Straight A's?

Sally

This a philosophical question on employee evaluations. In meeting with our supervisors the other day to review the forms and process for employee evaluations, I made the comment that I would not expect any of them to give anyone "Straight A's." [All fives, actually on our form.] I added that among those who have actually done the evaluations in the past, there has on occasion been a supervisor who has softened the ratings somewhat, and this can sometimes come back to haunt us. I also stated that I feel even the most exemplary employee has room for improvement. A couple of supervisors disagreed.
My feeling is that rating an employee with all 5's leaves the impression he or she does not need to improve in any areas. I am not saying no one should be given a five in one or more areas, but that it is highly unlikely someone would earn them in all categories. It also seems to me that a supervisor who gives 5's in all categories is maybe not putting as much thought into the process as he or she should.
What thoughts do you all have on this?

System

I always question the reviews that come through with straight 'A's. I had a review come to me with a request for an increase of 8% as opposed to the normal 4%. The EE was given straight 'A's and the comment was "goes above and beyond his normal call of duty." I requested clarity of "above and beyond." The reply was: "he gets along with everybody, he's always here on time, doesn't hesitate to help others, gets his job done everyday, and hardly ever calls out sick."

I know you get the picture already. Nothing there is 'above and beyond.' It's (duh) what we expect and what the EE is being paid for. (Suddenly I hate that phrase) Anyway, that's how some supervisors see it. It takes a bit of training for supervisors to learn to rate objectively. Keep training, perhaps provide specific guidlines for them to justify high ratings.

rad

The last time our Sr VP was here, he talked to us about reviews and said that he never understood why employees were upset over "meets objectives" as opposed to "exceeds objectives". Meeting them means you're doing your job, exceeding objectives is rare indeed. If someone is getting all A's or exceeding objectives, I'd look at perhaps changing the objectives for that employee to make their position a little more challenging since they can obviously handle it, or keeping them in mind for a promotion the next time one comes up. I got all A's on one evaluation and my question was "ok, so whats next for me?" Everyone has room for improvement.

pork1

SALLY: Evaluation inflation is an age old HR concern. I have learned to look at the evaluations in comparsion to other evaluations rendered by the individual manager/supervisor. Their evaluation grade is then established in comparsion to the values placed on forms by other individual managers/supervisors, thus comparing "apples to apples". It is very difficult to use the evaluations as a supporting action pertaining to our defense for our company personnel actions; but, do it we must from time to time. I have found that once the manager/supervisors get the message through their own evaluation with specific areas of concern in the "Employee Relations" section of our form for being a "high rater", "easy rater", or "low rater". None of these characteristics are desirable. I for one try to advise the raters; however, I know longer concern my self with how thaty rate, that is now a performance issue with their supervisor/managers.

Just my thought, but it makes good "pig" sense, to transfer the responsibility for anything and everything in HR to which we do not by policy control or enforce. To do so will cause you to become less creditable as the HR. You know how to make the ratings useable for the companies' purpose, so it does not matter and I do not get up-set when I see "evaluation creep". A 100 compared to everyone's 87 is equal on a curve! It also then is high-lited for all to witness.

Hope this helps!

PORK

TN HR

Pork nailed it right on the money! I actually devised (borrowed) a little system for my own use in which I track the supervisor's rating profile. I borrowed this from the Department of the Army which tracks senior rater profiles for Officer Evaluation Reports (or at least they used to when I served).

What this does is it allows you to see how that supervisor actually rates across the board and develop a "center of mass" for that supervisor and the you can look at individual reviews more objectively. I have some supervisors who, because they have a low "center of mass", may rate an EE at 3/5, however, they only give that to their top 20%. It certainly puts things in a whole new light.

I hope this made some sense.

