Evaluating agency/business performance and employee performance are both very delicate and sometimes delicate tasks but they both must be done (and done right) so as ensure the continuity and performance of the business. Doing otherwise can literally lead to the death of a business or agency as they are not tracking metrics that can (and will) decide whether the business lives or dies.
¶ … third one have several parts. The first question asks why some staff members may fear evaluation. The second question asks whether the evaluation process can be made less threatening and foreboding. Finally, a series of three questions is asked about the agency that the author of this paper works at.
Fear of Evaluations
There are a number of reasons why people are fearful of evaluations in general and/or of the process itself. The first main reason is fear that the process is somehow broken or intentionally rigged. If employees get the feeling that the evaluations are a rubber stamp, are done in an incomplete and/or unfair way and/or that the manager(s) in question have a bias against the employee (rightly or wrongly), the recipients of the evaluations may feel that the evaluation is not indicative of reality and/or that the evaluation will be used against them (Lewis, Packard & Lewis, 2007).
Other still may dislike the process because it pits people against one another in several ways. For example, prior evaluations (and how they compare to that of other applicants) is a big part of who is promoted and why. If the results are deemed to be invalid or less than genuine, it will suggest (again, rightly or wrongly) to the person perceiving the process that the entire system is not fair and/or is positioned against their favor (Lewis, Packard & Lewis, 2007).
In short, if either the process/system of evaluations or the evaluation as administered to a person is deemed to be unfair or otherwise biased, the employee(s) that hold this perception will resist and/or fear the evaluation and this will actually tend to make things worse for the employee unless it is clear to the reviewer or manager that this is the problem.
How to Make Evaluations Less Threatening
There are two primary tactics that can and should be used to mitigate and reduce the fears of the people and departments who receive the evaluations, and those two dimensions are transparency and constructiveness. The process whereby employees are evaluated should be discussed and explained before, during and after the process has executed for a different cycle. The managers and arbiters of the process should not let the employees run or mold the program, but employees can and should be encouraged to offer their feedback and explain how they perceive the process and why. If the concerns are not valid, it can be explained why they are not valid and if there is indeed a problem, even if it's an aesthetic/perception matter only, it can be addressed easily (Lewis, Packard & Lewis, 2007).
As for keeping constructive, the evaluation process should not be viewed (or used) as a punishment tool and absolutely anything that can be done to avoid that becoming the way it is looked at should be avoided at all costs. Managers (and it really should be the person's manager giving the evaluation, not ANYONE else and certainly not a third party) should be constructive as possible. They should be gentle and positive in what they explain but they should be thorough as to what is perceived to be wrong, actual examples/events that prove that it's not a false review and what exactly the employee can and should do to change performances and perception (Lewis, Packard & Lewis, 2007).
Author Experience
The author of this paper believes that the agency's overall planning pattern and execution is quite solid. Rather than wait for events to come to the agency, many things are spotted and assumed in advanced. Worst case scenario is that something comes sooner than was expected or is more severe than what was expected. However, the agency is much more proactive and reactionary, which is as it should be (Lewis, Packard & Lewis, 2007).
Being proactive allows for problems to be prevented or to have the problems that do sneak through be less advanced and protracted. This leads to lesser to no impact to customers perceptions and satisfaction. As long as problems are fleeting and rare, the customers will generally not get their dander up. It is when a single problems takes entirely too long to solve or little to big things keep on happening again and again where there is generally much more of a problem (Lewis, Packard & Lewis, 2007).
As for supervisory and human resources packages, the two keys to those parts of the business is to craft (and enforce) all relative policies and procedures across the board (supervisory) and to make sure that all promotion/hiring practices are above board (human resources) as going astray on either one of those can be a poison pill for a business, for sure. Making sure the right people are hired and retained as well as maintaining day-to-day continuity and consistency are the hallmarks of any well-run agency or business (Lewis, Packard & Lewis, 2007).
You’re 73% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.