Performance Appraisal the Main Problem

Performance Appraisal

The main problem with the Darby performance appraisal is that it allows for highly subjective judgments in terms of what constitutes, for example, high or low job knowledge or motivational capabilities. A critical supervisor might rate an excellent employee as average, while a less critical supervisor might rate all employees except for the most substandard individuals as average.

Asking specific questions would result in a more finely tuned assessment device, such as asking 'how often has this employee been absent from work' or 'has this employee embarked upon professional development or educational initiatives' rather than if he or she has good attendance as a general impression in the eyes of the manager. Rating employees about specific tasks on a scale of 'often to never' might be a more accurate and effective methodology than giving answers to vague questions about showing certain indefinite qualities.

Question

Requiring supervisors to enter comments, to give context to the rating, would make the form much more useful, given that if superiors did not comment, their commitment to giving accurate and well-thought out responses might be called into question.

Question

The employee's race, determined by his or her SSN on the form, and the race of the supervisor filling out the form might provide some evidence of a pattern of bias. For example, if certain white supervisors constantly gave low performance ratings to all African-American employees over a long period of time, while these employees did not receive low ratings from other supervisors, the individual whose ratings showed a pattern of consistent low scores for African-Americans might have a conscious or unconscious racial bias. If there does seem to be a bias, the supervisor should be questioned, and given the chance to defend him or herself, and if he or she makes accusations about the poor performance of the African-American employee or employees in question, the employee or employees should be independently questioned about the matter before all affected individuals are contacted by HR to come to a joint meeting.

Question

Specificity and timeliness makes a review useful. For example, just telling someone they need to 'pull their weight' is meaningless, rather the employee must know exactly what he or she needs to alter about his or her performance. Timeliness is also an important part of a helpful review. After a hard day's work, knowing what you have done well enables the employee to continue in that pattern. Negative or constructive feedback, if specific, is at least conducive to positive change, as opposed to no feedback at all, or feedback after it is too late to alter one's performance.

Question

Particularly given the 'two point' bias in favor of the employee's performance -- yes, the manger should review the employee's appraisal. A manager should have an idea of how the employee sees him or herself, which will enable the manger to specifically target areas where the employee is consciously, rather than unconsciously lacking in critical areas.

Question

Welch's "forced distribution" is a system to minimize the tendency for managers to give everyone a good or a bad rating -- the manager must rank all employees, from best to worst, which means even a good employee may be ranked worst, and conversely even a mediocre employee may be ranked best. The advantage of this is seen primarily when managers tend to give high rankings without much specific feedback, and it can encourage poor performers, and even adequate performers, to compete against one another for a higher rating, and thus keep employees 'on their toes.'