Dear All,
One very famous Management Guru once said that we are acting as God while conducting Performance Appraisals, yet we cannot do without them. Below is an article on common mistakes made. If you like the article, I will post some more.
[Performance Appraisal Goofs - Common Managerial Mistakes Series](b)
Written by Robert Bacal
Performance appraisals are probably the most misused and goofed-up management tool in existence. Starting from misunderstanding the whole point of appraisals, right through to using poor communication with employees, managers make a fairly consistent set of mistakes regarding employee reviews and performance appraisals. Here are some of them in the fourth in our series of common managerial mistakes.
Since there are a fair number of errors made by managers in the performance appraisal and employee review process, we will approach this set in brief point form. Stay tuned as we will be addressing a few more performance appraisal errors in a future article in this series. Until then, here are the first five.
Focusing on the Form: Most managers are given specific forms to fill out to record the results of performance appraisals and reviews. Apart from the fact that most forms aren't truly effective in creating better performance, it's easy for managers to believe that performance appraisal is about, and only about, getting the forms in on time (which they don't). Performance appraisal isn't about the form. It's about the process.
Focusing on The Appraisal, Not the Planning: Appraisals are usually done (at least formally) once a year, covering the preceding period. The issue is that it looks backward, and one cannot change what has happened in the past. The focus (and time invested) should be on the upfront planning for performance, as we can influence the present and future. Clear shared understanding of performance expectations is powerful.
Doing To the Employee, Not Working With: There's a sense, on the part of many, that the performance appraisal involves doing something TO the employee (i.e., telling them how they have done). While communicating the manager's perceptions is not entirely bad, when it is the ONLY thing, it loses power. Performance discussions should be dialogues. One of the most important reasons to create performance dialogues is to foster the ability to self-evaluate on the part of employees. That makes for better performance and less work for the manager.
Surprises: If there's one fundamental rule for employee reviews (there are actually a number of fundamental rules and principles), it's this: There should never be any surprises for the employee. Managers sometimes forget this. If there is anything the manager brings out in the employee review that is new to the employee, the manager has not been doing his or her job communicating with the employee.
Procrastinating: Let's face it. Managers don't particularly like to do employee reviews, often because they don't realize the benefits of doing them properly or because they haven't been exposed to the process that will make them painless and productive. Regardless of reasons, it's common for employee reviews to be scheduled, then postponed, or otherwise delayed. This sends an important message to employees: "Performance appraisals aren't important around here." If we want employees to take them seriously, managers need to take them seriously and demonstrate their importance through action.
Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(2)
Amend(0)
47One very famous Management Guru once said that we are acting as God while conducting Performance Appraisals, yet we cannot do without them. Below is an article on common mistakes made. If you like the article, I will post some more.
[Performance Appraisal Goofs - Common Managerial Mistakes Series](b)
Written by Robert Bacal
Performance appraisals are probably the most misused and goofed-up management tool in existence. Starting from misunderstanding the whole point of appraisals, right through to using poor communication with employees, managers make a fairly consistent set of mistakes regarding employee reviews and performance appraisals. Here are some of them in the fourth in our series of common managerial mistakes.
Since there are a fair number of errors made by managers in the performance appraisal and employee review process, we will approach this set in brief point form. Stay tuned as we will be addressing a few more performance appraisal errors in a future article in this series. Until then, here are the first five.
Focusing on the Form: Most managers are given specific forms to fill out to record the results of performance appraisals and reviews. Apart from the fact that most forms aren't truly effective in creating better performance, it's easy for managers to believe that performance appraisal is about, and only about, getting the forms in on time (which they don't). Performance appraisal isn't about the form. It's about the process.
Focusing on The Appraisal, Not the Planning: Appraisals are usually done (at least formally) once a year, covering the preceding period. The issue is that it looks backward, and one cannot change what has happened in the past. The focus (and time invested) should be on the upfront planning for performance, as we can influence the present and future. Clear shared understanding of performance expectations is powerful.
Doing To the Employee, Not Working With: There's a sense, on the part of many, that the performance appraisal involves doing something TO the employee (i.e., telling them how they have done). While communicating the manager's perceptions is not entirely bad, when it is the ONLY thing, it loses power. Performance discussions should be dialogues. One of the most important reasons to create performance dialogues is to foster the ability to self-evaluate on the part of employees. That makes for better performance and less work for the manager.
