Human Resource Management In South Africa – Surette Warnich (1)

Traditionally, the focus was on personal traits (e.g. friendliness and cooperation) but more recently it has been on work behaviours and outcomes (e.g. “does job right the first time”, and “greets every customer who enters the store”). The rating is often done on some 1-3 or 1-5 Likert- type scale, with 1 representing “very unsatisfactory” and 5 representing Graphic rating scale.

A method of “excellent”. The rating scale is one of the oldest and most common performance appraisal that requires the methods, and has survived the many recent innovations in rater to indicate on a scale where the instruments. ‘ employee rates on factors such as quantity of work, dependability, job knowledge and cooperativeness. Graphic rating scales are popular with managers because they can be filled out quickly and require little training. However, these scales are particularly prone to the rater errors (to be discussed), so some training is required.

An example of a graphic rating scale is shown in Figure 9.4. FIGURE 9.4 Graphic rating scale Name Current job 7s a ee Department Performance Area mark with an X Accepts change Accepts responsibility Attendance Attitude Accuracy Cooperation Dependability Initiative Knowledge of work Leadership Planning Quality of work Comments 1 = unacceptable 2 = needs improvement 3 = satisfactory 4 = above average 5 = outstanding il Agree Employee:signatt|(c =n enn) tc Supervisor signature he) Disagree Non-graphic rating scale A non-graphic scale is usually more valid than a graphic scale because the former contains a brief description of each point on a scale rather than simply low and high points of a scale.

The rater can give a more accurate description of the employee’s behaviour on a particular attribute because a description clarifies each level of the rating scale. On the graphic scale, raters arbitrarily decide what various points represent about an attribute; for example, what is “below average” cooperation? In general, both graphic and non-graphic rating scales are quick, easy and less difficult for supervisors to use than many other methods of PA.

Also, decision-makers find rating scales to be satisfactory for most evaluative purposes because they provide a mathematical evaluation of the employee’s performance, which can be used to justify compensation or job changes and to validate selection instruments. For example, if the rating scale contains 20 attributes with a five-point scale for each attribute, employees can receive 100 points if they perform perfectly. Any percentage of that total can be directly related to a merit increase or promotion probability.

Rating scales have several disadvantages. Using the scale, raters can easily make halo or central-tendency errors (see next section).

“9 =23 JOB|DESIGNa# = 2 — pp ORIENTATION/ONBOARDING i 2 <6 CAREER Healt U2 io iS MANAGEM ENT = (oe) a ITI RECRUITM ENT DISMISSAL = Z COMPENSATION J Fi FIFTH EDITION Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2023 | | | | \ : . os: = https://archive.org/details/humanresourcemanOO000warn HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA RATER ES ERRORS — HUMAN Si RESOURCE ds Ow EARNINGRELATIONS S = fining INTERNATIONAL MANAGING == © i ee cOULEETNE TRADE 5 HRM AND LEADERSHIP titi vNteRviews ARM IN VIRTUAL ORGANISATIONS™ INTERNAL STAFFING >-228..

ikmn @ =O SSAQA == JOB DESIGN Lu = SAGA an au = a= — ORIENTATION/ONBOARDING ae a 2 <6 CAREER HeatTH ae s= 62 MANAGEMENT ** 202mRECRUITMENT™ S 3 Z COMPENSATION om HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA ATER == ERRORS — HUMAN Adz RESOURCE P<: rs MANAGEMENT me == assistance ee | a iNsuRies AND sce LABOUR we Ou 'EARNINGRELATIONS z=. S 2 feinins INTERNATIONAL MANAGING = =| =o HRM DIVERSITY STRIK REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION cout E SELECTION Gy;2:" HUMAN TRADE HRM AND LEADERSHIP RESOURCE UNvesviews HRM IN VIRTUAL ORGANISATIONS — INTERNAL STAFFING?

398 IN I ANALYSIS “24S =m JOB: DESIGN Te mr fr ORIENTATION/ONBOARDING {2 33 CAREER HEALTH wi 2’ MANAGEMENT RECRUITMENT ™”* COMPENSATION SSYLN Lnonuna LNAWSS]AS SHPSTNer Sco COMPETENCY-BASED INAWd0 135A FIFTH EDITION pie GENGAGE “1s Learning Australia « Brazil * Japan * Korea * Mexico * Singapore * Spain * United Kingdom « United States Tere NGAGE t~ Learning: Human Resource Management in South Africa, 5th Edition Surette Warnich, Michael R.

Carrell, Norbert F. Elbert and Robert D. Hatfield Publisher: Emily Chandauka Commissioning Editor: Annabel Ainscow Senior Production Editor: Alison Burt Manufacturing Buyer: Elaine Willis Marketing Manager: Sally Gallery Typesetter: CENVEO Publisher Services Printed in China by RR Donnelley Print number 01 Print Year 2014 © 2015, Cengage Learning EMEA ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, or applicable copyright law of another jurisdiction, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

While the publisher has taken all reasonable care in the preparation of this book, the publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy of the information contained in this book and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions from the book or the consequences thereof.

Products and services that are referred to in this book may be either trademarks and/or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publishers and author/s make no claim to these trademarks.

This is a short excerpt from the opening of “” by Unknown, quoted for review and introduction purposes. All rights belong to the copyright holders.

Book Information

• Unique ID: a94980f1181f2b8e
• File Extension: .pdf
• File Size: 54,946,788 bytes (52.401 MB)
• Title: –
• Author: Unknown
• ISBN: 9781408074220
• Pages: 725
• Language: English (en)

Reading & Word Statistics

• Estimated Reading Time: 1707.94 minutes
• Total Words: 341,588
• Total Characters: 2,308,142
• Average Words per Page: 471.16
• Average Characters per Page: 3183.64

Most Frequent Words

employees (2279), management (1825), job (1698), employee (1428), performance (1119), work (1098), organisation (1080), human (1038), training (896), also (831), development (739), resource (714), new (713), south (702), organisations (687), process (678), information (673), skills (653), people (642), one (635), labour (584), chapter (527), part (499), www (497), used (494), important (492), company (476), many (470), africa (459), system (457), managers (455), time (447), programmes (439), business (435), use (431), workplace (429), example (426), career (425), jobs (420), needs (417), organisational (416), virtual (407), employers (406), cit (405), pay (395), employment (381), between (375), benefits (372), resources (362), within (360), number (354), learning (347), include (343), problems (340), act (337), need (331), analysis (327), appraisal (327), competencies (326), companies (325), planning (324), approach (323), different (316), team (316), make (315), goals (315), compensation (313), often (305), selection (303), systems (302), employer (301), see (295), environment (290), union (287), provide (285), issues (285), strategic (284), international (283), technology (280), programme (280), department (278), journal (277), well (276), individual (273), effective (268), recruitment (266), practices (266), members (262), review (261), personnel (261), change (260), relations (258), working (258), strategy (255), however (254), good (252), future (251), following (244), diversity (242), research (242).

PDF Download