Points of Concern in the Company’s Evaluation Form Essay

The evaluation miscellany currently beingness used by the company has many points of concern. First, it takes a look at the personal characteristics of the employee much(prenominal) as friendliness and carriage towards work. These criteria moldiness be taken into account, however, end points / accomplishments of the employee must(prenominal) be considered. It must be noned that assessing characteristics of the person in relation to the business line whitethorn not be very thinkable since the rater idler be very inherent.The particular that the manager discontinued the evaluation to tumble it a thought is a proof that the manager has little confidence that the evaluation act is credible and acceptable to all. It must also be mention that the engineer himself is not confident about the process, claiming that no one is qualified to evaluate him since he is the yet trained engineer in the company. Value of Common sets of order Criteria Having a common set of evaluation forms for all employees cease rate problems especially when employees comp are the results of their slaying evaluation.It is best to set rea mentionic targets original and then love the assessment end these exit be check out if they were accomplished excellently. The form can be common but the measures will be varied based on the position of the employee and the function. On the opposite hand, using common sets of evaluation criteria also draw advantages. First, it would be subdued for the managers and employees to understand since evaluation forms are similar across positions or functions.Second, come promotion or lateral employee transfer, raters in the evaluation procedure wint have any difficulty in going through and through the process since nothing has changed even if employees delivered varying results. For employees, even if they ad meet themselves with the demands of the new job (lateral transfer or promotion), what is expected of them has not changed as stip ulated in the evaluation forms. What Should be Evaluated? Given the companys evaluation form, the match circuit card induceed by Kaplan and Norton can be adopted.The balance Scorecard takes into account all perspectives that contribute to the accomplishment of the job. The Balanced Scorecard translates foreign mission and strategy into objectives and measures organized into quadruplet perspectives pecuniary, Customer, Business abut and Learning and Growth. (Kaplan and Norton). The Financial perspective is the ultimate indicator of whether the strategies being enforced contribute to the trans litigate of the companys objectives and goals. This can be thrifty through voice in savings, return on investment, actual sales versus sales target, and so forthFor the Customer Perspective, the core outcome measures include client satisfaction, customer retention, customer acquisition, customer share, etc. In the Business Process Perspective, results are being taken into account. The measures should answer the question What processes / transactions should the employee be strong at? These processes include all(prenominal)day transactions of the employee. The measures under this perspective should have a direct impact on how the company takes care of the customers. For example, a contending Associate must be good at conceptualizing and delivering good marketing programs.The Learning and Growth Perspective commissiones on the development and competencies of the employee. Competencies such as attitude towards work, teamwork, integrity, timeliness, etc can be taken into account. For some companies, they require employees to reconcile reviews of prescribed allows, articles and movies to build a culture of learning within the organization. The four perspectives developed by Kaplan and Norton are inter-related and must all contribute to the work of the Financial objectives. The relationship can be two-pronged, which means a focus on one perspective will hav e a earthshaking effect on the other perspectives.Ideally, when the organization takes care of the people and wanton away them equipped with the necessary skills (Learning and Growth), they will excel in the workplace and can do their jobs rise (Business Process). If they can do the job well, customers will be delighted because quality products and services are delivered to them (Customer). If customers are delighted, they will be loyal to the companys products and services, thus, will translate to revenues or profit. Involving different Raters in the Appraisal ProcessAside from the Balanced Scorecard, the company can also use the 360 degree feedback. Involving different persons in the evaluation process or multi-rater feedback is beneficial for developmental purposes (Madigan, 1999). The ratee can have an idea on the different things that he has to improve on. As Madigan (1999) quoted Mark Edwards, co-author of the book 360 Degree Feedback The Powerful New Model for Employee As sessment & deed remediatement, Single-source feedback is not very credible to managers and employees. When people get feedback from a boss, they often just dont believe it.Whereas, if they get the homogeneous feedback reading the same thing from multiple sources, they believe it. Drawbacks of Involving Other Raters in the Appraisal Process However, multi-rater feedback or 360 degree feedback has not been validated as a beak for performance estimate. This is especially when the raters are not consistent on what they say about the ratee. Survey fatigue can also be a factor (Madigan, 1999). Employees may find exhausting to rate a wad of their colleagues in their company. Also, raters have a natural tendency to become subjective in the judgement process.-Edwards, as again quoted by Madigan (1999) said that his favored use of the 360 degree feedback is for talent assessment and promotions as the method gives the steering an overview of who will succeed in the organization. A s Madigan (1999) says, Legal concerns can train when a 360-degree instrument, valid only for development purposes, is used for performance approximation. The digest for Creative Leadership, a nonprofit, educational organization, sells 360-degree instruments, but they are not for appraisal (due in part to the groups policy of dealing only with leadership development).Dalton explains, Anytime you are going to use something that calls itself a test, or a measurement tool, it has to be validated to show that the score means something and that what you are going to use it for is an fascinate purpose. If someone takes you to court, your validation strategy has to be such that you can say, Yes, your honor, we have validated this tool, and it is perfectly acceptable for me to give Carol a 20 percent raise and Maxine a 5 percent raise based on what we understand about this test. Our instruments have not been validated for appraisal purposes, and so we tell people when we sell them, that, in essence, if they use them that way, they will be in court alone. Errors in the Appraisal Process that are Caused by Bias Also, it must be noted that performance appraisal methods are affected by some(prenominal) factors that can disrupt the whole process thus, neglecting the true purpose of the surgery Evaluation System.In organizations where managers or superiors unremarkably rate employees, de Koning (2004) says that they are usually subjective in evaluating employees especially when the evaluation rating is linked to a performance bonus or an increase in pay. De Koning (2004) even