A third method is peer evaluation whereby an employee’s peers are asked to evaluate it. The manager uses this information in evaluating the subordinate’s performance. However, this method does not find wide application. Another method is upward evaluation, that is, the question of the effectiveness of the superior by the subordinate using the subjective system. This method is also not used by most companies.
Methods for evaluating the performance of employees:
Management also uses various methods to perform.
(A) Traditional attribute rating:
The traditional way of rating employee performance is in terms of traits, such as persistence and maturity that he (she) reveals.
This method is quite simple: the superior only needs to complete a questionnaire, on which 30 or 40 items are listed, and that refers to the degree to which subordination is a particular quality in terms of a five-point or several-point scale. Indicates. ‘ail’ does not contain ‘to a very important amount’.
When, for example, a superior gives a poor rating on such symptoms as a subordinate and has the ability to negotiate effectively, he must somehow justify the report. But this is not a difficult task as ratings are usually subjective. In practice since most observers experience little, if any, interaction with subordinates, they have hardly any basis for recognizing such traits as maturity.
“Many subordinates react negatively if their superior character shows them as immature and lacking ambition. Additionally, the relationship between performance and award is blurred; There is very little classification of job duties and the environment is not conducive to focus on training and career development. ”
For these and other reasons, actual performance evaluation meetings are not really meaningful. The superior person regularly fulfills the necessary forms, so to say, and generally rates only a few subordinates as outstanding or poor; Most employees receive an average rating.
(B) Single Global Rating:
A second but related way of evaluating an employee’s performance is to provide a global rating of a subordinate. The superior person does not have abilities, traits or other criteria. Instead he rates the subordinate only in terms of an object that is normal in nature.
Typically the better rate is on a five-point scale from subordinate to excellent to poor or an item such as – “In terms of all subordinates who have worked for you in the last five years, how would you rate your employee.”
Most of the problems associated with traditional attribute ratings can also be found in single global ratings. Employees whose ratings are below average often react defensively; The climate of the assessment meeting fails to provide the manager with consulting and development information or to clarify the nature of the job and the relationship between performance and rewards becomes quite unclear.
(C) Practically Anchor Rating Scale (BARS):
One of the major drawbacks of the previous two rating systems is that they are not directly related to the job and thus fail to clarify their requirements to enable the employee to improve specific aspects of his (her) performance. Could. To overcome this problem there is a need to tie the rating scale directly to the requirements of the job; namely, the scale is intended to reflect real examples of ineffective and effective behavior.
Such a scale is called a behaviorally anchored rating scale.
Such nine-point scales are given below to measure the dimension of dealing with customer complaints and to make adjustments between salespeople in a department store. Such a scale was first developed in the USA in 1968 by Marvin Dunnett and his colleagues.
BARS for effectiveness of supervision of Sales Personnel
This type of scale is undoubtedly superior to quality and global rating. It is easy for subordinates to accept criticism easily if it is tied to actual work behavior or job performance; The performance evaluation session provides feedback that can be used for training and career development; The nature of the job is clarified and eventually, a clear performance-reward relationship emerges.
However, the major argument against using such a scale often comes up that its construction is not so easy.
As Gannon has commented:
“The researcher usually looks at working workers and develops a series of descriptions characterized by effective and ineffective demonstrations. He then meets with the workers and shows them an early version of the scale. His criticisms and suggestions are later used as attempts to refine the researc ^ scale. It may take several months and several meetings before this process is finalized. ”
(D) Behavior observation scale (BOS):
It tries to combine attribute ratings (or check lists) and BARS. Managers and employees are asked to develop a comprehensive list of factors and traits that are important if the job is to be completed successfully. Fig.11.12 shows that the rater had to do only one thing.
He is required to point out that subordinates’ rates are displayed on a five-point or several-point scale as a trait or factor extending from ‘almost never’ to ‘almost always’.
(-) Goal-oriented assessment:
So far, we have considered the process of performance appraisal in one way: the best tells the employee how his qualities or behaviors deviate from expectations, even in a highly motivated employee, as he needs to define his goals and job Not allowed to participate.
Objective management (MBO) is an organization-wide planning technique that requires employee involvement in setting organizational goals. Goal-setting theory also indicates that if individuals accept such goals, they can reach difficult but attainable goals. For both techniques, goal setting can be applied as a method for evaluating employees in performance evaluation sessions.
When this method is used, a subordinate’s performance is evaluated in terms of his or her achievement of specific objectives. Subordinates participate in setting these objectives and developing a time frame in which they are to be met, therefore, discussions between the superior and the subordinates are objective, disparate and supportive.
This approach is often considered favorable to both superiors and subordinates, as it focuses only on the attainment of specific goals. Ideally, the employee sees a relationship between effort and performance, and between proper performance and appropriate rewards.
“this approach does not describe the specific behaviors that lead to success at work.” As such, it is practically inferior to anchoring rating scales or behavioral observation scales, and goal setting should be used in evaluation in most situations. ”
6. Reward System:
Organizations and their leaders should have the ability to reward and punish reward systems or organizational members, if the goal is to be achieved. But there are many situations in which managers are virtually powerless and do not have a sufficient number of rewards and restrictions that they can use to motivate subordinates.
For example, in unionized firms, managers only have limited ability to grant qualifying increments.
Research has indicated that managers are less motivated by money than other rewards appealing to their higher-order needs such as achievement, recognition, and self-realization. However, practices in the industry suggest that money is a very important reward.
Large companies in the United States often introduce profit-sharing schemes that allow workers to participate in profits derived from their labor inputs. There are many well-known schemes such as the scan plan and the impresser.
The concept based on all of them is defining a business unit – usually a plant or a major department and payments related to the overall performance of the unit. Monthly employees are paid to all employees in a unit based on a predetermined formula, provided that productivity and profits increase.
Gain-sharing schemes are an adjunct to many problems associated with individual incentive schemes. A substantial body of evidence broadly suggests that individual piece-rate incentive systems, in which each employee is paid based on the number of units they have built, typically only reward systems that offer regular salaries. Are related to a higher level of productivity than.However, such piece-rate systems increase conflict between workers and punish workers who go above a predetermined level of performance, at least partly because they say that management once After setting the average will reduce the financial incentive. Each employee of the output can get a higher number.
Management also uses profit-sharing and stock ownership of employees to motivate employees. However, it is difficult for employees to see a direct relationship between their own efforts and the rewards earned from these incentives, especially in a large organization.
Nevertheless, these schemes seek to promote a sense of identity between each individual employee and the organization. Therefore, whenever it is possible to do so, it is desirable to combine profit-sharing with profit-sharing and employee stock ownership schemes.
Managers need to impose restrictions from time to time to ensure that poorly performing individuals increase their performance. These include verbal reprimand, formal and written warnings, short layoffs and terminations. Some managers have become highly creative in this area.
Whatever restrictions are used, it is important for the common people to keep in mind that they should be. Last resort. Motivatingly, rewards are more effectively associated with effective performance than restrictions, which is only a small-nm effect for behavior.