Management and Supervision: Writing Objective Performance Appraisals

Any manager or supervisor would be quick to agree that appraisers are supposed to fairly and objectively rate job performance. In practice, however, this is often obscured when Performance Appraisals are used to do everything from managing salary budgets to putting problem employees on notice.

Of these two examples,the first one is arguably the worst use of Performance Appraisals.

Simply put, most organizations use Performance Appraisals as their main basis for doling out annual salary increases. As such, it is not uncommon for appraisers to "play it safe" by giving appraisals that assures everyone gets a merit increase.

Of course, this practice is a good deal for the mediocre performer, but quite an inequitable one for the superior performer. It goes without saying that appraisers who rate this way are sewing the seeds of employee discontent as well as damaging their own supervisory credibility.

The second example, i.e., using appraisals as a “catch-all” Employee Relations Tool, can be a valid use of appraisals, but only if the problem being identified is performance-related.

Granted, work rule violations, chronic or not can have a detrimental affect on one’s performance; however, managers who wait until the annual review to confront employees with these problems are simply not doing their job.

Obviously, there's no fool-proof way to avoid all appraisal problems, but the following tips can help appraisers ameliorate many appraisal pitfalls:

1. Document facts, not opinions.
2. Compare performance to goals and standards previously set.
3. Comment on observed actions and results, and avoid hearsay
4. Take the entire reporting period into account.
5. Describe performance, not attitude.
6. Be consistent and evaluate every one's performance in like manner.
7. Ensure comments are consistent with performance ratings, and vice-versa.
8. Strive for clarity and eliminate vague language and boilerplate.

Of all these tips, the first one, Documentation, is the key. As such, planning and preparation are critical. In practical terms this means that an appraisal is an on-going and proactive process that goes far beyond the mechanical exercise of filling out a form.

Consider that effective managers, as a matter of practice, collect appraisal information on a continuing basis. They do this by recording significant facts regarding an employee's performance (both positive and negative) for future reference.

Obviously, this takes time, but less time than it would take to reconstruct this information from memory when actually writing the appraisal.

The upshot is that documentation helps eliminate much of the subjectivity in the appraisal process, and thus contributes to a more objective and less anxiety-provoking experience for both the appraiser and the employee.

Any discussion of Performance Appraisals would not be complete without mentioning some of the more common rating errors made by appraisers. It should be noted that these mistakes are universal in nature and should be viewed as tendencies that even experienced appraisers have to be on guard against.

Halo Effect: This refers to the tendency to rate an employee either high or low on all facets of the job because the appraiser likes or dislikes one aspect of the employee's performance.

Central Tendency: This refers to the problem of rating all employees as middle or average performers. In effect, this" keep the peace" appraisal strategy punishes superior performance and rewards mediocrity.

Personal Bias: Refers to the unfortunate tendency of some appraisers to rate an employee unfairly because of the appraisers personal feelings or biases about an individual or individuals.

Like-Me: This refers to appraisers who have a tendency to rate employees higher who are closer to themselves in style, attitudes, and work habits than employees who exhibit different characteristics.

Use Bias: This refers to the tendency of letting the purpose of the appraisal unduly influence the ratings. In other words, raters may be more critical of performance when appraisals are used for developmental reasons than for appraisals used for merit raises or promotion.

Averaging: This is a common practice when determining an overall appraisal rating. What this means is that while individual aspects of the employee's performance could influence the overall rating, appraisers should not use these individual aspects to compute an average overall rating.

In the end, the appraiser's job is to monitor, document and evaluate performance objectively. That said, any reward or disciplinary action associated performance should be dealt with as a separate and subsequent Salary or Employee Relations Issue.

This is an effective Management Practice for sure, but it also works to maintain the integrity of the Appraisal Process by forcing appraisers to focus on objective performance criteria as opposed to subjective or isolated instances.

Management & Supervision: Documenting Employee Problems

A lament often heard from managers is that it is nearly impossible to discipline or terminate problem employees these days. It’s a common complaint for sure, but hardly true.

Let's face it, dealing with Employee Relations Problems is one of the toughest parts of a manager’s job. And "dealing" is the operative word as these problems rarely resolve themselves.

Most managers have no issue with terminating someone "for cause", as this usually pertains to instances of gross misconduct on company time or on company property. And though these are usually difficult situations, their resolution is mostly quick and obvious.

On the other hand, resolving performance problems or work rule infractions is not so cut and dry. In so much as these situations are disruptive and non-productive, it is understandable that managers want quick solutions; however, the prospect of embarking on a protracted Employee Relations Process is what often frustrates managers.

That said, the process is meant to be deliberate for good reason -- it protects employees from arbitrary managers, while also forcing companies to create a "paper trail" in the event of legal action. In this context, what we are talking about is Documentation.

Granted, Documentation often causes confusion and consternation among managers, but in reality, these would include such sources as:

* Job Descriptions
* Policy and Procedures Manuals
* Past Performance Appraisals
* Employee Handbooks
* Summaries of Counseling
* Oral and Written Warnings
* Feedback from others

Of these, the first four will normally exist as normal Management Communications Tools, while the next three are created as a result of a specific Employee Relations situation. These typically take the form of letters or memos, signed or acknowledged by the manager and the employee, and then placed in the employee’s Personnel File.

As far as documenting the problem or infraction, here are several tips to consider:

* Clearly identify the problem (Performance or Work Rules)
* Itemize how and where the employee is falling short of expectations.
* Prescribe a remedial course of action with time frames and benchmarks.
* Identify possible subsequent actions (final warnings, reprimands, docking of pay)
* Articulate the consequence of failure to rectify the situation. (suspension, termination)
* Solicit and include the employee’s input and reaction.
* Indicate a follow-up date.

It goes without saying that each of these actions should be applied consistently and in accordance with established policy.

Companies with a Human Resource Department will be able to guide managers through this process; however, businesses without a formal HR Department should consult with outside experts or appropriate Legal Counsel.

For additional information on this topic, there are many available desktop and online resources easily found with a quick Internet Search.