Surprises: If there's one fundamental rule for employee reviews (there are actually a number of fundamental rules and principles), it's this: There should never be any surprises for the employee. Managers sometimes forget this. If there is anything the manager brings out in the employee review that is new to the employee, the manager has not been doing his or her job communicating with the employee.
Procrastinating: Let's face it. Managers don't particularly like to do employee reviews, often because they don't realize the benefits of doing them properly or because they haven't been exposed to the process that will make them painless and productive. Regardless of reasons, it's common for employee reviews to be scheduled, then postponed, or otherwise delayed. This sends an important message to employees: "Performance appraisals aren't important around here." If we want employees to take them seriously, managers need to take them seriously and demonstrate their importance through action.
Regards,
SC
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
Dear Friends,
Generally, management uses a ranking/scoring system for performance appraisal, as Swastik mentioned. However, if we focus on another method of ranking, such as "Self Appraisal" with comments by seniors in a descriptive manner, it will serve the purpose. Apart from the scoring method, we should also receive feedback in a descriptive way for a correct analysis. Based on that analysis, score, and self-appraisal, we can reduce these shortcomings to some extent.
Regards,
Sidheshwar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Generally, management uses a ranking/scoring system for performance appraisal, as Swastik mentioned. However, if we focus on another method of ranking, such as "Self Appraisal" with comments by seniors in a descriptive manner, it will serve the purpose. Apart from the scoring method, we should also receive feedback in a descriptive way for a correct analysis. Based on that analysis, score, and self-appraisal, we can reduce these shortcomings to some extent.
Regards,
Sidheshwar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Here are some points to observe with regard to feedback:
Attributes to effective feedback
In general, feedback is most likely to be effective if it is :
1.Descriptive rather than evaluative. By describing your own reaction, it
leaves individuals free to use it or not to use it as they see fit. By avoiding evaluative language, you reduce the need for the individual to respond defensively.
2.Specific rather than general. To tell a subordinate he is “dominating” is
not as useful as to tell him “Just now when we were deciding the issue,
you did not listen to what others said, and I felt forced to accept your
arguments.”
3.Sensitive to the needs of both the receiver and giver of feedback.
feedback can be destructive when it serves only your own needs
of the person on the receiving end.
4.Directed toward behavior which the receiver can do something about.
You only increase frustration when you remind a person about some
shortcoming over which he has no control.
5.Solicited, rather than imposed. Feedback is most useful when the receiver has asked for it. The receiver may be more defensive and listen less if he did not ask for the feedback.
6.Well-timed. In general, feedback is most useful at the earliest opportunity after a particular incident. Timing also depends on the person's readiness to hear feedback, support available from others etc.
7.Checked to insure clear communication. One way of doing this is to have the receiver rephrase the feedback to see if it corresponds tow hat the sender has in mind.
Hope these will be of some help
Cheers
Prof.Lakshman
From Sri Lanka, Kolonnawa
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Attributes to effective feedback
In general, feedback is most likely to be effective if it is :
1.Descriptive rather than evaluative. By describing your own reaction, it
leaves individuals free to use it or not to use it as they see fit. By avoiding evaluative language, you reduce the need for the individual to respond defensively.
2.Specific rather than general. To tell a subordinate he is “dominating” is
not as useful as to tell him “Just now when we were deciding the issue,
you did not listen to what others said, and I felt forced to accept your
arguments.”
3.Sensitive to the needs of both the receiver and giver of feedback.
feedback can be destructive when it serves only your own needs
of the person on the receiving end.
4.Directed toward behavior which the receiver can do something about.
You only increase frustration when you remind a person about some
shortcoming over which he has no control.
5.Solicited, rather than imposed. Feedback is most useful when the receiver has asked for it. The receiver may be more defensive and listen less if he did not ask for the feedback.
6.Well-timed. In general, feedback is most useful at the earliest opportunity after a particular incident. Timing also depends on the person's readiness to hear feedback, support available from others etc.
7.Checked to insure clear communication. One way of doing this is to have the receiver rephrase the feedback to see if it corresponds tow hat the sender has in mind.
Hope these will be of some help
Cheers
Prof.Lakshman
From Sri Lanka, Kolonnawa
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Hi Swastik,
Very thought-provoking information.
