Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.The word 'ushered' as used in the passage, is closest in meaning to:a)initiatedb)prohibitedc)permittedd)guidede)adjustedCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.The word 'ushered' as used in the passage, is closest in meaning to:a)initiatedb)prohibitedc)permittedd)guidede)adjustedCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.The word 'ushered' as used in the passage, is closest in meaning to:a)initiatedb)prohibitedc)permittedd)guidede)adjustedCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.The word 'ushered' as used in the passage, is closest in meaning to:a)initiatedb)prohibitedc)permittedd)guidede)adjustedCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.The word 'ushered' as used in the passage, is closest in meaning to:a)initiatedb)prohibitedc)permittedd)guidede)adjustedCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.The word 'ushered' as used in the passage, is closest in meaning to:a)initiatedb)prohibitedc)permittedd)guidede)adjustedCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.The word 'ushered' as used in the passage, is closest in meaning to:a)initiatedb)prohibitedc)permittedd)guidede)adjustedCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.The word 'ushered' as used in the passage, is closest in meaning to:a)initiatedb)prohibitedc)permittedd)guidede)adjustedCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.By the early 1960s, organizations had become so focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98% of federal government employees received "satisfactory" ratings, while only 2% got either of the other two outcomes: "unsatisfactory" or "outstanding."In the 1970s, however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took centre stage in the appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high - and with antidiscrimination laws so recently on the books - the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many as one-third of U.S. corporations - and 60% of the Fortune 500 - had adopted a forced-ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage.Another major turning point came in 2005: more and more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape - in that climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later. Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when rewards were so trivial?The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway. Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores - they would rather be told they were "average" than given a 3 on a 5-point scale. They especially detested forced ranking. As Wharton's Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with performance.As dissatisfaction with the traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about performance. The "Agile Manifesto," created by software developers in 2001, outlined several key values - favouring, for instance, "responding to change over following a plan." It emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on the job - and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top down and assessing people against them once a year.In most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option. Companies that don't think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn't be the least popular practice in business, as they're widely believed to be, if something weren't fundamentally wrong with them.The word 'ushered' as used in the passage, is closest in meaning to:a)initiatedb)prohibitedc)permittedd)guidede)adjustedCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.