Which of the following is not typically discussed during a performance evaluation with an employee

Because employee performance is determined by ability as well as motivation, training can significantly improve employee performance. To provide appropriate training, however, it is necessary to be aware of the employee's current performance level, including any unsatisfactory aspects. It is also necessary to know if undesirable performance is caused by a lack of ability or motivation or by the situation. In order to gain this knowledge, HR professionals must use performance appraisals. In conjunction with job analysis, performance appraisal is necessary for implementing effective pre-employment training programs. Thus, assessment of performance can also help the employee make a decision about changes in his or her career. If the employee finds out that, in spite of training and aptitudes, he or she is unable to deliver a satisfactory performance, a change in career may be sought. This can be done internally (through a transfer) or externally (change to another organization).

The forced distribution method was designed to overcome a frequent complaint leveled against the various ranking methods, namely, that the methods give each employee a unique rank and does not allow for two (or more) incumbents' performances to be very close to each other. However, in many instances it is very hard to differentiate between two employees. The forced distribution method overcomes this problem and incorporates several factors or dimensions (rather than a single factor) into the ranking process. The term "forced distribution" is used because the superior must assign only a certain proportion of subordinates to each of several categories with respect to each other.

A common forced distribution scale may be divided into five categories, with a fixed percentage of all subordinates in the group falling within each of these categories. Many universities in North America that use a letter-grade system (A, B, C, etc.), rather than percentages (i.e., a grade mark out of 100), use forced distribution. Typically, the distribution follows a normal "bell-shaped" pattern.

Conventional rating (also called graphic rating scales or Likert scales) is the most widely used form of performance evaluation. Conventional forms vary in the number of performance dimensions they measure. The term performance is used advisedly here because many conventional forms use personality characteristics or traits, rather than actual behaviors, as indicators of performance. Frequently-used traits include aggressiveness, independence, maturity, and a sense of responsibility, to name a few. Many conventional forms also use output indicators such as quantity and quality of performance. Conventional forms vary in the number of traits and output indicators they incorporate. They also vary in the range of choices for each dimension and the extent to which each dimension is described.

Conventional forms are used extensively because they are relatively easy to develop and permit quantitative results that allow comparisons across employees and departments. Because the rater has complete control in the use of the forms, conventional forms are subject to errors including leniency, strictness, central tendency, and halo effect. (These terms will be covered in subsequent sections.) Often separate traits or factors are grouped together and the rater is given only one box to check. Another drawback is that the descriptive words often used in such scales may have different meanings to different raters. Terms such as motivation, cooperation and social skills are all subject to various interpretations, and raters may certainly benefit from clear definitions.

Because the typical appraisal period is six months to a year, it is too difficult to retain in memory all performance-related behaviors of the incumbents. As a cognitive shortcut, raters may fall prey to the primary effect and/or the recency effect. When special attention is paid to the first information logged or remembered, it is referred to as the primary bias or effect. In the process, raters will use initial information to categorize a ratee as either a good or poor performer. Subsequently, information that supports the initial judgments is accumulated, and contradictory information is ignored.

Conversely, a rater may not pay attention to an employee's performance during the appraisal period. As a result, when the appraisal interview draws near, the rater may search for information cues about the value of performance. Unfortunately, recent behaviors or outputs are salient, so recent behaviors are then weighted more heavily than they should be. Called the recency error, this bias can have serious consequences for a ratee who performs well for six months or a year, but then makes a serious or costly mistake in the last week or two preceding the appraisal. Incumbents and managers can minimize these errors by documenting ongoing critical events. While time-consuming to complete, these files ensure that information for the entire appraisal period is incorporated into judgments.

What should not be included in a performance evaluation?

What should be included in a performance evaluation?

What is discussed during a performance evaluation with an employee?

What are the 4 stages involved when conducting a performance review?