Whenever the appraiser is a human, goofs are bound to happen. Whether it's a self-appraisal or the other way around, there is a lot of chance of subjectivity entering the appraisals at some point. There have been several instances where I have come across organizations where appraisals are manipulated to grant promotions and increments to certain employees, either due to favoritism or other pressures. In some organizations, these appraisals are an annual ritual consuming a lot of time and energy on preparation, only to yield results that are disconnected from the findings in the appraisal. This issue is prevalent in many organizations, and HR professionals are well aware of these misappraisals.
To mitigate human error in recruitments, several effective tools like psychometric assessments have been introduced to ensure a more scientific selection process. How about adopting the same method to evaluate employees' performance? Are there any methods of conducting evaluations scientifically without human involvement, so that performance is rewarded and non-performance is identified? I invite the learned members to share their experiences regarding such scientific performance appraisal methods.
Regards,
PRADEEP
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Very thought-provoking information.
Whenever the appraiser is a human, goofs are bound to happen. Whether it's a self-appraisal or the other way around, there is a lot of chance of subjectivity entering the appraisals at some point. There have been several instances where I have come across organizations where appraisals are manipulated to grant promotions and increments to certain employees, either due to favoritism or other pressures. In some organizations, these appraisals are an annual ritual consuming a lot of time and energy on preparation, only to yield results that are disconnected from the findings in the appraisal. This issue is prevalent in many organizations, and HR professionals are well aware of these misappraisals.
To mitigate human error in recruitments, several effective tools like psychometric assessments have been introduced to ensure a more scientific selection process. How about adopting the same method to evaluate employees' performance? Are there any methods of conducting evaluations scientifically without human involvement, so that performance is rewarded and non-performance is identified? I invite the learned members to share their experiences regarding such scientific performance appraisal methods.
Regards,
PRADEEP
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Hi, I'm Robert Bacal, and I wrote the original article posted here on performance management. The rest of the series is available at [Performance Management & Appraisal Help Center](http://performance-appraisals.org) and there's a ton of good stuff there on performance appraisals and similar topics. I'll try to post some more articles here.
From Canada, Ottawa
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From Canada, Ottawa
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Problems in Performance Appraisal
1. Problems with leniency and strictness:
• The leniency bias occurs when some raters have a tendency to be liberal in their ratings by consistently assigning higher rates.
• Equally damaging is consistently assigning low rates.
2. Problems with central tendency:
• Some raters appraise all employees around the middle point of the rating scale, avoiding rating individuals at higher or lower levels.
• They follow a safe-play policy due to accountability to management or lack of knowledge about the job and the person being rated, or simply a lack of interest in their job.
3. Problems with personal prejudice:
If a rater dislikes an employee, they may rate them at the lower end, distorting the rating's purpose and affecting the career of these employees.
4. Problems with the halo effect:
• An individual outstanding in one area tends to receive outstanding or above-average ratings in other areas too, even when such ratings are undeserved.
• To minimize the halo effect, all employees should be appraised based on one trait before moving on to rate them based on another trait.
5. Problems with the recent performance effect:
Generally, raters recall the employee's recent appraisal and often base the current appraisal on the results from the last assessment.
Source: (link outdated)
Sources: Search On Cite | Search On Google
From Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh City
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
1. Problems with leniency and strictness:
• The leniency bias occurs when some raters have a tendency to be liberal in their ratings by consistently assigning higher rates.
• Equally damaging is consistently assigning low rates.
2. Problems with central tendency:
• Some raters appraise all employees around the middle point of the rating scale, avoiding rating individuals at higher or lower levels.
• They follow a safe-play policy due to accountability to management or lack of knowledge about the job and the person being rated, or simply a lack of interest in their job.
3. Problems with personal prejudice:
If a rater dislikes an employee, they may rate them at the lower end, distorting the rating's purpose and affecting the career of these employees.
4. Problems with the halo effect:
• An individual outstanding in one area tends to receive outstanding or above-average ratings in other areas too, even when such ratings are undeserved.
• To minimize the halo effect, all employees should be appraised based on one trait before moving on to rate them based on another trait.
5. Problems with the recent performance effect:
Generally, raters recall the employee's recent appraisal and often base the current appraisal on the results from the last assessment.
Source: (link outdated)
Sources: Search On Cite | Search On Google
From Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh City
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT using Competency Assessment Technique and 360 feedback details.ppt
Common grammatical mistakes.doc