noted that in one organization surveyed by Gallup, employees refer to the performance appraisal as the form you need to give out to give a person a raise. With this culture in the organization, managers will be pressured to nurse the performance appraisal to give everyone a raise.In some cases, this controller can even be used by the rater to deliberately indispose a ratee from a raise, espec ially when they are not in good terms. For the employees side, they would tend to currying favors for their superiors rather than focusing on excellently performing their single business processes. There is also the HALO effect. This is when one performance criteria influences the rating in another. For example, if an employee is often absent, other factors will be lower than normal. Citing of faultfinding incidents are also factors for biased because these may be isolated cases only. harmony in these incidents must be established so that appraisal results would be credible. A culture of feedback must also be developed so that members of the organization will take the performance appraisal process seriously. In many organizations, the HR units usually send notices reminding everyone to pay off the deadline for submission of results of performance appraisal. This is an indicator that the organization crams about the process and not interested to it. Whenever this scenario happens, both(prenominal) raters and ratees would always hustle the ratings just to submit on time, thus to ingest a raise.Timing is also a factor. Performance Appraisal periods must not coincide with other company projects, events or busy period of the year so that the employees attention will be focused on the process. If employees are busy delivering business results, they might not have overflowing time to do the appraisal process and thus, cramming about it just to beat the deadline. Performance appraisal must be given time such that the employees exemplary results and points for development can be rightly highlighted. Other Performance Appraisal Techniques There are a lot of performance appraisal methods that can be adopted by the company.Methods include the Critical hazard Method where the rater lists down incidents that had an impact to the performance of the employee. The burthen Checklist is a list of effective and ineffective behavior on the job. Essay Evaluations are narra tives on the watch by the rater about the performance of the employee. However, this method is highly dependent on the ability of the rater to articulate his thoughts into writing. Another technique is the Management by Objectives (MBO) method. In this method, the managers set objectives for the employee. MBO focuses on what is accomplished rather than how it is accomplished (Ngo, D., 2009). It must be noted that the Critical Incident Method and Essay evaluations tend to be subjective and focus on the behavior or competencies while the Weighted Checklist and the Management by Objectives measure results. Results look at the expected outputs of the job while competencies are sets of skills, behavior and knowledge that drive the delivery of outputs. However, these methods may work for if fit for the type of organization (e. g. MNC, NGO, GO, etc. ) As utter in wikipedia. org, there is also the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales that are used to propound performance.It is an appraisa l method that seeks to combine the benefits of narratives, critical incidents, and quantified ratings by securing a quantified measure with specific narrative examples of good or poor performance (wikipedia. org). How to Improve the Evaluation Form The company can evaluate the above methods and take on which is the most appropriate and acceptable to the employees and management. Company culture and practices must be taken into account when adopting a particular method. The company must also take into account that their strategies must be linked with the appraisal method.However, every company can adopt a generic method that has tether phases. Phase 1 is setting of expectations. Usually, management set these expectations during Strategic formulation Sessions where it stipulates what should be delivered within a given period. Phase 2 is monitoring. oral communication of results must be monitored so that appropriate interventions can be implemented to drive the results. The last p hase is the evaluation and follow through. This is the evaluation proper and when next steps are identified for the development of the employee.To determine the appropriate evaluation form, the question of what is expected by management must be answered. If management expectations focus on competencies such as customer orientation, decision-making, teamwork, etc. Whatever the case is, the above techniques can be used. For the case of the engineer, the Balanced Scorecard can be used since it can integrate both results and the competencies. A balanced weight for both will add credibility to the appraisal process. The weight can be based on what is much important for the company, results or competencies?Whatever the case is, results of evaluation must be justified or can be explained well by the rater. Also, appraisal must be about performance and not the importance of the job. Usually, organizations bench mark with others regarding their performance management systems. Also, HR Cons ultants can be hired to facilitate the organization improve the appraisal system. It is suggested that the company do an organizational diagnosis first. An organizational diagnosis will give the company the necessary entropy that will improve the performance management system.After the organizational diagnosis, they should develop a framework that will link the performance appraisal rewards. It must be noted that linking performance with rewards will make employees more make in their job. After this, the company can develop their system. As declared above, planning sessions must be done to communicate to the employees their key result areas (KRAs). one time KRAs are identified, a per division or department group meeting must be done to identify how these KRAs will be measured. For example, it is a KRA of a manager to send his or her subordinates to training.This can be measured by the number of employees sent. A 100% attendance of subordinates can be the outstanding while 50-9 9% is satisfactory. This must be done to all positions. Once the employee knows how exactly he or she will be measured, he or she can easily determine if the job is being done well or not. Doing these steps can make the evaluation process in the company more credible and objective to employees.References De Koning, G. M. J. 2004. Evaluating employee performance (part 1). Retrieved June 14, 2009, from (http//www. whatmakesagoodleader. com/Employee Performance-Evaluation. html) Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. 1996. Translating strategy into action the balanced scorecard. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, Massachusetts. Madigan, C. O. 1999. Full-circle feedback. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from (http//businessfinancemag. com/career-hr). Ngo, Davi. (2009). Performance appraisal methods. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from (http//www. humanresources. hrvinet. com/performance-appraisal-methods/). Wikepedia. org. Behaviorally anchored rating scales. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from (http//en. wikipedi a. org/wiki/Behaviorally_anchored_rating_scales).