There are many different types of performance evaluations and sets of criteria that are involved with them. These different types of performance evaluations include the Graphic Rating Method, The Global Rating Method, the Essay Rating Method, Behavioral Anchored Rating Method (BARS), Management by Objectives, and the 360-Evaluation Method (“Employee Performance Evaluation,” n.d.
). It will also be discussed the positive and negative aspects involved and examples will be given of errors and biases that commonly impact the accuracy of performance evaluations as they pertain to the scenario provided regarding an evaluation of an engineer at a given company.Many organizations use a combination of evaluations; depending on the size of the organization, as tools to identify needs within the company to show weaknesses or strengths of an employee, or of the organization, that is being evaluated. The correct evaluation used and the correct rating scale depend on the number of employees doing the same job, size of the organization, and ultimately the amount of money, time, and resources that an organization wants to spend on the evaluations (“Employee Performance Evaluations,” n.
d.). Listed below are many commonly used evaluation methods and a brief description of each:?Behavioral Anchored Rating Method (BARS)- Is an evaluation of the employees behavior. This method aims to give a numerical rating to certain performance criteria. This criteria focuses on observable behavior only. Examples of observable behavior are given for each score range in the BARS evaluation method (“Employee Performance Evaluations,” n.
d.)?The Graphic Rating Scale-consists of a line with four or five criteria with four or five rankings (typically something like unsatisfactory, below average, satisfactory, above average, and excellent). This evaluation is great for identifying employee strengths and weaknesses. This evaluation method is good for rating performance criteria, quality of work, teamwork, customer service, concern for safety, and more.
The manager rates their scoring by the employee’s performance supported by data (“Employee Performance Evaluation,” n.d.).?The Global Rating Method-is where your overall job performance is given a score of below satisfactory, satisfactory, above average, or excellent. The problem with this method is only your overall job performance is evaluated giving you no specifics at all pertaining to their performance (“Employee Performance Evaluations,” n.
d.)?The Essay Method-is where the evaluator gives a written statement about the evaluated employee. This written statement typically addresses strengths and weaknesses regarding job performance. It also usually includes remedies to identified problem areas. This written statement can be written solely by the evaluator or it can be written in conjunction with the employee (“Essay Method,” 2010).
?360-Feedback Method-is designed to give you feedback from every facet of the organization. It was developed to give feedback by managers, peers, subordinates, customers, and others that come into contact with the employee. This provides the employee with perspectives about their performance from multiple sources. The ultimate goal of 360 evaluations are to improve individual performance within the organization (Linman, n.d.
).?Management by Objectives (MBO)-This method of evaluation is aimed at identifying and aligning organizational goals with subordinate objectives throughout the organization. This method is an organized approach, allowing management to focus on achievable goals and to achieve the best possible results from available resources. Management by Objectives is about setting yourself goals and then breaking down those objectives into more specific goals and key concepts (Kotelnikov, n.d.
). One problem with just about any performance evaluation is biases and errors.Here are a few factors linked to biases and errors in performance evaluations: ?Personal Relationships outside the-sometimes the manager could be a close personal friend of the employee being evaluated. This most of the time will cause a biased evaluation because it can be hard to someone to separate business from pleasure.?Gender Bias-Biases based on your gender, for example a male may give another male a better review than his female coworkers, and vise versa.?Political Bias-Biases based on your political beliefs?Recent Negative Incident-a negative work incident could cause bias with the manager, even if it was just an isolated incident.
Not normal of the said employee’s typical work performance. The opposite is also true, recent positive behavior can also cause bias in an evaluation even if most of the employees performance was not up to par.?Employer teaming up with Employee-basically is where a personal bond has been formed within the workplace. This may cause the employer to give unfair advantages on a regular basis to the employee. This may in turn cause the employer to give a more favorable evaluation (Manning, 2012). Some more common errors and bias in evaluations are stereotyping, the halo effect, similar-to-me errors, consensus tendencies, and positive and negative leniency.
?Stereotyping can affect performance evaluations by the evaluator not recognizing their own personal stereotyping tendencies. This may give lower evaluations to those people who they type negatively and a positively typed person may receive a more positive score. For example, if an evaluator sees all young workers as lazy, he may be more likely to give a younger employee a negative evaluation, no matter how his work performance actually is (Schreiner, n.d.)?Halo Effect refers to first impressions.
This is when the evaluator allows his initial impression of the person affect future interactions with said person. When this happens it can be hard for the worker to change the evaluator’s perception of them, after all first impressions are most important (Schriener, n.d.).?Similar-to-me errors refers to when an evaluator may give a higher rating to someone they feel is similar to them, and a more negative evaluation to someone they feel is different than them (Schriener, n.d.
).?Consensus Tendencies are when the evaluator starts the evaluation process by looking at previous evaluations of that employee. When evaluators view others’ interpretations of the employee, they may be more likely to agree with the past evaluator and subconsciously not put in as much time and effort into doing the evaluation (Schriener, n.d.)? Negative and Positive Leniency is when a manager or evaluator wants to give everyone very high scores or they want to give everyone very low scores (Lotich, n.d.
