Download - PM systems are prone to becoming irrational such as at Southern Bank and/or political such as in South City Irrational systems are disordered Order in

Encounter @ South CityPM systems are prone to becoming irrational such as at Southern Bank and/or political such as in South City

Irrational systems are disorderedOrder in the system, if any, is not correspondent with administrative claims as to how the system is intended to operate

Political systems are orderedSpoils system is insulated by administrative processes that institutionalize systemic bias

An Institutionalized Spoils SystemSouth City (city & county of ½ million population)

Ranks 16th among the largest southeastern metropolitan areas (urban: approx 250,000)

Approximately 4000 civil service employees rated (56% AA, 43% Caucasian)

Defendant in 1970’s race discrimination and 1990’s reverse-discrimination cases

County/municipal employees maintain highest average salary in southeast US in purchase-power parity

South CityFederal intervention in administering civil service system for the past decade

RFP for complete overhaul of systemsWe were invited to audit the PM System

PM SystemAnnual, top-down single-source systemEmployees rated on “Applicable” task statements1-5 point graphic rating scale (“below” to “exceeds”)

Scan sheet-based records of appraisal data Appraisal interviewFirst and second-level Appeal ProcessMerit rating system

PM System Data3966 employee records

Organized by ratee ID (raters identifiable by ID code)

10 or fewer task dimension ratingsEntry, 1st and 2nd level Review datesRatee Agreement and Signature data

Table 6. Agree Code frequencies

731 18.43164 79.8

71 1.83966 100.0

disagreeagreerefus eTotal

Frequenc y Percent

Table 8. Total task statements rated

19 .514 .435 .956 1.4

131 3.3296 7.5397 10.0673 17.0947 23.9638 16.1760 19.2

3966 100.0

012345678910Tota l

ValidFrequenc y Perc ent

Task Ratings Level Data

Racial differences are significant across all ten rated task statements

Central tendency in that 60%+ of ratings are at scale midpointSkewness and Kurtosis statistics are strikingly different between races; more + among Caucasians

Positively skewed and leptokurtic ratings centered at scale midpointNegative range avoidance

Task 1 Rating

Task 1 Rating

EDCBA

Per

cent

80

60

40

20

0

T a b le 9 . Me a n p e rfo rma n c e ra tin g s fo r ta s k s ta te me n ts b y e th n ic g ro u p me mb e rs h ip

3 .3 2 3 .4 0 3 .3 9 3 .3 7 3 .3 8 3 .3 7 3 .3 5 3 .3 4 3 .3 8 3 .4 22 2 4 2 2 2 3 5 2 2 1 8 2 1 9 7 2 1 3 5 1 9 7 5 1 7 6 8 1 3 9 5 8 4 2 4 5 0

.6 1 3 .6 0 9 .5 8 3 .5 9 2 .6 0 4 .5 9 6 .5 8 4 .5 8 7 .5 9 1 .6 2 91 .2 2 9 .3 5 6 .2 4 2 .4 4 4 .4 0 5 .6 7 1 .7 3 4 .8 7 5 .5 9 7 .1 8 2

.5 7 5 .6 5 7 .6 8 7 .6 4 9 .7 0 3 .7 1 8 .7 9 4 .8 8 2 .9 2 7 .8 8 83 .1 5 3 .3 0 3 .2 9 3 .2 8 3 .2 8 3 .2 6 3 .2 6 3 .1 9 3 .2 6 3 .2 8

1 7 0 5 1 6 9 8 1 6 8 0 1 6 4 5 1 5 7 6 1 4 4 0 1 2 5 0 9 5 0 5 5 6 3 1 0.5 9 6 .5 6 6 .5 5 6 .5 5 0 .5 4 6 .5 2 7 .5 3 2 .5 6 7 .5 2 9 .5 9 4

1 .7 1 5 1 .1 0 6 1 .2 0 1 1 .0 5 4 1 .0 0 6 1 .1 8 9 1 .6 1 4 2 .2 8 6 .8 1 5 .5 3 1.1 8 6 .9 0 0 .6 2 7 .8 1 2 .7 7 1 .9 4 6 .9 7 6 .1 3 8 .8 2 8 .5 6 13 .2 5 3 .3 5 3 .3 5 3 .3 3 3 .3 4 3 .3 2 3 .3 1 3 .2 8 3 .3 3 3 .3 7

3 9 4 7 3 9 3 3 3 8 9 8 3 8 4 2 3 7 11 3 4 1 5 3 0 1 8 2 3 4 5 1 3 9 8 7 6 0.6 11 .5 9 3 .5 7 4 .5 7 6 .5 8 2 .5 7 0 .5 6 5 .5 8 3 .5 7 0 .6 1 8

1 .4 8 2 .6 2 2 .6 3 3 .6 7 0 .6 5 0 .8 7 9 1 .0 4 6 1 .5 4 0 .7 5 5 .3 9 3.4 1 5 .7 6 0 .6 6 8 .7 2 1 .7 4 6 .8 2 0 .8 7 3 .5 9 8 .9 1 6 .7 7 2

Me a nNStd . De v ia tio nKu rto s isSk e wn e s sMe a nNStd . De v ia tio nKu rto s isSk e wn e s sMe a nNStd . De v ia tio nKu rto s isSk e wn e s s

