3. TRABAJO SOCIAL EN EL AMBITO COMUNITARIO
3.5 TRABAJO COMUNITARIO, ORGANIZACIÓN Y DESARROLLO
One important categorization of job performance assessments is to distinguish between objective and subjective measures of job performance. Objective and subjective performance criteria are also sometimes referred to as “hard” and “soft” performance criteria, respectively (Smith, 1976; Viswesvaran, 2001). Objective
performance criteria involve the measurement of some easily quantifiable aspects
of job performance, such as the number of units produced, the dollar amount of sales, or the time needed to process some information. For example, an objective criterion for an assembly-line worker might be the number of products assem- bled. For an insurance claims adjuster, the average amount of time it takes to process a claim might be an objective measure of performance (see Table 6.2). Such criteria are often referred to as measures of productivity.
Subjective performance criteria consist of judgments or ratings made by
some knowledgeable individual, such as a worker’s supervisor or coworker. These criteria are often used when objective criteria are unavailable, diffi- cult to assess, or inappropriate. For example, it is usually inappropriate to use objective performance criteria to assess a manager’s job, because it is
objective performance criteria
measures of job performance that are easily quantified subjective performance criteria measures of job performance that typically consist of ratings or judgments of performance TABLE 6.2
Examples of Objective Job Performance Criteria
Job Title Measure
Typist Lines per week
Logger Cords (of wood) cut; weight of wood legally hauled Keypuncher Number of characters; number of errors
Service representative Errors in processing customer orders Toll collector Dollar accuracy; axle accuracy
Clerk Errors per 100 documents checked; number of documents processed
Wood harvester Number of cords delivered Tree planter Bags of tree seedlings planted Skateboard maker Number produced; number rejected Sewing machine operator Minutes per operation
Dentist Errors in reading radiographs Inspector Errors detected in finished product Tool/die maker Dies produced
Helicopter pilot Deviations from proper instrument readings Bank teller Number of shortages; number of overages
Air traffic controller Speed of movement of aircraft through the system; correction of pilot error; errors in positioning aircraft for final approach; errors in aircraft separation
Source: Table from The measurement of work performance: Methods, theory, and applications by F. J. Landy and
difficult to specify the exact behaviors that indicate successful managerial performance. Instead subjective criteria, such as subordinate or superior ratings, are used.
Objective performance criteria offer two main advantages. First, because objective criteria typically involve counts of output or the timing of tasks, they are less prone to bias and distortion than subjective performance ratings. Second, objective criteria are usually more directly tied to “bottom-line” assess- ments of an organization’s success, such as the number of products assembled or dollar sales figures. It is often more difficult to determine the links between subjective criteria and bottom-line outcomes.
As mentioned, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to obtain objective performance criteria for certain jobs, such as graphic artist, software developer, and executive vice president. Jobs such as these may best be assessed through ratings or judgments. Another drawback of objective assessments is that they may focus too much on specific, quantifiable outcomes. Because many jobs are complex, looking at only one or two objective measures of performance may not capture the total picture of performance. Some aspects of job performance such as work quality, worker initiative, and work effort are difficult to assess objectively. For example, a salesperson might have high dollar sales figures, but may be so pushy and manipulative that customers are unlikely to return to the store. Likewise, a research analyst may have relatively low output rates because he spends a great deal of time teaching new workers valuable work techniques and helping coworkers solve problems. It is important to emphasize that comprehensive evaluation of employee performance might include both very positive, outside-of-the-job-description activities, such as helping other workers, as well as counterproductive behaviors, such as “goofing off,” substance abuse on the job, or disrupting the work team (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000).
In many cases, collecting objective performance data is time consuming and costly (although see “On the Cutting Edge”). By contrast, subjective per- formance criteria are usually easy and relatively inexpensive to obtain and thus may be the preferred method of assessment for many organizations. Moreover, subjective performance criteria can be used to assess variables that could not be measured objectively, such as employee motivation or “team spirit.”
