Evaluations of automated performance management systems have shown that they are viewed positively by users overall, decrease work- load, ensure widespread access, and provide a standardized format for collecting, storing, and reporting performance data.
Example:
Basic Level of Functionality in Automated System
• User interfaces for displaying competencies, performance stand- ards, and performance management process information • Make and capture performance ratings
• Web pages that contain help, information, and instruction fi les
To make informed decisions about the extent of automation beyond the basic functions, time, resources, development, and main- tenance costs need to be considered. For example, database develop- ment and maintenance represent signifi cant costs beyond applications development. Additionally, features such as information security, archiving, and records management represent areas that require additional consideration. There are a variety of advanced features that can be built into an automated performance management system, including:
• Capturing input from multiple rating sources. Automated perfor- mance management systems have proven to be invaluable for the implementation of multi-source or 360-degree feedback systems, which are inherently more complex from an administrative stand- point than managerial evaluations. First, several raters must be selected from multiple rating sources (e.g., peers, customers) from which feedback is sought. With the exception of the manager, a minimum of three raters from each source are needed to provide feedback. Since not all potential raters provide feedback when they are asked, it is necessary to ask for feedback from more than the minimum needed. Usually, at least fi ve to six raters from each ratings source are asked. This means that if feedback is sought from
three sources (peers, direct reports, and customers), requests will need to be sent and rating forms made available to approximately 15–18 raters per employee. Once completed, the ratings from these different participants need to be compiled and analyzed by rating source (e.g., all peer ratings combined). A feedback report is then generated showing the results. Automated systems are almost essential for this type of multi-rater application, allowing for effi - cient selection of raters, easy access to rating forms, collection and analysis of data from multiple sources, and automated develop- ment and delivery of reports.2
• Capturing employee input. This includes capturing accomplish- ments and any other types of employee input (e.g., comments, ratings) on-line.
• Managing workfl ow. This includes prompting managers, employ- ees, reviewers, and human resources staff about deadlines relevant to the performance management process and providing access to forms and documents that are needed during the process.
• Providing automated feedback and training to managers. The goal of this feedback is to help managers and other raters mitigate rating infl ation and other rating errors that commonly occur when one individual evaluates the performance of another. For example, an automated system can be programmed to track and analyze man- agers’ ratings over time. When suffi cient data have been collected on a large enough group of employees (e.g., 50–100), managers whose ratings seem to exhibit certain patterns (e.g., constantly rating employees at the highest rating levels) can be given feedback on their ratings and reminded to make sure their ratings refl ect both strengths and development needs. Alternatively, managers’ ratings can also be evaluated and feedback provided in real time as they are making them. This can be accomplished by fl agging ratings of an employee that meet certain predetermined thresholds and prompting managers to review their ratings for accuracy. For example, ratings might be fl agged when an employee is rated at exactly the same level on all of the competencies or when an employee receives an average rating of 4.75 or above on a 5-point scale, which may be unrealistically high, or a rating of 2.25 or below, which may be unrealistically low.
• Reporting. This capability involves generating automated reports at preprogrammed intervals to track system effectiveness. For example,
reports can be produced showing the average ratings by compe- tency, division, department, group, or other relevant entity. Simi- larly, ratings for protected demographic groups (e.g., employees over 40, minority groups) compared to non-protected groups can be regularly examined for adverse impact or other issues of concern. As another example, reports can be produced that show the relationships between performance ratings and outcomes such as pay and promotion. All of these types of reports are benefi cial to produce on an ongoing basis, because they provide useful information about the health of a performance manage- ment system and enable timely interventions to address any problems.
• Providing evaluation support tools. Evaluation support tools include such things as sample behavioral statements that can be used to develop narratives, developmental activities that can be pursued to enhance performance on each competency, example performance objectives, and any other information that may facilitate comple- tion of the appraisal. The idea is that such examples provide models and starting points for developing narratives, objectives, etc., which should increase effi ciency, effectiveness, and standardization across different managers.
• Development and training support. Some software allows employees to create, store, and monitor their progress in achieving their indi- vidual development plans. Other related functionality includes the ability to request and get approval for formal training and to reg- ister for training programs.
• Facilitating HR decision-making. Software tools can also be imple- mented to facilitate making compensation and other human resources decisions. Once managers fi nalize employees’ ratings, they can be automatically plotted on a graph that shows where each employee stands within their job level. Taking into account the employee’s performance ratings, the tool helps managers identify which employees might be under- or over-paid for their job cate- gory and level of performance. Managers can also experiment with alternative compensation amounts for different employees, while tracking the overall impact of these decisions on payroll. Other functionality allows importing performance evaluations so that they can be used with additional information to facilitate succes- sion planning, staffi ng, and other human resources functions.