Performance Appraisal Forms Can Help Eliminate Subjectivity In Ratings

Published July 24, 2007

 

Research by Personnel Decisions International, a Minneapolis-based consulting firm, is the latest data to confirm that subjectivity plays a part in a majority of performance assessments. More than six out of 10 times, employees who reported to two bosses were given an "outstanding" rating by one and a lower rating by the other.

Such discrepancies in performance analysis are often the result of performance areas not being adequately defined so they can be rated consistently.

Take the following example. The area being assessed is dependability. One manager thinks of it in terms of always being on time for work, which the employee always is, so he rates her as "outstanding" in that category. The other manager thinks of dependability in terms of completing assignments on time. Since the employee handed in a few assignments late, he rates her as "average." Both are reasonable definitions of dependability. But without a shared definition known by both managers and the employee, you get conflicting assessments.

That's why it's crucial that your organization's performance appraisal form requires managers to define both the job performance areas being assessed and the level of performance to achieve a specific rating. Such an undertaking might sound time consuming. Well, frankly, it is. But it's time well spent.

You're probably thinking, "That's all well and good, but how am I going to convince managers to actually do that, when, as it is, it's next to impossible to get them to actually complete the comment sections on the current review?" The answer is three-fold.

Start by appealing to their sense of the greater good. Explain that the more accurate performance assessments are, the greater the chance that the right people will be promoted throughout the organization. Having performance superstars in higher-level positions will benefit the organization as a whole. Plus, accurate reviews can help squash the perception of bias.

Then remind them that it's their job to conduct effective performance evaluations, and that they will be rated on how well they meet this performance objective.

Conclude by identifying a silver lining. Stress to them that once they create and define performance areas and ratings scales, they can use them year after year and for future employees in the same position with only minor tweaks here and there.

To ensure that managers don't conveniently "forget" to define performance terms, provide them with an appraisal form that requires the terms to be defined before it can be used. AHI's Model Performance Appraisal Form devotes one of four parts to performance definitions.

Let's look at an example of how to define performance terms. Instead of defining a job performance area simply as the essential job function of proofreading, you define it as: Thoroughly and accurately proofreading product pages for the organization's website.

Then you determine how many proofreading mistakes is acceptable for employees to make in a defined period of time. You come up with between four and 10 mistakes, which will serve as your "average" rating. Define up and down from there.

A. Outstanding is defined as no proofreading mistakes.

B. Above average is defined as three or fewer proofreading mistakes.

C. Average is defined as four to 10 proofreading mistakes.

D. Below average is defined as 11 to 17 proofreading mistakes.

E. Unacceptable is defined as 18 or more proofreading mistakes.

 

Related Topic(s): Discipline & Performance Issues/Performance Appraisals