As discussed, best practice in performance management is to con- sider both job behavior and results using defi ned performance stan- dards as a basis for making ratings.
Performance standards help employees understand what is expected of them and provide common standards for managers to use in evaluating employees, thereby increasing consistency, trans- parency, and fairness. Perceptions of fairness are important and can avoid negative outcomes that might otherwise result from unfavor- able ratings, such as employees challenging their evaluations.10 Thus,
the inclusion of performance standards to guide ratings is essential for an effective performance management system.11
An example Rating Form is shown in Figure 4.4, including perfor- mance standards for evaluating both results and behaviors. It con- tains objectives to be achieved, rating standards, performance narrative, areas to be developed and development actions, and sig- nature blocks for the manager and employee.
Performance Management Process Step 4. Employees provide input on own perceptions of performance Step 3. Managers and employees hold ongoing performance discussions Step 7. Managers and employees hold formal
review sessions Step 2. Managers and employees set objectives and discuss behavioral expectations Step 1. Leaders set organization, division, and department goals
Step 5. Knowledgeable rating sources provide input on employee performance Step 8.
HR decisions are made –pay, promotions,
training, etc.
Step 6.
Managers rate performance
Figure 4.4 Rating form
Employee’s Name Manager’s Name
Objectives to be Achieved: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Results Assessment Objective 1: 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Below Expectations Did not meet timeliness, quality,
quantity, or impact goals.
Meets Expectations Met timeliness, quality, quantity,
and financial metrics.
Exceeds Expectations Exceeded timeliness, quality, quantity, and financial goals.
Low Impact Result was straightforward to
accomplish and had a small impact on business results.
Moderate Impact Result had a positive and discernable impact on efficiency
or effectiveness of operations.
High Impact Result had an extremely positive impact, producing significant cost
reductions or profit increases.
Objective 2:
Below Expectations Did not meet timeliness, quality,
quantity, or financial metrics.
Meets Expectations Met timeliness, quality, quantity,
and financial metrics.
Exceeds Expectations Exceeded timeliness, quality, quantity, and financial goals.
Low Impact Result was straightforward to
accomplish and had a small impact on business results.
Moderate Impact Result had a positive and discernable impact on efficiency
or effectiveness of operations.
High Impact Result had an extremely positive impact, producing significant cost
reductions or profit increases.
Behavioral Assessment of Competencies
Planning Work
Below Expectations Fails to prioritize work for self or others to ensure timely completion of projects and assignments. Does not anticipate or take steps to mitigate obstacles that impact work schedule or delivery.
Meets Expectations Independently prioritizes, plans,organizes, and schedules own work activities to ensure assignments are completed in a timely manner.
Coordinates work activities with coworkers and work unit; takes initiative to keep others informed of progress, problems, or changes. Sees obvious problems and makes recommendations to overcome them so that progress is not impeded.
Exceeds Expectations
“Meets Expectations” plus does the following:
Demonstrates exceptional skill in complex planning across organizational units and solving thorny logistical problems, resulting in contributions far beyond what is expected at this level.
Takes initiative to help others plan efforts for the group to ensure goals are met. Anticipates important roadblocks and takes effective preemptive action to prevent them, ensuring effective progress on projects.
Figure 4.4 Continued
Collaborating with Others
Below Expectations <standards appear here>
Meets Expectations <standards appear here>
Exceeds Expectations <standards appear here>
Below Expectations <standards appear here>
Meets Expectations <standards appear here>
Exceeds Expectations <standards appear here>
Below Expectations <standards appear here>
Meets Expectations <standards appear here>
Exceeds Expectations <standards appear here>
Below Expectations <standards appear here>
Meets Expectations <standards appear here>
Exceeds Expectations <standards appear here>
Below Expectations <standards appear here>
Meets Expectations <standards appear here>
Exceeds Expectations <standards appear here>
Below Expectations <standards appear here>
Meets Expectations <standards appear here>
Exceeds Expectations <standards appear here> Below Expectations
<standards appear here>
Meets Expectations <standards appear here>
Exceeds Expectations <standards appear here>
Representing the Organization
Critical Thinking
Technical Proficiency
Learning and Developing
Strategic Thinking
Key Accomplishments: (completed by employee) Accomplishment 1 Situation: Action: Result: Timeframe Verification Accomplishment 2 Situation: Action: 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Result: Timeframe Verification
Narrative Comments (completed by manager):
Areas to be Developed: Actions Completion Date
Manager’s Signature: Date:
Date: Employee’s Signature:
The employee signature indicates receipt of, but not necessarily concurrence with, the evaluation herein.
Best Practices and Realities:
Performance Evaluation
Best Practice
• Evaluate job behaviors and results
• Make ratings against defi ned rating standards to facilitate con- sistency, fairness, and accuracy
• Provide narrative comments to further describe the rationale for ratings and promote more meaningful and conscientious feedback from managers
Realities
• Even with defi ned rating standards, managers frequently make common rating errors
• There are signifi cant forces operating in organizations that yield lenient ratings
• Obtaining accurate ratings from managers that effectively dis- tinguish between more and less effective performers requires training, monitoring, and incentives
• Managers often write poor narratives and require training and feedback to do this well
• Communicate key per- formance factors and expectations
• Show distinctions in effec- tiveness levels that help supervisors explain why an
employee was evaluated in a particular way
• Provide a job-relevant basis for evaluating employees, increasing fairness
Good to Know:
Advantages of Performance Standards
To make performance ratings, managers review the employee accomplishments, the information obtained from knowledgeable rating sources (e.g., peers, customers), and the performance stan- dards for the employee’s job and level. The manager then compares
the employee’s performance to the pre-defi ned rating standards. The standards are not intended to be used as a checklist. Rather, managers need to select a rating for each performance area that best describes the employee’s typical performance throughout the rating period. Defi nitions for the fi ve-point rating scales that appear on the Rating Form are shown below.
Example:
Defi nition of Rating Scale Points
5 = Almost always performs as described by the “Exceeds Expecta- tions” standards
4 = Sometimes performs as described by the “Exceeds Expecta- tions” standards and sometimes performs as described by the “Meets Expectations” standards
3 = Almost always performs as described by the “Meets Expecta- tions” standards
2 = Sometimes performs as described by the “Meets Expectations” standards and sometimes performs as described by the “Below Expectations” standards
1 = Almost always performs as described by the “Below Expecta- tions” standards