Regardless of the criteria used to evaluate performance of a job, a number of important criterion concerns or issues have implications for conducting accurate performance appraisals (Bernardin & Beatty, 1984). A primary issue is whether the criteria identified in the job analysis relate to the true nature of the job. A particular concern here is criterion relevance: the notion that the means of appraising performance is indeed pertinent to job success, as identified in the job analysis. A performance appraisal should cover only the specific KSAOs needed to perform a job successfully. For example, the performance criteria for a bookkeeper should deal with knowledge of accounting procedures, mathe- matical skills, and producing work that is neat and error-free, not with personal appearance or oral communication skills—factors that are clearly not relevant to the effective performance of a bookkeeper’s job. However, for a public rela- tions representative, personal appearance and communication skills may be relevant performance criteria.
Stop & Review
Describe nine purposes of performance appraisals.
criterion relevance the extent to which the means of appraising performance is pertinent to job success
The Measurement of Job Performance 133
A related concern is criterion contamination: the extent to which performance appraisals contain elements that detract from the accurate assessment of job effectiveness—elements that should not be included in the performance assessment. A common source of criterion contamination stems from appraiser biases. For example, a supervisor may give an employee an overly positive performance appraisal because the employee has a reputation of past work success or because the employee was a graduate of a prestigious university. Criterion contamination can also result from extraneous factors that contribute to a worker’s apparent success or failure in a job. For instance, a sales manager may receive a poor performance appraisal because of low sales levels, even though the poor sales actually result from the fact that the manager supervises a young, inexperienced sales force.
criterion contamination the extent to which performance appraisals contain elements that detract from the accurate assessment of job effectiveness
“Y
our call may be monitored in an effort to improve our customer service.” How many times have you heard that when calling a helpline? Probably most of the time. Workers in call centers, as well as many employees who work on-line or on com- pany computer networks, can have their performance monitored electronically. For example, employees in the collections department of a credit card company must maintain computerized records of phone calls, corre- spondence, and other activity for all accounts. The com- puterized monitoring system allows supervisors to note the number and length of calls to each account as well as the amount of money collected. Supervisors receive a detailed weekly report of employee computer activi- ties that give a good indication of how the workers spent their time. A hard measure of employee performance is obtained from the amount of money collected from each account. Estimates are that about 80% of employers use some sort of electronic surveillance of employee perfor- mance (Alge, 2001).Although electronic performance monitoring can lead to more objective assessments of employee perfor- mance, workers have raised certain objections. Some have argued that computer monitoring focuses only on those behaviors that are easily quantified, such as time engaged in a particular activity or dollar sales figures, but ignores measures of quality (Brewer & Ridgway, 1998). Another important consideration is the protection of employees’
rights to privacy (Ambrose, Alder, & Noel, 1998). There is some question as to when employer monitoring of work activities begins to infringe on the employees’ freedom to conduct work activities in a manner they see fit (Chalykoff & Kochan, 1989; Zweig & Scott, 2007; Zweig & Webster, 2002). Another concern is whether employees view electronic monitoring as being a “fair” supervisory practice (McNall & Roch, 2009). A related problem is that employee creativity and innovation in work methods may be stifled if the workers know that work activities are being monitored.
Research has investigated the effects of computerized monitoring on employee performance with controlled experiments (e.g., Aiello & Kolb, 1995; Stanton & Barnes-Farrell, 1996; Stanton & Julian, 2002). Much of this research suggests that giving employees feedback about the performance monitoring and allowing workers a “voice” in the performance monitoring program through having workers participate in setting their performance goals alleviates many of the “negatives” associated with computerized monitoring (Ambrose & Alder, 2000; Nebeker & Tatum, 1993). In any case, computerized monitoring is here to stay and, as systems become more sophisticated, is likely to increase even more in the future. The challenge for I/O psychologists is to understand the effects of electronic performance monitoring on employees’ behaviors, motivation, and satisfaction with the job and organization (Stanton, 2000).