) The 360-Evaluation Method is used to give feedback from all aspects of the organization, including peers, supervisors, and subordinates. There are advantages and disadvantages when it comes to including supervisors, peer, and subordinates in the evaluation process. The 360-Feedback method is used by 90% of fortune 500 companies last year.The primary reason to use this type of evaluation is to provide the worker with information about his performance from multiple sources. The advantages of this are the worker is able to set goals for self-development, which will advance his career and benefit the organization (Linman, n.
d.). Allen Hoffmanner of AgileEdge lists many positive results about 360-Feedback programs: “"I received frequent feedback that it had an overall positive effect on the organization since as employees broadly evaluated their managers on people, personal effectiveness and attitudes; it raised the consciousness on these issues such that they observed changes/improvements in their culture/relationships..." (as cited in Linman, n.
d.).Under ideal conditions- 360 feedback is used more for personal feedback rather than evaluation (Linman, n.d.
). Unfortunately though, not all circumstances are ideal. As for the disadvantages of the 360-Feedback method are that comments can be traced to individual causing resentment between workers, feedback may not be linked to organizational goals or values, feedback could have a potential impact on motivation, feedback may be tied to raises and promotions, often, an excessive number of surveys are required and only a few good results come back. All these disadvantages can cause biases and errors in an evaluation (Linman, n.
d.). Dr. John Sullivan states some concerns with the 360-Feedback method: "There is no data it actually improves productivity, increases retention, decreases grievances or that it is superior to forced ranking and standard Perfprmance Appraisal systems.It sounds good but there is no proof it works other than a lot of companies have tried it." (as cited in Linman, n.
d.) As for the engineer, the one thing that can be said for the 360-Feedback method is that it might provide an insight into how the other employees view him and how he may need to improve on his people skills. In an organization, of any size people have to interact with others and the engineer needs to interact with the other personnel, he needs to show that he is paying attention to the plant manager and the 360-Feedback method would catch his attention. It is what is says feedback! It is worth the effort and the cost (Linman, n.d.).
Where this comes into play with the company and the engineer, is he works with coworkers he clashes with, they play practical jokes on him. He demonstrates a poor attitude toward his co-workers and does not pay attention to the plant manager at meetings. He is does not get along with other people, so this would impact his performance rating by others in the organization. Three points of concern that I have for the current evaluation form used by the company are that the company does not currently get input from coworkers, the evaluation only focused on personal characteristics and relationships with co-workers, and the evaluation did not focus on job performance.
Before his second annual review, I would recommend to the plant manager to use a combination of evaluation methods.The combination of the 360-Feedback, Graph Rating Scale, and Essay method would be the evaluation tools I would use when evaluating the engineer, because it would balance out some of the bias in the company and give cause for remarks and justify some areas of improvement, while also showing where he has saved the company money and eliminated safety hazards providing a focus on his skills and performance. It may also address his attitude, without the other employees being involved, since there is already animosity between him and fellow co-workers. The next step that would be different from the current evaluation for is that I would add a Management by Objectives (MBO) section.
Where I would list goals for the next year or even the next couple years. This would allow for measurable goals and how they could be reached.This would differ from the previous evaluation, because the manager and engineer would set goals and determine how they could be measured. The manager and the engineer would meet on a regular basis to provide feedback on how the goals are being met.
And if goals are not being met, something can be done about it to ensure that those goals are being met. There needs to be communication and a realization that if these goals are not met then new goals can be put in place and implemented. At the end of an agreed period of time, the manager will complete a review of the engineers performance as it pertains to the new and revised goals. Again, this would focus on the engineer’s skills rather than on his personality.One thing to keep in mind about an MBO model is are the goals realistic. This method tends to work better in conjunction with other methods of performance evaluations (“Management by Objectives MBO,” n.
d.). As the plant manager takes a look at how he is going to evaluate the engineer, he has to take a lot of things into consideration: What are the long term goals? How are they going to be measured? And what is going to be evaluated: His behavior, his relationships with coworkers, performance, attitude, or goals? What kind of evaluation method is he going to use? Is it going to be The Global Rating System? The Essay Method? Management by Objectives? Behavioral Anchored Rated Scales? Graphic Rating Scale? 360-Feedback method? Or a combination a few of them? In conclusion, my recommendation would be to use a combination of the Graphic Rating Scale, The Essay Method, 360-Feedback method, and add a Management by Objectives section to the evaluation.The Graphic Rating scale would give him an idea of where he stands in quality on a scale from below average to excellent.
The 360-Feedback would provide insight from all levels of interaction, The Essay method would focus on job performance, work quality, and team interaction. The Management by Objectives section would set up long term goals to am for and a viable working objective, where both the engineer and the plant manager have input. Implement all of the together properly, the engineer would have clear goals for the future and be provided valuable insight and input on his performance.
