Performance Appraisal Methods: Traditional and Modern Methods!

8/18/2019 Performance Appraisal Methods: Traditional and Modern Methods!

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/performance-appraisal-methods-traditional-and-modern-methods 1/21

Performance Appraisal Methods: Traditional and Modern Methods!

Each method of performance appraisal has its strengths and weaknesses may besuitable for one organisation and non-suitable for another one. As such there is no

single appraisal method accepted and used by all organisations to measure theiremployees performance.

All the methods of appraisal de"ised so far ha"e been classi#ed di$erently bydi$erent authors. %hile &e'en(o and )obbins* ha"e classi#ed appraisal methodsinto three categories: absolute methods relati"e methods and ob+ecti"e methods,Aswathappa has classi#ed these into two categories past-oriented and future-oriented.

Michael ) 'arrell et. al. ha"e classi#ed all appraisal methods into as many as sicategories: rating scales comparati"e methods critical incidents ssay M/0 andcombination methods. )ock and 1e"is2 ha"e classi#ed the methods into two broadcategories: narrow interpretation and broad interpretation. /eatty and 3chneierha"e categorised "arious methods of appraisal into four groups: comparati"emethods absolute methods goal setting and direct indices.

A more widely used classi#cation of appraisal methods into two categories "i(.traditional methods and modem methods is gi"en by 3trauss and 3ayles2. %hiletraditional methods lay emphasis on the rating of the indi"iduals personality traits

such as initiati"e dependability dri"e creati"ity integrity intelligence leadershippotential etc., the modem methods on the other hand place more emphasis onthe e"aluation of work results i.e. +ob achie"ements than the personal traits!Modem methods tend to be more ob+ecti"e and worthwhile. The "arious methodsincluded in each of the two categories are listed in Table 45.6.

Methods of Performance Appraisal

7n the discussion that follows each method under both categories will be describedbrie8y.

Traditional Methods:

)anking Method:



7t is the oldest and simplest formal systematic method of performance appraisal inwhich employee is compared with all others for the purpose of placing order ofworth. The employees are ranked from the highest to the lowest or from the best tothe worst.

7n doing this the employee who is the highest on the characteristic being measuredand also the one who is 1 lowest are indicated. Then the net highest and the netlowest between net highest and lowest until all the employees to be rated ha"ebeen ranked. Thus if there are ten employees to be appraised there will be tenranks from 9 to 9.

;owe"er the greatest limitations of this appraisal method are that:

<i= 7t does not tell that how much better or worse one is than another

<ii= The task of ranking indi"iduals is di>cult when a large number of employees arerated and

<iii= 7t is "ery di>cult to compare one indi"idual with others ha"ing "aryingbeha"ioural traits. To remedy these defects the paired comparison method of

performance appraisal has been e"ol"ed.

Paired 'omparison:

7n this method each employee is compared with other employees on one- on onebasis usually based on one trait only. The rater is pro"ided with a bunch of slipseach coining pair of names the rater puts a tick mark against the employee whomhe insiders the better of the two. The number of times this employee is comparedas better with others determines his or her #nal ranking.

The number of possible pairs for a gi"en number of employees is ascertained by thefollowing formula:

? <?-9=@4



%here ? the total number of employees to be e"aluated. 1et this be eempli#edwith an imaginary eample.

7f the following #"e teachers ha"e to be e"aluated by the Bice 'hanceller of aCni"ersity:

<D= Mohapatra <M )aul <)= Benkat <B= and /arman </= the abo"e formula gi"es < -9= @ 4 or 9 pairs.

These are:

Thus the pairs so ascertained gi"e the maimum possible permutations andcombinations. The number of times a worker is considered better makes his@herscore. 3uch scores are determined for each worker and he@she is ranked accordingto his@her score. 0ne ob"ious disad"antage of this method is that the method canbecome unwieldy when large numbers of employees are being compared.

Frading Method:

7n this method certain categories of worth are established in ad"ance and carefullyde#ned. There can be three categories established for employees: outstandingsatisfactory and unsatisfactory. There can be more than three grades. Employeeperformance is compared with grade de#nitions. The employee is then allocated tothe grade that best describes his or her performance.

3uch type of grading is done is 3emester pattern of eaminations and in the

selection of a candidate in the public ser"ice sector. 0ne of the ma+or drawbacks ofthis method is that the rater may rate most of the employees on the higher side oftheir performance.

