Dear HR Fraternity,
I would like to discuss about the Performance Evaluation System.
We have some Attributes to measure like Job Knowlegde, Communication Skill, Initiative etc.
How can one measure their employees Job knowledge. Employee says I have very good job knowledge while employer says no you don't have. So how truly can we really measure Job Knowledge.
Communication skill- How it can be measured we can't really let the people sit and take a test for communication skill.
Initiative - Well again how can it be measured for anybody.
Can't be there particular tools or any way to measure these attributes.
Waiting for your Reply.
Sonia
From China, Shenzhen
I would like to discuss about the Performance Evaluation System.
We have some Attributes to measure like Job Knowlegde, Communication Skill, Initiative etc.
How can one measure their employees Job knowledge. Employee says I have very good job knowledge while employer says no you don't have. So how truly can we really measure Job Knowledge.
Communication skill- How it can be measured we can't really let the people sit and take a test for communication skill.
Initiative - Well again how can it be measured for anybody.
Can't be there particular tools or any way to measure these attributes.
Waiting for your Reply.
Sonia
From China, Shenzhen
Sonia,
Very interesting query. These are factors generally measured by observation and judgement. Hence chances of non-convergence of views are possible
In such cases, though its difficult to quantify such factors directly its possible to anchor the behaviour. I.e, create a defnition through a consultative process about the meaning of job knowledge , expressed in terms of observable factors. In short , anchor the scales properly.
Research has shown that rater training will minimise probles of judgemet (between rater differences) to a large extend.
Thanks.
Biju Varkkey
IIM A
Tel: 079 26324874.
From India, Ahmedabad
4Very interesting query. These are factors generally measured by observation and judgement. Hence chances of non-convergence of views are possible
In such cases, though its difficult to quantify such factors directly its possible to anchor the behaviour. I.e, create a defnition through a consultative process about the meaning of job knowledge , expressed in terms of observable factors. In short , anchor the scales properly.
Research has shown that rater training will minimise probles of judgemet (between rater differences) to a large extend.
Thanks.
Biju Varkkey
IIM A
Tel: 079 26324874.
From India, Ahmedabad
Hi!
I look at the attempt to measure competencies or skills thru Performance Evaluation as something extra-ordinary. To me, Performance Evaluation is essentially "the review and evaluation of performance and outputs" versus the planned targets and outcomes."
Communication Skills and other competencies must be measured either in Job Evaluation or in Competency Profiling.
In JE, its purpuse must be towards the creation of a profile that will lead to a more objective rationalization of a job's Job Grade or Job Class within the compensation hierarchy.
In CP, the intent should be more towards the creation of a standard job profile where individual qualifications can be matched against, usually helpful in recruitment activitities.
Best wishes.
Ed Llarena, Jr.
Managing Partner
Emilla Consulting
From Philippines, Parañaque
I look at the attempt to measure competencies or skills thru Performance Evaluation as something extra-ordinary. To me, Performance Evaluation is essentially "the review and evaluation of performance and outputs" versus the planned targets and outcomes."
Communication Skills and other competencies must be measured either in Job Evaluation or in Competency Profiling.
In JE, its purpuse must be towards the creation of a profile that will lead to a more objective rationalization of a job's Job Grade or Job Class within the compensation hierarchy.
In CP, the intent should be more towards the creation of a standard job profile where individual qualifications can be matched against, usually helpful in recruitment activitities.
Best wishes.
Ed Llarena, Jr.
Managing Partner
Emilla Consulting
From Philippines, Parañaque
Hello HR Leaders
Regards.
we learnt about performance apprisal and performance evalutaion, but theoretically. specific format of those may found in organigation carrying out those job.
So ! can any1 tell specifically on " performance evaluation system?"
u r cordially request to provide me with that.
Thanks.
Saif
From Bangladesh
Regards.
we learnt about performance apprisal and performance evalutaion, but theoretically. specific format of those may found in organigation carrying out those job.