Gene

mwild31

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-06-04 AT 03:36PM (CST)[/font][br][br]x:-) Philosophically, I disagree with your statement, "I also stated that I feel even the most exemplary employee has room for improvement." In my experience, if an ee is truly exemplary, then they are always, without the need for the supervisor/manager to prod, coax or "incentivise", seeking ways to improve the process, the workflow, generate more money, etc. To give everyone a 4 because a 5 is never achievable given that everyone has room for improvement seems like an artificial limit to me & the company, if that's their mind set, might be better off simply eliminating the 5 category. Worse yet, what does an employee have to do to get a 5, a 4, a 3 and so on? If no one knows that answer (criteria outlined and checked off), then the review will always be subjective. How about outlining what it takes to achieve a 5, a 4 etc. on a checklist for the managers/supervisors to complete & have them send that along with their review. This way the ee knows what they have to do to rate higher and you or other supervisors know that the folks that rated high got it due to established criteria. Or, what about eliminating 5, 4, 3 and rewording the review? This is a sample from one of my reviews (not perfect, just for illustrative purposes).

Alertness
Ability to quickly understand new information and situations.
(Please circle or highlight one)
· Very slow to grasp ideas and events.
· Usually needs extra instruction.
· Understands most new ideas and developments without excessive explanation.
· Fast learner. Grasps new information quickly.
· Extremely bright. Analyzes and understands with minimum of instruction.

Comments or Suggestions for Improvement:

Goals:

In this, the meat of the review comes from the Comments or Suggestions for Improvement area and the Goals section. It's positive in that an ee that's marked, for example, Usually needs extra instruction, then has Suggestions for Improvement from their manager/supervisor as well. Not a, “hey, you’re a 3 and here’s why” kind of thing. Just my thoughts. x:-)

Sally

Our form does denote what constitutes a 5 in any area. And I'm not saying no one would ever get a 5 in any area. What I am saying is that I would question an evaluation that gives an employee a 5 in every category. All of us have areas of strengths and weaknesses so it would seem to me that of the various categories upon which we are evaluated, there would be at least one area in which an employee would need to work a little harder.

mwild31

Please believe me when I say that I have worked with supervisors/managers in the past in which they do seem to give the highest marks since it's simpler than actually doing a review (very frustrating), but that's why we really streamlined what it takes to get the highest scores. If "Our form does denote what constitutes a 5 in any area." then how can it be that if you should receive a 5 in all areas you wouldn't trust the information as accurate? I only disagree philosophically with your position, not you personally because ultimately, what you do at your company or what others do at theirs is determined by the company they work for or how they design their own review process. x:-)

dynamite9551

i agree with not giving all A's. i have yet to meet the perfect human being/employee; granted i have come close. to give an employee the perfect performance review may give a false sense of security.

Don D

Giving 'all A's' is easy to do. It's also a sloppy and dishonest approach to reviewing an employee. We should all resist the 'urge' to 'halo' employees at review time. Doing that also traps the rater forevermore, since to rate less than an A in the future signals to the employee that they are actually doing a worse job than last year.

The philosophy this company uses is that on a 5 scale, for example, the rater starts each performance measure at 3 and begins an analysis from 3. Never start at 5 or 1. The assumption being the individual is (or should be) performing their job satisfactorily; then move to 4 or move to 2 or stay at three depending on the rater's analysis. 5 is just as possible as 1, but not all 5s and not all 1s.

FYI: Our process considers 14 'business skills' in 5 ratings. The 5 are Outstanding, Exceeding, Achieving, Developing, Unacceptable. The rater uses a matrix with 70 definitions (5x70). Having worked in government for a number of years and several private sector places in different industries, I've seen some fairly anal processes.

ljohnson

1) My boss abhors having scores on evaluations for this very reason. I tried to talk him into one that scored and weighted the scores (i.e. if you were a 5 answering the phone but it wasn't an important part of your job, it wasn't worth as much as a 5 for neat, accurate, and timely paperwork, etc.) He didn't buy it.

2) One of his new favorite quotes - even Michael Jordan has things he needs to work on.


I've never had the experience of evaluating people. Most supervisors hate it, as was the opinion in the meeting we had this week on reviews. One supervisor was unable to attend, so I went over the discussion with him later. He told me that he enjoys reviewing his staff as well as getting reviewed - it's an opportunity to see where you are and how you're doing (even as a supervisor, he wants that feedback from his employees). I wish we had ten of him . . .

Part of the frustration stems from trying to review an employee that doesn't really want to improve, doesn't want a career path, doesn't really innovate or come up with ideas - they do their job reasonably well and just want the paycheck. A good supervisor might be able to motivate them, but in reference to my above statement, thus far, cloning is still outlawed and I'd be afraid of a Pet Sematary sort of thing anyway!