Gorced &istribution Method:



This method was e"ol"ed by Ti$en to eliminate the central tendency of rating mostof the employees at a higher end of the scale. The method assumes thatemployees performance le"el con#rms to a normal statistical distribution i.e.9464 and 9 per cent. This is useful for rating a large number of employees +ob performance and promo ability. 7t tends to eliminate or reduce bias.

7t is also highly simple to understand and easy to apply in appraising theperformance of employees in organisations. 7t su$er from the drawback thatimpro"e similarly no single grade would rise in a ratings.

Gorced-'hoice Method:

The forced-choice method is de"eloped by H. P. Fuilford. 7t contains a series of

groups of statements and rater rates how e$ecti"ely a statement describes eachindi"idual being e"aluated. 'ommon method of forced-choice method contains twostatements both positi"e and negati"e.

Eamples of positi"e statements are:

9. Fi"es good and clear instructions to the subordinates.

4. 'an be depended upon to complete any +ob assigned.

A pair of negati"e statements may be as follows:

9. Makes promises beyond his limit to keep these.

4. 7nclines to fa"our some employees.

Each statement carries a score or weight which is not made known to the rater. Thehuman resource section does rating for all sets of statementsI both positi"e andnegati"e. The #nal rating is done on the basis of all sets of statements. Thusemployee rating in this manner makes the method more ob+ecti"e. The onlyproblem associated with this method is that the actual constructing of se"eral



e"aluati"e statements also called Jforced-choice scales takes a lot of time ande$ort.

'heck-1ist Method:

The basic purpose of utili(ing check-list method is to ease the e"aluation burdenupon the rater. 7n this method a series of statements i.e. Kuestions with theiranswers in Jyes or Jno are prepared by the ;) department <see Gigure 45-4=. Thecheck-list is then presented to the rater to tick appropriate answers rele"ant to theappraisee. Each Kuestion carries a weight-age in relationship to their importance.

3ample 'heck-list for Appraising Cni"ersity Teachers

%hen the check-list is completed it is sent to the ;) department to prepare the#nal scores for all appraises based on all Kuestions. %hile preparing Kuestions anattempt is made to determine the degree of consistency of the rater by asking thesame Kuestion twice but in a di$erent manner <see numbers L and in Gigure 45-4=.

;owe"er one of the disad"antages of the check-list method is that it is di>cult toassemble analyse and weigh a number of statements about employeecharacteristics and contributions Grom a cost stand point also this method may be

ine>cient particularly if there are a number of +ob categories in the organisationbecause a check-list of Kuestions must be prepared for each category of +ob. 7t willin"ol"e a lot of money time and e$orts.

'ritical 7ncidents Method:

7n this method the rater focuses his or her attention on those key or criticalbeha"iours that make the di$erence between performing a +ob in a noteworthymanner <e$ecti"ely or ine$ecti"ely=. There are three steps in"ol"ed in appraisingemployees using this method.

Girst a list of noteworthy <good or bad= on-the-+ob beha"iour of speci#c incidents isprepared. 3econd a group of eperts then assigns weightage or score to theseincidents depending upon their degree of desirability to perform a +ob. Third #nally



a check-list indicating incidents that describe workers as good2 or bad2 isconstructed. Then the check-list is gi"en to the rater for e"aluating the workers.

The basic idea behind this rating is to apprise the workers who can perform their

+obs e$ecti"ely in critical situations. This is so because most people work alike innormal situation. The strength of critical incident method is that it focuses onbeha"iours and thus +udges performance rather than personalities.

7ts drawbacks are to regularly write down the critical incidents which become time-consuming and burdensome for e"aluators i.e. managers. Fenerally negati"eincidents are positi"e ones. 7t is raters inference that determines which incidentsare critical to +ob performance. ;ence the method is sub+ect to all the limitationsrelating to sub+ecti"e +udgments.

Fraphic )ating 3cale Method:

The graphic rating scale is one of the most popular and simplest techniKues forappraising performance. 7t is also known as linear rating scale. 7n this method theprinted appraisal form is used to appraise each employee.

The form lists traits <such as Kuality and reliability= and a range of +ob performancecharacteristics <from unsatisfactory to outstanding= for each trait. The rating is done

on the basis of points on the continuum. The common practice is to follow #"epoints scale.

The rater rates each appraisee by checking the score that best describes his or herperformance for each trait all assigned "alues for the traits are then totaled. Gigure45-L shows a typical graphic rating scale.

3ample of Fraphic )ating 3cale 7tems and Gormat

3ample of Fraphic )ating 3cale 7tems and Gormat

This method is good for measuring "arious +ob beha"iours of an employee.;owe"er it is also sub+ected to raters bias while rating employees beha"iour at





;owe"er the process is a time-consuming one. The super"isors generally resentwhat they consider the sta$ interference. ;ence the method is not widely used.

'on#dential )eport:

7t is the traditional way of appraising employees mainly in the Fo"ernment&epartments. E"aluation is made by the immediate boss or super"isor for gi"inge$ect to promotion and transfer. Csually a structured format is de"ised to collectinformation on employees strength weakness intelligence attitude characterattendance discipline etc. report.

Modern Methods:

Management by 0b+ecti"es <M/0=:

Most of the traditional methods of performance appraisal are sub+ect to theantagonistic +udgments of the raters. 7t was to o"ercome this problem, Peter G.&rucker propounded a new concept namely management by ob+ecti"es <M/0= wayback in 9N6 in his book.

The Practice of management. The concept of M/0 as was concei"ed by &ruckercan be described as a process whereby the superior and subordinate managers ofan organi(ation +ointly identify its common goals de#ne each indi"iduals ma+orareas of responsibility in terms of results epected of him and use these measuresas guides for operating the unit and assessing the contribution of each itsmembers2.

7n other words stripped to its essentials M/0 reKuires the manager to goals witheach employee and then periodically discuss his or her progress toward these goals.

7n fact M/0 is not only a method of performance e"aluation. 7t is "iewed by thePracticing managers and pedagogues as a philosophy of managerial practicebecause .t .s a method by wh.ch managers and subordinates plan organisecommunicate control and debate.



An M/0 programme consists of four main steps: goal setting performancestandard comparison and periodic re"iew. 7n goal-setting goals are set which eachindi"idual s to attain. The superior and subordinate +ointly establish these goals. The goals refer to the desired outcome to be achie"ed by each indi"idual employee.

7n performance standards the standards are set for the employees as per thepre"iously arranged time period. %hen the employees start performing their +obsthey come to know what is to be done what has been done and what remains to bedone.

7n the third step the actual le"el of goals attained are compared with the goalsagreed upon. This enables the e"aluator to #nd out the reasons "ariation betweenthe actual and standard performance of the employees. 3uch a comparison helpsde"ise training needs for increasing employees performance it can also eplore the

conditions ha"ing their bearings on employees performance but o"er which theemployees ha"e no control.

Ginally in the periodic re"iew step correcti"e measure is initiated when actualperformance de"iates from the slandered established in the #rst step-goal-settingstage. 'onsistent with the M/0 philosophy periodic progress re"iews are conductedin a constructi"e rather than puniti"e manner.

The purpose of conducting re"iews is not to degrade the performer but to aid in

his@her future performance. Grom a moti"ational point of "iew this would berepresentati"e of McFregors theories.

Gigure 45.6 present the M/0 method of performance appraisal presently used by anengineering giant i.e. 1arsen and Turbro 1imited.

M/0 Method of Performance Appraisal at 1arsen and Toubro 1imited

M/0 Method of Performance Appraisal at 1arsen and Toubro 1imited

1imitation of M/0:

M/0 is not a panacea cure for all organisational problems.



As with other methods it also su$ers from some limitations as catalogued below:

<i= 3etting Cn-measurable 0b+ecti"es:

0ne of the problems M/0 su$ers from is unclear and un-measurable ob+ecti"es setfor attainment. An ob+ecti"e such as will do a better +ob of training2 is useless as itis un-measurable. 7nstead well ha"e four subordinates promoted during the year2is a clear and measurable ob+ecti"e.

<ii= Time-consuming:

The acti"ities in"ol"ed in an M/0 programme such as setting goals measuringprogress and pro"iding feedback can take a great deal of time.

<iii= Tug of %ar:

3etting ob+ecti"es with the subordinates sometimes turns into a tug of war in thesense that the manager pushes for higher Kuotas and the subordinates push forlower ones. As such goals so set are likely to be unrealistic.

<i"= 1ack of Trust:

M/0 is likely to be ine$ecti"e in an en"ironment where management has little trustin its employees. 0r say management makes decisions autocratically and relieshea"ily on eternal controls.

/eha"iourally Anchored )ating 3cales </A)3=:

The problem of +udgmental performance e"aluation inherent in the traditionalmethods of performance e"aluation led to some organisations to go for ob+ecti"ee"aluation by de"eloping a techniKue known as /eha"iourally Anchored )ating3cales </A)3=2 around 9Ns. /A)3 are descriptions of "arious degrees ofbeha"iour with regard to a speci#c performance dimension.



7t combines the bene#ts of narrati"es critical incidents and Kuanti#ed ratings byanchoring a Kuanti#ed scale with speci#c beha"ioural eamples of good or poorperformance. The proponents of /A)3 claim that it o$ers better and more eKuitableappraisals than do the other techniKues of performance appraisal we discussed so

far.

&e"eloping /A)3 typically in"ol"es #"e steps:

9. Fenerating 'ritical 7ncidents:

'ritical incidents <or say beha"iours= are those which are essential for the

performance of the +ob e$ecti"ely Persons who are knowledgeable of the +ob inKuestion <+obholders and@or super"isors= are asked to describe speci#c criticalincidents of e$ecti"e and ine$ecti"e performance. These critical incidents may bedescribed in a few short sentences or phrases using the terminology.

4. &e"eloping Performance &imensions:

The critical incidents are then clustered into a smaller set of performancedimensions usually #"e to ten. Each cluster or say dimension is then de#ned.

L. )eallocating 7ncidents:

Barious critical incidents are reallocated dimensions by another group of people whoalso know the +ob in Kuestion. Barious critical incidents so reallocated to originaldimensions are clustered into "arious categories with each cluster showing similarcritical incidents. Those critical incidents are retained which meet to 5O ofagreement with the cluster as classi#ed in step 4.

6. 3caling 7ncidents:

The same second group as in step L rates the beha"iour described in each incidentin terms of e$ecti"eness or ine$ecti"eness on the appropriate dimension by usingse"en to nine points scale. Then a"erage e$ecti"eness ratings for each incident aredetermined to decide which incidents will be included in the #nal anchored scales.



. &e"eloping Ginal /A)3 7nstrument:

A subset of the incidents <usually si or se"en per cluster= is used as a beha"iouralanchor for the #nal performance dimensions. Ginally a /A)3 instrument with"ertical scales is drawn to be used for performance appraisal as in Gigure 4-.

;ow /A)3 is de"eloped can be eempli#ed with an eample of grocery checkoutclerks working in a large grocery chain.

A number of critical incidents in"ol"ed in checking out of grocery can be clusteredinto se"en performance dimensions:

9. Dnowledge and Hudgment

4. 'onscientiousness

L. 3kill in ;uman )elations

6. 3kill in 0peration of )egister

. 3kill in /agging

. 0rganisational Ability of 'heck stand %ork

. 3kill in Monetary Transactions

5. 0bser"ational Ability

?ow a /A)3 for one of these performance dimensions namely knowledge and +udgment2 can be de"eloped as in Gigure 45-. ?otice how the typical /A)3 isbeha"iourally anchored with speci#c critical incidents.



/A)3 for Appraising of a Frocery 'heckerQs Hob

/A)3 method of performance appraisal is considered better than the traditionalones because it pro"ides ad"antages like a more accurate gauge clearer standardsbetter feedback and consistency in e"aluation. ;owe"er /A)3 is not free fromlimitations.

The research on /A)3 indicates that it too su$ers from distortions inherent in mostrating scales. The research study concluded that it is clear that research on /A)3to date does not support the high promise regarding scale independence 7n shortwhile /A)3 may outperform con"entional rating techniKues it is clear that they arenot a panacea for obtaining high interrater reliability2

Assessment 'entres:

The introduction of the concept of assessment centres as a method of performancemethod is traced back in 9NLs in the Fermany used to appraise its army o>cers. The concept gradually spread to the C3 and the CD in 9N6s and to the /ritain in9Ns.

The concept then tra"ersed from the army to business arena during 9Ns. Theconcept of assessment centre is of course of a recent origin in 7ndia. 7n 7ndia'rompton Frea"es Eicher ;industan 1e"er and Modi Rero ha"e adopted thistechniKue of performance e"aluation.

7n business #eld assessment centres are mainly used for e"aluating eecuti"e orsuper"isory potential. /y de#nition an assessment centre is a central locationwhere managers come together to participate in well-designed simulated eercises. They are assessed by senior managers supplemented by the psychologists and the;) specialists for 4-L days.

Assessee is asked to participate in in-basket eercises work groups simulationsand role playing which are essential for successful performance of actual +ob.;a"ing recorded the assessees beha"iour the raters meet to discuss their pooledinformation and obser"ations and based on it they gi"e their assessment about theassesee. At the end of the process feedback in terms of strengths and weaknessesis also pro"ided to the assesees.



The distinct ad"antages the assessment centres pro"ide include more accuratee"aluation minimum biasedness right selection and promotion of eecuti"es andso on. ?onetheless the techniKue of assessment centres is also plagued by certainlimitations and problems. The techniKue is relati"ely costly and time consuming

causes su$ocation to the solid performers discourages to the poor performers<re+ected= breeds unhealthy competition among the assessees and bears ad"ersee$ects on those not selected for assessment.

L S &egree Appraisal:

et another method used to appraise the employees performance is L S degreeappraisal. This method was #rst de"eloped and formally used by Feneral Electric'ompany of C3A in 9NN4. Then it tra"elled to other countries including 7ndia. 7n7ndia companies like )eliance 7ndustries %ipro 'orporation 7nfosys Technologies Therma Thomas 'ook etc. ha"e been using this method for appraising theperformance of their employees. This feedback based method is generally used forascertaining training and de"elopment reKuirements rather than for pay increases.

Cnder L S degree appraisal performance information such as employees skillsabilities and beha"iours is collected all around2 an employee i.e. from his@hersuper"isors subordinates peers and e"en customers and clients.

7n other worlds in L-degree feedback appraisal system an employee is appraisedby his super"isor subordinates peers and customers with whom he interacts in thecourse of his +ob performance. All these appraisers pro"ide information or feedbackon an employee by completing sur"ey Kuestionnaires designed for this purpose.

All information so gathered is then compiled through the computeri(ed system toprepare indi"iduali(ed reports. These reports are presented to me employees beingrated. They then meet me appraiserIbe it ones superior subordinates or peersIand share the information they feel as pertinent and useful for de"eloping a self-

impro"ement plan.

7n L S degree feedback performance appraisal being based on feedback allaround2 an employee is likely to be more correct and realistic. ?onetheless likeother traditional methods this method is also sub+ect to su$er from the sub+ecti"ityon the part of the appraiser. Gor eample while super"isor may penalise the



employee by pro"iding negati"e feedback a peer being in8uenced by Jgi"e andtake feeling may gi"e a ra"e re"iew on his@her colleague.

'ost Accounting Method:

This method e"aluates an employees performance from the monetary bene#ts theemployee yields to his@her organisation. This is ascertained by establishing arelationship between the costs in"ol"ed in retaining the employee and the bene#tsan organisation deri"es from ;im@her.

%hile e"aluating an employees performance under this method the followingfactors are also taken into consideration:

9. Cnit wise a"erage "alue of production or ser"ice.

4. Uuality of product produced or ser"ice rendered.

L. 0"erhead cost incurred.

6. Accidents damages errors spoilage wastage caused through unusual wear andtear.

. ;uman relationship with others.

. 'ost of the time super"isor spent in appraising the employee.

Ad"ertisements:

)elated Articles:

Gundamental Economic %elfare 'riteria with )eference to Pareto 0ptimality



Essay on /odo 1angauge <459 %ords=

3er"ice /lueprint for )estaurant 3er"ice and Auto &ealers 3er"ices <with infographics=

Essay on Barna Bya"astha

Pro#t Maimisation Theory: Assumptions and 'riticismsV Economics

3peech Air Pollution: &e#nition E$ects and Methods for )educing it <eplained withdiagram=

?iche Marketing: Ad"antages and Problems of ?iche Marketing

The 'auses of the )ise and Frowth of )egional Dingdoms with special reference tothe &eccan in 95th 'entury

?ature of 7nternational Politics

'auses of Fenerating /lack Money in 7ndia

3ugarcane /eetle <;olotrichia 'onsanguinea=: &istribution in 7ndia 1ife 'ycle and'ontrol

)ural Po"erty in 7ndia

96 Ad"ertising Gormats That Are More E$ecti"e on Tele"isions

Gredric Hameson: /iography and his 'ontribution toward Postmodernity

;arappan 'ulture and 7ts People

Mahatma Fandhi and his &ream of 'lothing for 7ndian People

.

by Taboola 3ponsored 1inks ou May 1ike

%hich Performance Appraisal 3tyle 3uits our 'ompanyW

3hare 0n Gacebook

3hare 0n Twitter

3hare 0n Foogle Plus

3hare 0n 1inkdin

blogXsuitMany appraisal types eist, from traditional to trendy simple to complehighly structured to open-ended. 3ome of these types ha"e been shown to workJbetter but the reality is that appraisal types and systems should be as uniKue to acompany as possible. 7f you are searching for an employee appraisal method thatpro"ides meaningful data ensure that no matter what S it suits the culture of yourworkplace and we recommend that you keep it as simple as it can be. ;ere is a



great o"er"iew of the most popular and common appraisal methods for a "ariety ofbusiness models.

To begin we must #rst analy(e the parties in"ol"ed with the "arious appraisal

methods. 0"erall performance appraisals can be set up to incorporate feedbackfrom L di$erent sources4:

Geedback from the employee being e"aluated

Geedback from the manager@super"isor

Geedback from other stakeholders <peers customers etc.=

EMP10EE GEE&/A'D:

3elf-E"aluation Method

3elf e"aluations are a great way to kick-o$ re"iews. A self-e"aluation is when theemployee is asked to +udge their own performance against predetermined criteria. The ad"antage of this kind of an appraisal is that the employee is allowed to gi"ehis input into his performance appraisal and the company can use this self-appraisal along with the standard appraisal to gi"e a more rounded employeere"iew. The disad"antage is that an employee may not be able to e"aluate theirown performance ob+ecti"ely gi"ing himself an arti#cially high performance grade

and making the self-appraisal less "aluable9. Employee self-e"aluations help todemystify the appraisal process and can pro"ide interesting insight into gapsbetween employee and manager ratings. 3elf appraisals also help to ensure thatemployees ha"e read and hopefully ha"e analy(ed e"ery corner of theirperformance. Gor more information on self-e"aluations please read the emPerformpost: 3elf-E"aluations: Cseful or ?otW

Hournaling

Technically employees should be encouraged to keep ongoing +ournal notes todocument performance milestones and use those to support their self-assessments,howe"er technology is causing this process to shift as employees can now useinstant feedback tools within appraisal systems to send performance notes directlyto their managers library of notes. <see emPerform tag=.

MA?AFE) GEE&/A'D:



Management /y 0b+ecti"es

This method often called M/0 is designed to include employees in the goal-settingprocess and de#ne success2 by measuring accomplishments against a clearlyestablished set of ob+ecti"es. 7f managers and employees begin the year by workingtogether to list these ob+ecti"es the end-of-year appraisal can simply compare eachgoal with its #nal outcome. This method is simple clear and empowers employeesin the goal setting process but it disregards non-goal-related success metrics.

Fraphic )ating 3cales

This is probably the most common. Csing this method a super"isor rates anemployee on a numerical scale for a de#ned set of beha"iors traits competenciesor completed pro+ects. This method gains points for simplicity and functionality butit only works well if both managers and employees share the same understanding of each point on the scale <for eample on a scale of one to ten is an a"erage2performance gi"en a mid-range rating or the lowest ratingW= or if the ratingcategories focus on Jtraits rather than Jbeha"iour. Gor more information aboutrating scales see The Traditional )ating 3cales: ?eeds 7mpro"ement

%eighted 'hecklist Method

A weighted checklist presents the e"aluator with a set of yes or no Kuestions thateach carry a predetermined "alue. Uuestions may include for eample &oes theemployee follow directions carefullyW2 or &oes the employee make freKuentmistakesW2 The numerical "alue of each answer is then added and applied to ano"erall determination of his or her success. These kinds of Kuestions must be bothworded and weighted carefully or the results can become confusing. /ut whenproperly eecuted the method is clear and allows easy comparison between eachemployee and the net.

Paired 'omparison Analysis

This option relies on a grid that presents numerical "alues for each employee basedon an established set of criteria. After the "alues are collected they can bere"iewed against other "alues presented in the same format and a$ected by thesame factors. This method can be comple and labor intensi"e if done manually but



it allows the kinds of apple-and-orange comparisons that often present philosophicalchallenges to ;) managers who need to standardi(e e"aluation methods acrossgroups of employees facing "ery di$erent tasks.

Essay E"aluation Method

The Essay method is the grandfather of methods. This method pro"ides managerswith an open-ended opportunity to describe an employees strengths andweaknesses in short essays. Essay e"aluations gi"e super"isors a chance to assessbeha"iors within a comple contet but it remo"es some of the easy comparabilityof the paired-comparison method abo"e and lea"es a lot of room for confusion.Essay E"aluations are "ery unstructured and are often riddled with bias. 7f this wasone of the #rst methods used to e"aluate performance S it is no wonder whye"aluations ha"e been gi"en a bad rep. There is still a place for essays but in a

di$erent form. Todays essays are shorter speci#c and usually used to support arating. Appraisal software like emPerform also gi"es manager writing assistant toolsfor tackling such compositions.

'ritical 7ncident Method

1ike the essay method abo"e the critical incident method allows super"isors todescribe an employees ecellent or poor response to situations arising during theyear in Kuestion. This method keeps answers open-ended 8eible multi-

dimensional and respectful of contet. /ut it also resists standardi(ation andcomparison and if the incidents arent recorded and discussed as they occur asub+ecti"e assessment made weeks or months later may ha"e limited "alue.

0CT37&E <L= GEE&/A'D:

Fathering feedback from multiple sources is a great way to ensure employees arerated fairly and accurately. L feedback incorporates data from peers super"isorsand e"en outside parties like customers and suppliers. This broad feedback canpro"ide a multi-dimensional picture of performance that can cancel the in8uence ofbias or outlying data points. The goal is to paint an accurate picture of employeesstrengths and weaknesses. L feedback can be collected to gauge performancebut can also be eecuted solely for de"elopment <often the case withleadership@eecuti"e Ls=.



There are two types of L feedback that can be incorporated into appraisals:

3tructured L Geedback

This L method gathers appraisal information from an employees peers and directreports as well as his or her super"isor in a "ery structured manner. This methodtraditionally in"ol"es the formal collection of information from many people using asur"ey. This method can be epensi"e and time consuming to eecute depending ona companys deli"ery. 7f you are looking for an appraisal software system ensurethat the one you choose has an integrated sur"ey tools for conducting L sur"eysand incorporating the results into the re"iews <see emPerform L=. This cuts backon cost and gi"es companies the control o"er eecuting as many custom Ls asdesired.

Cnstructured L Geedback

The impact of using Cnstructured feedback is relati"ely new in the appraisal worldand is making a huge di$erence in performance management and business success.Cnstructured feedback is typically being collected year-round "ia technology-enabled appraisals where comments +ournal notes and feedback are collected as ithappens. This type of feedback ser"es as a summary of performance throughoutthe cycle and is greatly increasing the accuracy of appraisals as managers ha"eaccess to a library of notes to help support e"aluation decisions. <see emPerform

tag=.

A winning appraisal strategy is the one that best suits your organi(ation but dontbe scared to shake things up to get better results. )e"isit your appraisal forms andthe collection methods regularly to see if it is being used properly and to its bestpotential by managers and sta$. 7ncorporating elements from all types in thesimplest way possible will ensure that your organi(ation is doing all that it can tode"elop employee performance year-round instead of treating performancemanagement as an annual e"ent.

7f you are looking for performance appraisal software that if 8eible enough toaccommodate your uniKue appraisal methods consider emPerform a platform withmultiple utilities that can help you create the appraisal models that best suit yourneeds. emPerform o$ers an unlimited number of custom appraisals and work8owsso that you can tailor your model regardless of company structure andreKuirements. Bisit www.employee-performance.com



9 Types of Performance Appraisal Plans V e;ow.comhttp:@@[email protected]((4iFaCwD+

4 1loyd Den. Performance Appraisals Z Phrases for &ummies. %iley Publishing:4N

Performance Appraisal Methods: Traditional and Modern Methods!

Documents