So ! can any1 tell specifically on " performance evaluation system?"
u r cordially request to provide me with that.
Thanks.
Saif
From Bangladesh
Sonia, you have hit on a major reason that performance appraisals are so hated, by managers and employees alike. In many cases, the attributes are not “measured”, but reliant on the manager’s subjective judgment at the time of the appraisal.
Other posters have come up with some important points and suggestions, e.g., creating behavioral anchors and agreeing the meaning of the attributes beforehand.
Another poster mentioned relying on the measurement of “outputs” instead of attributes. These are all good suggestions. Another suggestion is to get appraisers and appraisees to take notes during the year on how the employee satisfies and did not satisfy a particular wanted attribute. Notes would be compared at appraisal time and discrepancies discussed.
Another key point is that managers and employees need to meet regularly (e.g. weekly/monthly) to discuss performance and give/receive feedback. Any potential misunderstandings are then quickly cleared up before they get major. Also, if you do decide to keep attribute ratings, I would strongly suggest that you couple this with the setting of goals at the beginning of the appraisal period and the measurement of their attainment.
Vicki Heath
Human Resources Software and Resources
http://www.businessperform.com
From Australia, Melbourne
Other posters have come up with some important points and suggestions, e.g., creating behavioral anchors and agreeing the meaning of the attributes beforehand.
Another poster mentioned relying on the measurement of “outputs” instead of attributes. These are all good suggestions. Another suggestion is to get appraisers and appraisees to take notes during the year on how the employee satisfies and did not satisfy a particular wanted attribute. Notes would be compared at appraisal time and discrepancies discussed.
Another key point is that managers and employees need to meet regularly (e.g. weekly/monthly) to discuss performance and give/receive feedback. Any potential misunderstandings are then quickly cleared up before they get major. Also, if you do decide to keep attribute ratings, I would strongly suggest that you couple this with the setting of goals at the beginning of the appraisal period and the measurement of their attainment.
Vicki Heath
Human Resources Software and Resources
http://www.businessperform.com
From Australia, Melbourne
Hello Friends,
To me performance evaluation should only look into the what output required by the organisation against what really performed by the employee. The desk file and standing order can be guideline to evaluate the performance. Other formed observance will have negative effect because 2 person have different opinion. It is best to look for tangible variables to measure. Thank you
From Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur
To me performance evaluation should only look into the what output required by the organisation against what really performed by the employee. The desk file and standing order can be guideline to evaluate the performance. Other formed observance will have negative effect because 2 person have different opinion. It is best to look for tangible variables to measure. Thank you
From Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur
Dear Sonia
As mentioned by Biju, you can incorporate a Behavior Anchored Ratings (BARs) into your Performance Evaluation to achieve a holistic approach to the program – performance evaluation on both hard goals (planned targets and outcomes) and soft goals (how the company needs you to behave while being an employee, conducting its businesses).
Taking your example of Communication, below is how a BAR descriptor for communication may look like (has to be customized into your own context):
COMMUNICATION
Listening to others and communicating in an effective manner that fosters open communication
Level 1: Listens & clearly presents information
• Makes self available and clearly encourages others to initiate communication.
• Listens actively and objectively without interrupting.
• Checks own understanding of others’ communication (e.g., repeats or paraphrases, asks additional questions).
• Presents appropriate information in a clear and concise manner, both orally and in writing.
Level 2: Fosters two-way communication
• Elicits comments or feedback on what has been said.
• Maintains continuous open and consistent communication with others.
• Openly and constructively discusses diverse perspectives that could lead to misunderstandings.
• Communicates decisions or recommendations that could be perceived negatively, with sensitivity and tact.
• Supports messages with relevant data, information, examples and demonstrations.
Level 3: Adapts communication to others
• Adapts content, style, tone and medium of communication to suit the target audience’s language, cultural background and level of understanding.
