3. Ejecución de las obras
3.21. Fabricación de los bloques de hormigón
Different Options for Competency Customization
• In an auditing organization, a common set of competency names was used across jobs, but three different sets of custom- ized performance standards were used to defi ne different expectations for three different types of jobs – professional, administrative, and managerial.
• In an information technology organization, common perfor- mance standards were used to defi ne a set of core competen- cies (interpersonal effectiveness, teamwork, communication) that applied across all jobs. However, customized technical competencies and performance standards were developed for each specifi c job.
• In a Federal Government law enforcement organization, cus- tomized competencies and performance standards were devel- oped for each of 22 job families, including Special Agent, Human Resources, Information Technology, Engineering, Acqui- sitions, Finance, Management, and others.
Obviously, performance standards could be defi ned for more or fewer effectiveness levels. Typically, at least two sets of performance standards, describing what it takes to “Meet” and “Exceed” expecta- tions are defi ned. Sometimes, standards are also written for minimal or below expectations performance. It is rare, however, to see perfor- mance standards written for more than three effectiveness levels. The reason is because any standards written need to clearly and unam- biguously describe the performance expectations at each level of effectiveness. When one attempts to write standards for too many different effectiveness levels, the descriptions start melding together and it is diffi cult to see clear and unambiguous distinctions between them. When there are not clear distinctions between the standards for different effectiveness levels, managers have diffi culty systemati- cally applying them as well as explaining to employees the rationale for one rating versus another. For this reason, it is recommended that performance standards be defi ned for no more than three effective- ness levels.
If performance information will be used for decision-making, a numerical rating scale should be used in conjunction with the perfor- mance standards. A fi ve- or seven-point scale is used most often because it provides a suffi cient number of rating points to differentiate between employees in terms of their performance. A rating scale of less than fi ve points does not usually provide adequate differentiation among employees, while a rating scale of more than seven points adds complexity without signifi cantly more differentiation. With a fi ve- point scale, three ratings are commonly used, from 3 (meets expecta- tions) to 5 (exceeds expectations). With a seven-point scale, four ratings are commonly used, from 4 (meets expectations) to 7 (exceeds
Example:
Performance Effectiveness Levels
• Signifi cantly Below Expectations • Meets Minimal Expectations Only • Meets Expectations Fully
• Exceeds Expectations
expectations). The choice of whether to use a fi ve- or seven-point scale is personal preference.
Those who prefer a fi ve-point scale say . . .
• More than fi ve rating points is too many, and it’s not possible to make such fi ne-grained performance distinctions.
• They want to keep the performance management system as simple as possible, and a seven-point scale is overly complex.
Those who prefer a seven-point scale say . . .
• The availability of seven rating points is important to spread out the ratings as much as possible, especially given managers’ tenden- cies to use the higher rating points.
Irrespective of the number of rating scale points, the relationship between these and the performance standards needs to be clearly articulated so that raters can apply them in a uniform and fair manner. Ratings based on numerical scales can easily be averaged or summed across competencies to derive a summary score for decision- making.
Case Scenario:
A Good Idea for Writing Effectiveness Standards
A
n idea developed in a protective service organization was to create standards that focus only on what is different between the meets and exceeds expectations levels, rather than provide full descriptions of effectiveness at each level. These standards were coined “delta scales” because of their focus on what is dif- ferent between the effectiveness levels. To receive an “Exceeds Expectations” rating, an employee needed to do everything described at the “Meets Expectations” level as well as the addi-tional requirements defi ning the “Exceeds Expectations” level.
Users reported high satisfaction using these standards. They found it helpful to have the differences between the effectiveness levels pinpointed rather than having to read through lengthy descrip- tions and dig for the differences.
Example:
Five-Point and Seven-Point Scales with Defi ned Rating Points
5 = Almost always performs like the “Exceeds Expecta- tions” standards 4 = Sometimes performs
like the “Exceeds Expectations” standards and sometimes performs like the “Meets Expectations” standards 3 = Almost always
performs like the “Meets Expectations” standards
2 = Sometimes performs like the “Meets Expectations” standards and sometimes performs like the “Below Expectations” standards 1 = Almost always
performs like the “Below Expectations” standards
7 = Almost always performs like the “Exceeds Expectations” standards
6 = Usually performs like the “Exceeds Expectations” standards but sometimes performs like the “Meets Expectations” standards 5 = Usually performs like the
“Meets Expectations” standards but sometimes performs like the “Exceeds Expectations” standards 4 = Almost always performs like
the “Meets Expectations” standards
3 = Usually performs like the “Meets Expectations” standards but sometimes performs like the “Below Expectations” standards 2 = Usually performs like the
“Below Expectations” standards but sometimes performs like “Meets Expectations” standards 1 = Almost always performs like
the “Below Expectations” standards