final

employment decisions and developmental

to promote outstanding performers (or increase compensation); to inform succession plans; to terminate low performers; to train, transfer, or discipline others

to establish objectives for training programs

360 degree

supervisor

acquainted with target, objectives, the job; responsible for implementing rewards/ punishments; research has demonstrated that this source is more closely related to objective performance

perceived political/ friendship biases; strong reactance to negative feedback (lower cohesion, aatusfaction, trust, perceived performance of group/ team)

leniency, bias, low variability, low agreement with others

objective indicators used; rate self relative to others (ex: above/ below average); focus on the future (what can be improved)

may not be helpful in aligning ratings with organizational goals, but can provide useful information

employment decisions and developmental feedback

averaging all ratings

recent to rating

example: a subordinate who has made a good overall impression on a supervisor is rated as performing high-quality work regardless of the writing that is full of mistakes

example: a manager’s perception of an average subordinate is likely to be lower if that subordinate is in a group with very high performers (and vice versa)

supervisors rate subordinates who are similar to them more positively than they deserve

a rater is pre-disposed to rating employees higher than may be deserved, there for inflating performance ratings

a rater is pre-disposed to rating employees lower than may be deserved, there for deflating performance ratings

personal characteristics or traits; work behavior; work results; overall value or worth in comparison to other employees

graphic rating scale

asks the rater to evaluate the employee on a series of scales

behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS)

critical incidents used to anchor each level of performance

management by objectives

focus on what employee achieves; uses external, objective measures as indicators of employee performance

rank-ordering, paired comparisons, forced distribution

order employees from 1st to last

compare each employee to each other employee in terms of which is superior

too 10%, bottom 10%, middle 80% (“cruelty curves”, popularized by jack welch at GE)

$12,446.8

$8,827.2

$8,725.7

$8,167.5

$7,604.5

$7,121.0

$6,552.2

$5,638.8

$4.367.6

a 5% owner or an officer

current or annual core compensation; deferred core compensation: stock or golden parachutes; enchanted protection program; benefits and perquisites

provides executive pay & benefits following termination due to ownership change; income benefits for 1-5 years; not triggered by retirement, resignation, or disability; treated as a business expense

supplemental life insurance, supplemental retirement, perquisites

company car, financial services, legal services, recreational facilities, travel perks, residential security, tickets to sporting events

compensation consultants, board of directors, compensation committees

agency theory, tournament theory, social comparison theory

shareholders give control to executives

managers compete for promotions

compensation compared to others

11:1

12:1

15:1

20:1

20:1

21:1

22:1

41:1

47:1

50:1

475:1

31%

59%

two or more parties, different interests and perceptions, depend on each other for results

the items/currencies that are on the table for explicit agreement (ex: salary, starting date)

one party’s stand on the issue (ex: $60,000 salary, July 19 starting date)

underlying concerns that would be affected by the deal (ex: status, ability to travel)

expanding the pie

splitting the pie

can be used to create value, when each party places different value on issues

can only be used in dividing value, when each party places same value on issue (ex: negotiating salary)

“because i have the highest performance appraisal rating, i should get the promotion”

“other colleagues in my positions have received salary offers of $$”

claiming your share, be the first mover, maximize and publicize your BATNA

best alternative to the negotiator agreement

focus on interests first, positions second; search for positions on integrative issues that allow you to meet the interests of both parties

focus on increasing the size of the pie first, dividing the pie second (“let’s make the most profit for our organization”)

even when they do, they often get less; locus of control

men

women

women’s pay satisfaction is equal or higher than that of men in similar positions, even though they earn less

interest based vs position based; express emotions (expressing feelings, using humor); get help; disarming the tough guys; practice!

avoid putting their strength against each other directly and instead try to step out of the way and use their competitor’s strength to achieve their own ends

less than $40,000

identifying internal factors influencing motivation

maslow’s need hierarchy, herzberg’s motivator- hygiene

identify the process by which internal factors and cognitions influence motivation

adam’s equity, vroom’s expectancy, locke’s goal setting theory

physiological, safety, love, self esteem, self actualization

hygiene factors, motivators

job characteristics associated with job dissatisfaction (external) [ex: salary, supervisory relations, working conditions]

job characteristics associated with job satisfaction (internal) [ex: achievement, recognition, responsibility]

outcomes/ inputs (comparison to others)

distributive, procedural, interactional

the perceived fairness of how resources and rewards are distributed

the perceived fairness of the process and procedure used to make allocation decisions

extent to which people feel fairly treated when procedures are implemented

effort -> performance -> outcomes (+ or -)

expectancy

instrumentality

specific, measurable, attainable , results oriented, time bound