• Takes others’ perspectives into account when communicating, negotiating or presenting arguments (e.g., presents benefits from all perspectives).
• Responds to and discusses issues/questions in an understandable manner without being defensive and while maintaining the dignity of others.
• Anticipates reactions to messages and adapts communications accordingly.
Level 4: Communicates complex messages
• Handles complex on-the-spot questions (e.g., from senior public officials, special interest groups or the media).
• Communicates complex issues clearly and credibly with widely varied audiences.
• Uses varied communication systems, methodologies and strategies to promote dialogue and shared understanding.
• Delivers difficult or unpopular messages with clarity, tact and diplomacy.
Level 5: Communicates strategically
• Communicates strategically to achieve specific objectives (e.g., considering such aspects as the optimal message to present, timing and forum of communication).
• Identifies and interprets departmental policies and procedures for superiors, subordinates and peers.
• Acknowledges success and the need for improvement.
Step 1:
The steps to set Soft goals is exactly the same as setting hard goals and take place at the same time – during goal setting phase of performance evaluation. Both stakeholders need to assess and agree the current level of the jobholder for communication by going over the descriptors in BARs dictionary and to come to an agreement. In order to achieve this agreement, specific observed examples (best if it is documented) over the last 6 to 12 months may have to be produced from both stakeholders to support and achieved an agreement.
Step 2:
Once the current level is established, manager must then explain clearly his improvement expectation to staff for the coming next 6 to 12 months. Manager is expected to mentor, coach or send staff for training to close this gap. While staff is expected to demonstrate at work this new level of competency.
Step 3:
Regular reviews throughout the year is necessary to ensure that staff is on target. Remember, when staff fails to achieve, it is because manager has not provided the necessary platform or tools for success.
Step 4:
Comes performance evaluation, both stakeholders will come together again to determine whether the set level has been achieved or not and rating scored accordingly.
The whole cycle repeats annually (as performance evaluation is usually once a year in most companies) with staff progressing from level 1 through to level 5. Imagine if all staff will to go through this whole improvement process for all the identified attributes - the outcome would be performance improvements on a company-wide basis. And this truly is what we call Performance Management System.
Hope the above information is useful.
Regards
Autumn Jane
From Singapore, Singapore
As mentioned by Biju, you can incorporate a Behavior Anchored Ratings (BARs) into your Performance Evaluation to achieve a holistic approach to the program – performance evaluation on both hard goals (planned targets and outcomes) and soft goals (how the company needs you to behave while being an employee, conducting its businesses).
Taking your example of Communication, below is how a BAR descriptor for communication may look like (has to be customized into your own context):
COMMUNICATION
Listening to others and communicating in an effective manner that fosters open communication
Level 1: Listens & clearly presents information
• Makes self available and clearly encourages others to initiate communication.
• Listens actively and objectively without interrupting.
• Checks own understanding of others’ communication (e.g., repeats or paraphrases, asks additional questions).
• Presents appropriate information in a clear and concise manner, both orally and in writing.
Level 2: Fosters two-way communication
• Elicits comments or feedback on what has been said.
• Maintains continuous open and consistent communication with others.
• Openly and constructively discusses diverse perspectives that could lead to misunderstandings.
• Communicates decisions or recommendations that could be perceived negatively, with sensitivity and tact.
• Supports messages with relevant data, information, examples and demonstrations.
Level 3: Adapts communication to others
• Adapts content, style, tone and medium of communication to suit the target audience’s language, cultural background and level of understanding.
• Takes others’ perspectives into account when communicating, negotiating or presenting arguments (e.g., presents benefits from all perspectives).
• Responds to and discusses issues/questions in an understandable manner without being defensive and while maintaining the dignity of others.
• Anticipates reactions to messages and adapts communications accordingly.
Level 4: Communicates complex messages
• Handles complex on-the-spot questions (e.g., from senior public officials, special interest groups or the media).
