¶ … Dr. Maggie needs someone to prepare her an employee evaluation form. Approximately 30% of her employees have left the company relocating to similar jobs in the area and the oft-cited grievance was ambiguity of expectations of employees, and disassociation between written and expected expectations. Staff did not know where they stood, work expectations had not been appropriately clarified, and there did not seem to be a connection between the job they were hired to do and the evaluation of their work. Furthermore, Dr. Maggie's practice used supervisor's evaluations to make recommendations regarding pay increases and promotions, but there was no consistent methodology to the evaluative process. The lead physicians at each site were responsible for evaluating the clinical staff, and the non-medical supervisors, who were located at the Marietta office, handled the clerical staff, but this procedure did not work too well and the evaluation process did not seem connected to the objectives of the group.
Dr. Maggie, therefore, turned to Ruth, her managerial assistant, for help. The three items that she wished her to work on are the following:
1. A one-page employee evaluation form that can be used by everyone on staff, both clinicians and non-clinicians. A rating scale should provide clarity of expectations.
2. An outline of the evaluation process and whether this process should be the same for physicians and clinicians as well as for staff.
3. The creation of a standard timeline for evaluations.
Solutions to problem and recommendations for implementation
An evaluative system must be structured that wins the trust of employees to the company that they are working for. Employees often dislike and distrust evaluation since it carries a punitive impression. This impression, therefore, must be reduced for the evaluation process to be successful. Employees must also feel that their values and standards are in line with those expected of and desired by the organization.
Thirdly, employees must feel that...
All of this will inspire employees to work for the benefit of the company and will reduce the rate of turn-over.
The factors, therefore, that Ruth would consider when drafting the evaluation form are intangible concepts that underlie its criterion. These include:
1. Confidence factor: the goals and strategies of the practice should be clearly communicated to employees so that employees know what they are working for and to which end.
2. Emotional factor: employees should be provided with training so as to actualize their potential. Employees should also receive acknowledgment of their value to the company
3. Trust factor: Dr. Maggie should honor her commitments to the employees and be direct and honest with them if and when stressful situations occur to her company.
4. Fit factor: Dr. Maggie should build relationships with her employees and create a friendly and supportive environment. Factors involved in hiring process should ensure that employee be a 'match' to the organization.
5. Listening factor: Dr. Maggie should create a communication system that assures employees that their grievances are heard and their opinions solicited. Dr. Maggie should also follow up on these concerns so that employees are left with a resolution to their issues.
The evaluation itself can be crafted in a way that posits that either employees are placed in a predetermined category, or that paired comparisons can be made where individual employees are compared to other employees. I would not use the paired comparison approach since, aside from the fact that it may not be connected to the strategic goals of the organization, too many variables differentiate between particular individuals making a comparison both impossible and unjust. Nonetheless, Dr. Maggie may find this approach useful for administrative purposes, such as for determining promotions, layoffs, bonuses, and pay raises.
A…
