I/O In the Wild. Appraisal - Term Paper Example

I/O On the Wild Comparison between the HR function appraisal for AIG and the description in the lesson material AIG’s Performance Appraisal method for the collection of performance data is the Employee Comparisons method. This method employes a Forced Distribution technique (Riggio, 1996). The process is known within the organization as the Relative Performance Rating (RPR) process. The collection process consists of a comparison of an individual’s performance to that of others in a defined peer performance group.

Relative Performance Ratings are an outcome of roundtable discussions attended by the individual’s manager for the designated group. Furthermore, managers in the roundtable group must achieve the prescribed curve of 10% Top Performers (1st rating), 20% Excellent Performers (2nd rating), 50% Meets (3rd rating), 20% Needs Improvement (1st rating). Over the course of the year, managers and employees are directed to establish weighted goals to direct focus and appropriate priority during the coming year.

Performance against set goals include both dimensions in Borman and Motowidlo’s (1993) Task and Contextual Distinction for Job Performance mentioned in our Criterion Measurement and Development lesson (Criterion Measurement and Development, pp. 6-7), where two dimensions are identified: Task Performance and Contextual Performance. From the lesson we know that to ensure fairness and legally sound HR practices, untrained managers must state what behaviors employees are evaluated on and rewarded for.

During my interview, the general manager lamented regarding the fact that this responsibility was left in the hands of managers lacking the necessary requisite experience to handle this identification of behaviours to be considered during evaluations and statement of definitions. Accordingly, this lack of overall managerial experience introduces the pitfall mentioned in the lesson. Likewise, preparing for the RPR discussions and participating in these is oftentimes a source of stress for managers (Bass, 1981).

They often feel a sense of betrayal and disloyalty towards their employees because the ultimate performance rating their employees will receive is not necessarily based on the actual performance against the agreed upon goal; rather, oftentimes it is how their individual performance ranks relative to others. In addition to being cognitively demanding, often the more persistent voice in the room wins the argument for a better rating and not the best performer. This is the disadvantage we learned in the lesson associated with the Forced Distribution technique (Riggio, 1996).

Likewise, another adverse affect experienced by the manager I interviewed was the dissatisfaction and career ending nature of receiving poor marks in the performance review process. According to my interviewee, placement in the bottom 20% represents a significant risk to employees in this category. As such, they are often a target of staff reductions initiatives. Dissatisfaction with their ratings often encourages them to look for opportunities outside the organization seeking better recognition