• Communicates complex issues clearly and credibly with widely varied audiences.
• Uses varied communication systems, methodologies and strategies to promote dialogue and shared understanding.
• Delivers difficult or unpopular messages with clarity, tact and diplomacy.
Level 5: Communicates strategically
• Communicates strategically to achieve specific objectives (e.g., considering such aspects as the optimal message to present, timing and forum of communication).
• Identifies and interprets departmental policies and procedures for superiors, subordinates and peers.
• Acknowledges success and the need for improvement.
Step 1:
The steps to set Soft goals is exactly the same as setting hard goals and take place at the same time – during goal setting phase of performance evaluation. Both stakeholders need to assess and agree the current level of the jobholder for communication by going over the descriptors in BARs dictionary and to come to an agreement. In order to achieve this agreement, specific observed examples (best if it is documented) over the last 6 to 12 months may have to be produced from both stakeholders to support and achieved an agreement.
Step 2:
Once the current level is established, manager must then explain clearly his improvement expectation to staff for the coming next 6 to 12 months. Manager is expected to mentor, coach or send staff for training to close this gap. While staff is expected to demonstrate at work this new level of competency.
Step 3:
Regular reviews throughout the year is necessary to ensure that staff is on target. Remember, when staff fails to achieve, it is because manager has not provided the necessary platform or tools for success.
Step 4:
Comes performance evaluation, both stakeholders will come together again to determine whether the set level has been achieved or not and rating scored accordingly.
The whole cycle repeats annually (as performance evaluation is usually once a year in most companies) with staff progressing from level 1 through to level 5. Imagine if all staff will to go through this whole improvement process for all the identified attributes - the outcome would be performance improvements on a company-wide basis. And this truly is what we call Performance Management System.
Hope the above information is useful.
Regards
Autumn Jane
From Singapore, Singapore
Dear Colleagues
You have raised a very interesting query but communications skills, job knowledge and initiative are considered competencies, and I have come across an article and they indicate to a very interesting well known method in evaluating competence is by using Gap analysis method which allows using negative and positive indicators to competencies through that only you can critically evaluate level of your employee competencies and see where the gap lies. From that you may determine what is the method of training to close the gap
For example
Communication
description: Capacity to adjust behavior language written/ spoken as appropriate to needs of differing situations Actively and clearly engages patients and colleagues in equal and open dialogue
Positive Indicator
Establish Relationship of equal respect With Others
Adjusted Style of Questioning/ response as appropriate
Was able to express idea clearly (written/spoken)
Maintained effective eye contact, nodding etc
Used inventive language (humor/ analogy)
Negative Indicator
Appeared patronizing/ domineering in dialogue
Was unable to adapt language/ behavior as needed
Was often unclear when contributing idea/ questions
Failed to engage patient/ colleagues directly
Use of language too functional/ narrow/ inflexible
From Oman, Muscat
You have raised a very interesting query but communications skills, job knowledge and initiative are considered competencies, and I have come across an article and they indicate to a very interesting well known method in evaluating competence is by using Gap analysis method which allows using negative and positive indicators to competencies through that only you can critically evaluate level of your employee competencies and see where the gap lies. From that you may determine what is the method of training to close the gap
For example
Communication
description: Capacity to adjust behavior language written/ spoken as appropriate to needs of differing situations Actively and clearly engages patients and colleagues in equal and open dialogue
Positive Indicator
Establish Relationship of equal respect With Others
Adjusted Style of Questioning/ response as appropriate
Was able to express idea clearly (written/spoken)
Maintained effective eye contact, nodding etc
Used inventive language (humor/ analogy)
Negative Indicator
Appeared patronizing/ domineering in dialogue
Was unable to adapt language/ behavior as needed
Was often unclear when contributing idea/ questions
Failed to engage patient/ colleagues directly
Use of language too functional/ narrow/ inflexible
From Oman, Muscat
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.