersonal skills (Biech, 2008). However, if anonymity is not observed conflicts might arise. The component also makes supervisors to feel threatened and to perceive that their authority has been undermined. The peers’ appraisal component is said to be internal customer appraisal which allow establishing the abilities of employees to work in a team, cooperate and being sensitive toward others. It is argued that due to increased use of teams and groups in workplace, peer rating is the most relevant component of rating fellow employee (Watkins and Leigh, 2009). This component needs to be used when employee’s expertise is known or the results and performance can be observed easily. It is argued that peer pressure and peer approval is usually more effective than the traditional emphasis to please the boss. Peer ratings are also argued to best predictors of future performance and are as such useful as input for employee development (Landy and Conte, 2009). The component is also useful for rating employee behaviours and manner of performance. Since multiple raters are used in this component of 360 degree, biasness is reduced. Moreover, the method results in increased use of self directed teams makes the contribution of peer evaluations the central input to the formal appraisal since supervisors are not actively involved in daily activities of teams. Furthermore, peer feedback helps in making the supervisor to play a coaching role rather than being a pure judge. The method is said to be powerful if carried out regularly since it allows the firm to keep a track of the changes other people’s perceptions about the employees (Clements-Croome, 2006). The method is suited for managers since it helps in assessing their leadership and management styles. The method is being applied in various firms across the globe. The method has however been criticized since in most cases self assessment is often higher than other sources of ratings which can often result in defensive and alienation if managers do not use good feedback skills (Moseley and Dessinger, 2009). In cases where self rating is lower than other ratings, it has been argued that such employees tend to be self demeaning and such employees might feel intimidated and put on the spot. Even though peer evaluations are important for developmental purpose, they are not prudent when used for pay, promotion or job retention purposes (Landy and Conte, 2009). It also requires that raters remain anonymous or else conflicts may arise when an employee know that a certain peer rates him/her lowly (Watkins and Leigh, 2009). In addition, for peer evaluation to be effective, peer evaluators need to be familiar with the team member’s tasks and responsibilities. The peer evaluation component has also been argued to be time consuming. Conclusion It is apparent from the discussion above that there are various methods of performance measurement/evaluation of employees; each of these methods has its own strengths and weaknesses. Even though 360 degree evaluation method has been heralded for being the most effective method for evaluating employees and can be effectively applied at Cineworld , relying on a single component of the method may result in some disadvantages. Thus there is need to ensure that all components are considered during evaluation process when 360 degree method is being used. It would be prudent thus for Cineworld to use more than one method to ensure that evaluation process is acceptable to both the management and employees and also help in improving the performance of Cineworld. My experience on the module This module has been instrumental to my understanding of performance management. During the learning process I was able to gain insightful knowledge about the performance management model and interrelationship between various components of the model. I have been able to learn the importance of performance measurement and its contribution to general performance of the firm and individual career development. During the learning process I was also able to acquire knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of various strategies used to measure/evaluate performance. I have also learned that even though there are various methods of appraising employee, none of the measurement system is perfect. Although I learned in class that there are two main approaches for measuring performance: outcome, output and results method and behavioural/input competency based method; it was not until I handled the assignment that I realized that these approaches have different methods and that some methods have both behavioural and outcome approaches. The assignment has enabled me to gain insightful information about various methods of performance measurement and their strengths and limitations. The assignment has also allowed me to learn that the 360 method is one of the best methods of evaluating employees since various raters are involved and both outcome and behaviours of employees are considered during the rating process. My active participation in class discussion and group work has been instrumental in gaining much knowledge about performance management. Even though initial I was not able to clearly comprehend the methods for evaluating employees, the assignment has helped me to clearly understand them. References Biech, E. 2008. Handbook for workplace learning professionals. Chicago: American Society for Training and Development. Cineworld. 2010. Home. Available at http://www.cineworldplc.com/ Clements-Croome, D. 2006. Creating the productive workplace, 2nd Ed. London: Taylor & Francis Jeffrey, C., and Dyson, J. 2008. Telling young lives: portraits in global youth. Temple: Temple University Press Landy, F., and Conte, J. 2009. Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3rd Ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons Moseley, J., and Dessinger, J. 2009. Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace, Measurement and Evaluation. New York: John Wiley and Sons Watkins, R., and Leigh, D. 2009. Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace, the Handbook of Selecting and Implementing Performance Interventions. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Yates, G., and Hinchliffe, M. 2010. A Practical Guide to Private Equity Transactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Read More