Russ Russo expresses surprise that Jack Ring reports that self assessors
rate themselves higher than do outside assessors. Perhaps, Russ does not
hang around academics enough to know the adage, "S/he is a lengend in
her/his own mind." Or perhaps, Russ never heard that purportedly, a study
of undergraduate students found that 90% rated themselves as better than
their average peer.
Clearly, all of us whose jobs require that we give performance feedback
often experience conflict engenered by the discrepancy between our
assessment of an individual's performance and their own assessment. Books
have been written about how to improve the performance appraisal process,
and there is not enough space here to discuss the topic adequately.
However, I would suggest that many of the problems that occur in
performance appraisal start with the failure to clearly state the basis of
appraisal before hand. After all, you don't play a game of basketball
without first knowing the rules. Towards that end, there seem to be three
basis of comparisons frequently, though inconsistently, used. the first
basis of comparison is against some stated criteria, whether a standard or
a goal. The second is normed based, i.e., how does this performance
compare to other people doing the same task. The third is historical,
i.e., how does this performance compare with previous levels. All of these
bases of comparisons have limitations that need to be recognized.
This is not to say that other identified probems, ie., holding people
accountable for outcomes that they do not control, invalid assessment
instruments, poor appraisor training, etc. can be ignored. Nonetheless, I
think failure to define a good job apriori, lies at the heart of many of
the problems encountered in the performance appraisal process.
Often wwrong, but never in doubt.
Kim Boal
--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu