Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
In this file, you can ref useful information about definition performance appraisal such as
definition performance appraisal methods, definition performance appraisal tips, definition
performance appraisal forms, definition performance appraisal phrases If you need more
assistant for definition performance appraisal, please leave your comment at the end of file.
Other useful material for you:
performanceappraisal123.com/1125-free-performance-review-phrases
performanceappraisal123.com/free-28-performance-appraisal-forms
performanceappraisal123.com/free-ebook-11-methods-for-performance-appraisal
The idea was to have individually written performance standards (or expectations) for each
critical element. This challenges managers to come up with specific measures for specific jobs
under their leadership. In fact, the law itself (5 USC 4302) reads, in part:
Under regulations which the Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe, each
performance appraisal system shall provide for establishing performance standards which will, to
the maximum extent feasible, permit the accurate evaluation of job performance on the basis of
objective criteria (which may include the extent of courtesy demonstrated to the public) related
to the job in question for each employee or position under the system
This isnt happening in most Federal agencies. Many HR departments have devised generic or
benchmark standards for rating purposes. Their intent is to relieve supervisors of the chore of
defining successful performance. They also believe that providing everyone with the same rating
elements and standards gives an appearance of fairness and equity despite the legal mandate
for objectivity.
Benchmarks and guesswork
Pre-written performance standards are intentionally vague so that they can be used by any
supervisor for any critical element and any job government job from Fork Lift Operators to
Research Scientists. Such canned standards inevitably lead to subjective ratings, which might
have been the same had there been nothing at all in writing.
Most of the supervisors and managers I meet (from State, Navy, Agriculture, Interior, Army, etc.)
are trying to rate their workforce fairly and accurately. Despite good intentions, however, their
ratings are based only on anecdotal evidence and little of that in most cases. The generic
benchmarks encourage subjective evaluations. Some agencies attempt to describe high, middle,
and low levels of achievement; however, the language they use must be interpreted and applied
by supervisors who are often baffled by it.
Standards as they were meant to be
In seminars, I ask managers, who are required to develop their own standards or supplement the
generics with their own criteria, to consider the first three techniques offered up by OPM in the
Code of Federal Regulations quality, quantity, and timeliness. These are the traditional
outcome-based measures of performance that senior managers, consultants, and HR specialists
continue to advocate.
I ask seminar participants (and now you) to think of all the ways a real supervisor would actually
know if an employee is delivering quality, quantity and/or timeliness. Examples of performance
Where metrics arent readily available, then a beauty contest is the inevitable result. Some
supervisors keep evaluation notes throughout the year. Most dont nor do they have any
memory of when the last rating year ended and this one began. Ratings become guesswork.
Get real! Get in GEAR!
Managers tell me that there arent enough hours left in a day to observe, log and keep individual
records on each employee. The say that time for evaluating employee performance comes after
the meetings, special projects, and reports that government demands of them. Moreover, they
find bean counting (of deadlines met/missed, errors, etc.) demeaning and/or distasteful. Most
managers I meet question whether their agencies would actually benefit from such an investment
of time and energy.
The National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations is grappling with these issues
with its GEAR model now being piloted in several Federal agencies. GEAR (Goals,
Engagement, Accountability, and Results) is initially focusing on the infrastructure needed to rate
workers in results. This includes: regular supervisory feedback; holding supervisors accountable
for making appraisals a priority; serious training in performance management; and reconsidering
the selection process for new supervisors/managers. I commend them for putting the horse in
front of the cart, and wish them luck with such an ambitious undertaking.
Its a Commandment fess up to it!
By my reckoning, if evaluations are to prove useful, the Commandment needs to be
acknowledged by OPM, senior management, the National Council, and Chief Human Capital
Officers who are responsible for making the law and regulations work. For decades, front-line
supervisors have on the receiving end of rhetoric regarding results-oriented and objective
measures without sensing a commitment from those at the top to do so themselves.
Those who advocate for objective and results-oriented standards need to explain how and why
supervisors and managers should adhere to the Commandment. Those who have tried to
quantify the work of Economists, Electricians, Biologists, and Law Enforcement Officers have
been frustrated for years. In some cases it seems as if senior management and HR are more
focused on finding something to measure than on actual job performance.
Heres the Commandment again: If thou attemptest to rate employees in terms of Quality,
Quantity, and/or Timeliness thou shalt use metrics that require thee to observe, log, and keep
book for every employee in every critical element. Now consider a sign that hung in Albert
Einsteins office in Princeton: Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything
that can be counted counts. I think theres wisdom there.
Subjectivity reigns
In light of the commandment, it might be better to simply acknowledge that employee
performance ratings will commonly be subjective. Where metrics are available and work to
motivate, go ahead and use them. Insisting on specific, objective, measurable, outcome-driven
standards where such data is unlikely to be harvested puts too many supervisors in the awkward
position of fudging.
The bond of trust between a supervisor and subordinate at the workplace (where submarines are
repaired, veterans treated, forest fires suppressed, contracts examined, roads designed, and
nuclear materials safeguarded) is paramount. It is jeopardized when management fails to
practice what is preached. Insisting that metrics reign and performance ratings are science rather
than art is one area where rhetoric and reality dont match up.
Gathering data, analyzing results, and aiming for continuous improvement is a worthy endeavor.
As a management practice it can help all of us see where we are and where we want to go.
Metrics relating to quality, quantity, and timeliness are at the heart of most management
philosophies like MBO, SQC, FTF, and TQM. But the First Commandment of Performance
Appraisals hasnt been followed by managers in most agencies. Thats why we see so many
canned standards.
Offering up benchmarks and generics, while insisting on results-driven performance
standards, isnt fooling anyone. It will take honest adults to recognize and acknowledge the
contradiction. Perhaps the National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations can help in
this regard. A little candor might go a long way.
==================
1. Essay Method
3. Rating Scale
Rating scales consists of several numerical scales
representing job related performance criterions such as
dependability, initiative, output, attendance, attitude etc.
Each scales ranges from excellent to poor. The total
numerical scores are computed and final conclusions are
derived. Advantages Adaptability, easy to use, low cost,
every type of job can be evaluated, large number of
employees covered, no formal training required.
Disadvantages Raters biases
4. Checklist method
5.Ranking Method
The ranking system requires the rater to rank his
subordinates on overall performance. This consists in
simply putting a man in a rank order. Under this method,
the ranking of an employee in a work group is done
against that of another employee. The relative position of
each employee is tested in terms of his numerical rank. It
may also be done by ranking a person on his job
performance against another member of the competitive
group.
Advantages of Ranking Method
Employees are ranked according to their
performance levels.
It is easier to rank the best and the worst
employee.
Limitations of Ranking Method
The whole man is compared with another
whole man in this method. In practice, it is very difficult
to compare individuals possessing various individual
traits.
This method speaks only of the position where an