ET HNICGROUPAfric a n -Ame ric a n

Ca u c a s ia n

T o ta l

ra tin g 1n u me ric a l









ra tin g 1 0n u me ric a l

AAC

A Merit Threshold Rating Strategy

11% of employees received one rating below the scale midpoint on any of the 10 task statements

169 of 3966 employees received 2 or more ratings below the scale midpoint (4.28%)Caucasians received 67% more ratings below the scale midpoint though comprising only 46% of the ratee pool (p<.01 and then some)Merit raise is flat 5% added to cost of living increase

Table 10. Number of A-B Ratings

3518 88.7 89.1 89.1260 6.6 6.6 95.792 2.3 2.3 98.034 .9 .9 98.919 .5 .5 99.413 .3 .3 99.76 .2 .2 99.91 .0 .0 99.92 .1 .1 99.91 .0 .0 100.01 .0 .0 100.0

3947 99.5 100.019 .5

3966 100.0

012345678910Total

Numberof A-Brat ings(rat ingsbelow thescalemidpoint )

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulat ivePercent

Ineligible for merit raise (4%)

Eligible for merit raise (96%)

A Merit Threshold Rating Strategy: Consequences for Positive Ratings

Atypical ratings distribution at the high end of the rating scale is strongly suggestive of:

1. Absence of incentive for performance exceeding expectations2. Deliberate ratings strategy to preserve entitlement

Table 11. Number of D-E Ratings

1385 34.9 35.1 35.1510 12.9 12.9 48.0569 14.3 14.4 62.4416 10.5 10.5 73.0265 6.7 6.7 79.7201 5.1 5.1 84.8166 4.2 4.2 89.0138 3.5 3.5 92.5131 3.3 3.3 95.874 1.9 1.9 97.792 2.3 2.3 100.0

3947 99.5 100.019 .5

3966 100.0

012345678910Total

Numberof D-Erat ings(rat ingsabovethe scalemidpoint )

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulat ivePercent

Absence of a graded merit system produces no incentive for performance that “exceeds expectations”

Ratio Analysis of Ratings by Race

Table 14. Ratio Statistics for proportionof ratings below the scale midpoint

.020 .087

.033 .101

.026 .093

Ethnic GroupAfrican-AmericanCaucasianOverall

Mean Std. Deviation

Table 15. Ratio Statistics for proportionof ratings above the scale midpoint

.344 .350

.274 .309

.313 .335

Ethnic GroupAfrican-American

CaucasianOverall

Mean Std. Deviation

The incidence of a Caucasian employee receiving ratings below the scale midpoint is 165% higher than for African-American employees

The incidence of Caucasian employees receiving ratings above the scale midpoint is <80% the rate for African- American employees

Consequences for Merit Eligibility

95.7% of employees are merit-eligible for the 5% increase to their base salary• Caucasian employees tended to be less eligible for merit pay relative

to African-American employees; this difference is statistically significant although shy of the disparity forbidden by application of the 4/5ths rule.

T a b le 1 6 . El ig ib i l i ty fo r Me ri t Cro s s ta b u la tio n

8 0 2 1 6 2 2 2 4 23 .6 % 9 6 .4 % 1 0 0 .0 %

8 9 1 6 1 6 1 7 0 55 .2 % 9 4 .8 % 1 0 0 .0 %

1 6 9 3 7 7 8 3 9 4 74 .3 % 9 5 .7 % 1 0 0 .0 %

Co u n t

Co u n t

Co u n t

Afri c a n Ame ri c a n

Ca u c a s i a n

Eth n i cGro u p

T o ta l

i n e l i g i b l e e l i g i b l eEl i g i b l e fo r Me ri t

T o ta l

PM Process Data

Supervisory Review LatencyThe records have numerous examples of such illogical instances as shown by the minimum values (expressed in days) in Table 17

These data include illogical negative time estimates (n=153, 4%)The differences in mean latencies between ethnic groups for both latency measures (employee and supervisory review) are statistically significant (p<.01); Caucasian employees experienced greater latencies.

Tabl e 17. Descri pt i ve stat i st i cs for Revi ew Latency

3966 -303. 00 1951. 00 40. 5343 62. 99159

3966 -730. 0000 372. 0000 2. 536813 38. 26384

3966

Lat ency in Days Bet weenRat ing and EmployeeReview

Lat ency in Days Bet weenEmployee Review &Supervisory Review

Valid N ( list wise)

N Minimum Maximum MeanSt d.

Deviat ion

Other Notable FindingsLatency of both reviews was significantly longer for Caucasian employeesRace differences existed regardless of department or an imposed minimum of task ratings requirementOnly race x position (rater/ratee) cell deviating from the null was when African-American employees were rated by African-American supervisors

Alternative merit-system configurations were designed Imposed more stringent performance demandsEach alternative imposing greater performance demands results in producing greater levels of disparate impact

Mean rating requirements have the most significant impact in the absence of changing other system parameters

The only cell that differed from all others

RATERAA Caucasian

RATEEAA

Caucasian

Spoils System SummaryRace relationsHistory of adversarial relationship with employerMerit qualifications, Review, & Federal Oversight

Exaggerated Negative range avoidanceInstitutionalized entitlement program

Feeble HRM Documentation SystemOwnership of the dataWhat’s in your closet?

Download - PM systems are prone to becoming irrational such as at Southern Bank and/or political such as in South City Irrational systems are disordered Order in

Top Related