Taken together, this shows that self-ratings can exacerbate and systematize biases. Or worse, they may see the discrepancy in ratings and avoid the performance discussion altogether. Managers are more likely to give a positive review when the subordinate’s self-rating is favorable. Fact: Self-ratings can shift the manager’s review.Notably, women rate themselves lower than men that performed equally, and individualistic cultures are more likely to give themselves high ratings. Unsurprisingly, employees are more likely to be lenient when rating themselves. Fact: Employee’s self-ratings will be inflated.We’d be remiss if we didn’t point out that opponents have a strong case as well, particularly when it comes to using self-ratings. This can give the manager time to prepare for difficult conversations. A temperature check: Self-reflection can show a forecast into how the review conversation will go based on the discrepancy between what the manager thinks and the employee’s own opinion of their performance.A study found that employees who took part in a self-reflection were more likely to have deeper discussions about their performance and potential issues. A look at invisible labor: Self-reflection can show a view into the employee’s performance that is not otherwise seen and the employee’s perceptions of their development opportunities.In these cases, self-reflections can provide: However, in a world where the share of employees considered knowledge workers are ever-increasing, and with more of those employees working from home, much of the “work” that gets done in a day is not directly seen by someone’s manager or even their peers. In a job where employees produce tangible goods and are rated on the number of widgets produced, a self-reflection wouldn’t make much sense. Proponents would also emphasize the benefits for managers. For example, “For the last six months, I did not create visible project plans for my team, in the next six months I’ll be the type of person that does this.” This contrast between different selves results in higher motivation and even a higher likelihood to take action. Context-wise, having a temporal landmark (like a set performance review discussion) creates the opportunity to contrast their past and future self.Content-wise, the act of reflecting has been found to increase performance, as well as make employees happier and less likely to burn out.This shift happens because of both the content as well as the context. The most progressive proponents might also mention that taking part in the performance review process can shift an employee’s perspective from a "check-the-box activity," or worse, "something that is done to me," to a ritual for their growth. If they perceive the process as fair, they’ll be more likely to accept the outcomes of the process, be more satisfied with their work, be committed to the organization, and be motivated to improve, which is, of course, the ultimate goal of performance management. These perceptions are important because employees are not robots, their experiences have a direct impact on how they perform. Proponents would say employees taking part in the process impacts procedural justice, meaning how they perceive the fairness of the performance evaluation process itself. So while employees want to have a say, they don’t expect it to influence the outcome. Research has found that value-expressive is more closely correlated with being satisfied with the process and believing it was fair. Actually, employee participation can be split into two types: value-expressive (participating to have your say) or instrumental (participating to influence the outcome).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |