This paper concentrates on the primary theme of 1. To what extent do you think evaluators may not be motivated to do a good in which you have to explain and evaluate its intricate aspects in detail. In addition to this, this paper has been reviewed and purchased by most of the students hence; it has been rated 4.8 points on the scale of 5 points. Besides, the price of this paper starts from £ 79. For more details and full access to the paper, please refer to the site.

Performance has often been viewed as a multiplicative function of ability and motivation. Of course, from the quality movement and attribution theory, system factors must also be recognized as important determinants of performance. Focusing on a person, however, leads to emphasizing ability and motivation as causes of performance. The simple multiplicative model can be applied to how well evaluators perform the task of evaluating, not just how well workers perform their tasks or roles or enact the desired values.

Looked at as a joint function of ability and motivation, it can be seen that techniques used for developing common evaluation standards focus on the ability to evaluate accurately. However, techniques such as FOR (Frame-Of-Reference) training do not directly address the motivation of people to evaluate accurately and with common standards.

1. To what extent do you think evaluators may not be motivated to do a good "job" of evaluation? Are there reasons why an evaluator may be motivated to NOT make evaluations accurately? Describe

2. What could be done to increase the motivation of evaluators to rate accurately?

3. Are there system factors that may operate as barriers to evaluating accurately? How could these be reduced or eliminated?