Creating a Superior Workforce
I thought that the main reason for performance appraisals were to improve performance by creating a superior workforce. In my company, which are mainly hourly employees, the employee appraisals are based on performance data, quality data, specific instances (such as notations about dealing with risks, specific situations or behavioral notations), and project closeout notes. This information is collected through our information management system by a report query. By utilizing facts, job notations, and managers input we feel that we create a fairly accurate assessment of our employees. Our philosophy is that employees are basically trustworthy, want to feel part of an organization and will produce. Low production is usually based on a lack of talent, skill, knowledge, proper tools or management (who are responsible for lowering dissatisfaction and increasing motivation). All of these things except talent can usually be improved without negatively affecting the employee.
Training the Managers
In my view, training the managers on the impact of good and bad practices in the performance appraisal process has been very effective. No matter how effectively a performance appraisal system is designed, like any other system, it is just as good as the people running it.
—Guest Rizwan Aziez
For those interested in this subject, we started a company that focuses on just this question: how to do expectation-driven performance evaluation and impact-based compensation. The solution we came up with is one where performance evaluations are done quickly and often in a 360-style manner and we calculate impact based on the collected data. For more, please take a look at http://www.fairsetup.com. That said, I completely agree with the sentiment of the article. Traditional yearly reviews with rank-and-yank do not support the conversation among employees about management of expectations, which is really what I think performance evaluation is about…
—Guest Nikita Bernstein (FairSetup)
Not Follow Apprasials
In many organisations like dealerships, they are not followed. Apprasials. It’s very sad that they want great performance of the organisation but do not follow apprasials and even they give pressure on the employees. For the great performance, it’s necessary to maintain good relations and good and heaithy relations by apprasial.
My Way Or The Highway
Although the organization’s appraisal form might have addressed what needs to be in it, the lack of training for the people who use them is sadly lacking and a disgrace to the elemental characteristics necessary for productive supervision. When a supervisor has to receive two notices that he is late with a performance evaluation and then uses a brief time period to determine the worth of an employee who has 21 years of experience exceeding standards in prior evaluations speaks of the lack of real concern for that organizations’ employees. It’s outtright fraud and corruption that goes to the heart of that organization.
Performance appraisal experience
I am connected to a non-government organization where key result areas are set to measure work performance. This tool of performance evaluation is associated with a productivity incentive. After a couple of years of implementing performance evaluation, I find it very difficult to determine poor performance because the results were almost subjective, not objective. What happens is that, yearly, we face complaints and yearly we enhance the tool. At my end, I want to polish the work attitudes of the employees towards developing a team work force. I started working at the bottom – the front-line employees. Yet recently I realized that I need to start training the managers first so that they can train their respective staffs. I am learning a lot from the lessons sent to me earlier. Thank you for the great minds initiating this access to learning for me and others.
—Guest Marie Jane Acebes
Is it the right way or wrong?
We do semi-formal (in-writing but not seen by HR) performance updates every 6 months. This is followed by an Annual Evaluation at 12 months. First the blank evaluation is given to the employee for comments and self ratings. Then, the supervisor comments and rates. The evals then go to our Assistant Director for review. If approved, it is then forwarded to the Director. Often our Director returns the eval with a change in ratings and/or comments. The Director attempts to explain that she has input on the eval and that the rating/comments she gives NEED to be reflected on the final draft. I am being told this is the way it has always been done (changing the immediate supervisor’s comments and ratings) and that it the “right way”. Is this the right way or has it always been the wrong way? As long as the Supervisor includes the specifics or examples to justify their rating, should someone else without direct knowledge of the employees performance be forcing their input into an eval? (Susan says: short answer, no, especially not after the fact. If a supervisor, manager and so forth have thoughts about an employee’s evaluation, they should be communicated before the supervisor writes it so that they can be considered and incorporated. Someone who has no direct knowledge about an employee’s work should not be making comments about it at all. Just another example of why I dislike performance appraisal so much. 2x a year when an employee needs feedback every day or so. managers who don’t know the employee’s work having input, etc.)
Appraisal All Year
The routine performance appraisal: employee filling a format and facing an interview by an officer who has not observed the employee at work. It will not have any effect on the performance. It will not help to improve. In our organization, it is a proactive process. Annual target is given. It is divided into monthly targets. Goal alignment with every working unit and every individual is done very effectively. In the beginning of every month, employees are reminded of their monthly goal. Every 10 days they are reminded of what they have achieved. That itself motivates them. So appraisal is not a postmortem, an exercise at the end of the year. Periodical performance appraisal itself motivates the team. At the end of every month performance appraisal in intimated. Employees know where they stand tracked against the target. It motivates. It help them to put out extra effort to reach the goal. We give constant training to help the employee to develop their capabilities.
At my company (I’m in HR), we do the grading method. My boss told me this was really done because it’s expected, not because it’s helpful. My boss and I check in with each other on a daily basis and I feel this is the best way to “appraise” employees.
—Guest Jen D
One year my review cited a notation regarding customer service – this from my supervisor who always stated that there should be no surprises on an evaluation for the employee. When I asked about the incident she was referring to, it turns out another employee overheard a “water cooler” conversation between myself and another employee joking about sending customers from one office to another. Instead of asking me about this when it happened, it was on my review. The other employee backed me up; the supervisor knew I was furious that a tattletale rumor could find its way to my review, so she offered to “re-write” my review! Needless to say, I lost all respect that I had previously held for this woman – and to think that she was training me! Amazing!
—Guest Shelly P
Appraisal – A Tool for Motivation
The success of an organisation should be credited to the employees for their hard work, sincerity and committment. They must be considered for the awards to do their best .
—Guest Gopal Sharon
l am the human resource manager of a nepales microfinace institution. I mostly use the pair comparision method.
—Guest chandra kanta kafle
Perf Appraisal vs Performance Management
Performance appraisal is always a part of the feedback mechanism in almost all planning systems. The trouble begins when these two are viewed as a separate domain in an an organization. The operating group thinks they “own” the results of the organization and the HR, on the other hand, believe that they have the sole “hand” in measuring the performance of the employees. This situation often ended up with the performance evaluation being discarded by the operations group, and with HR people completely “hurt” in the process. HR managers should take an active role in the business planning process and must “insist” that performance evaluation is not just a mere feedback mechanism but an essential component in the Business Planning system. To “insist” is to work it out in harmony with the operations group in convincing higher management in the importance of this HR initiative. This is my understanding of performance management.
—Guest Easy Calda
HR Owns Performance Appraisal
In my organisation, Performance Appraisal is in the custody of the Human Resources staff; most people do not sit down with their managers. It is so badly run that, at the end of the day, every employee seems to have performed well, even when the ultimate result is the opposite. Mostly employees push when they need promotions. The worst? It was done quarterly, since lately that has changed and the appraisal is done half yearly, which has not improved the situation.
Public Service Commission Approach
Two of the guiding principles of our Public Service and our Public Service Commission are to (1) focus on achieving results and managing performance and (2) to ensure transparency in the performance of organizations’ and employees’ functions and roles. Our Performance Management System (PMS) was launched in 2007 to make our public service a result oriented institution. Our PMS policy provides for quarterly performance appraisals. Our performance rules provide for appraisal panels and independent assessment committees. There are seven stages in our performance appraisal process. Stage 1 is on preparing the appraisal. Stage 2 is on conducting the appraisal. Stage 3 is on referring the results of the appraisal to the employee. Stage 4 is on discussing the outcomes of the appraisal with the employee. Stage 5 is on referring the appraisal to the Commission. Stage 6 is deciding over the outcomes of the appraisal by the Commission. Stage 7 is on communicating the decision of the Commission
Performance Reviews: a Complete Waste
I hold a Master’s Level degree. Upon my last job performance, which was done on a teleconference, my boss stated very good qualities that I possess on the job, such as learning subjects quickly, keen to technology & computers, and am very well liked. However, she mentioned my voice tone was “loud.” I have deafness in my right ear from measles 50 years ago and cannot hear very well. I do not believe that voice quality should be reviewed on an evaluation. Do you? (Susan says: not really in a review. This is more a topic for a regular meeting. Though, if you do a lot of teleconferencing with colleagues, you might choose a trusted one and see how loudly your voice is coming across to see if you can modulate your tone. I wear hearing aids and I always sound loud to me so sometimes, I talk too softly. Best wishes.)