HRM’s role in the performance management process

1/24/2021 Print Preview

https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=48845323535012744196703717175&eISBN=9781285872674&id=1035906966&nbI… 1/4

Chapter 8: Performance Management: 8.2c Who Should Appraise an Employee’s Performance? Book Title: Managing Human Resources Printed By: Carmen Banner ([email protected]) © 2016 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

8.2c Who Should Appraise an Employee’s Performance?

Just as there are multiple standards by which to evaluate performance, there are also multiple people who can evaluate an employee’s performance. Given the complexity of today’s jobs, it is often unrealistic to presume that one person can fully observe and evaluate an employee’s performance. At IBM, employees are regularly reviewed by a broad cross-section of the company’s leaders, not just their immediate bosses. As shown in Figure 8.5, the raters can include supervisors, peers, team members, employees themselves, their subordinates, customers, vendors, and suppliers. Each may be more or less useful for the administrative and developmental purposes we discussed earlier.

Figure 8.5

Alternative Sources of Evaluation

© Cengage Learning

Manager/Supervisor Evaluations

The manager and/or supervisor evaluation (A performance evaluation done by an employee’s manager and often reviewed by a manager one level higher) has been the traditional approach to evaluating an employee’s performance. In most instances, supervisors are in the best position to perform this function, although it may not always be possible for them to do so. Managers with many subordinates often complain that they do not have the time to fully observe the performance of each of them. These managers must then rely on performance records to evaluate an employee’s performance. If reliable and valid measures are not available, the evaluation is likely to be less than accurate as a result. (Recall our earlier discussion of criterion deficiency and criterion contamination.) In addition, research has shown that the ratings managers give employees they have known for less

1/24/2021 Print Preview

https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=48845323535012744196703717175&eISBN=9781285872674&id=1035906966&nbI… 2/4

than one year are less reliable, which can be a drawback of relying solely on information from managers.

Self-Evaluations

In many firms, employees are asked to evaluate themselves on self-evaluation forms. A self-evaluation (A performance evaluation done by the employee being evaluated, generally on an evaluation form completed by the employee prior to the evaluation meeting) can increase an employee’s involvement in the review process and get the employee thinking about his or her strengths and weaknesses. In other words, they serve as a catalyst for discussion. The employee and his or her manager then discuss the employee’s job performance and agree on a final evaluation.

It’s not uncommon for employees to present themselves in a highly favorable light in self- evaluations or believe they will have more influence over the outcome of a performance evaluation. If that expectation is not met, the employee can become frustrated. For this reason, self-evaluations are often best used for developmental purposes rather than for administrative decisions.

Subordinate Evaluations

Subordinate evaluations (A performance evaluation of a superior by an employee, which is more appropriate for developmental than for administrative purposes) have been used by both large and small organizations to give managers feedback on how their subordinates view them. Subordinates are in a good position to evaluate their managers because they are in frequent contact with their superiors and occupy a unique position from which to observe many performance-related behaviors, such as their leadership ability, ability to delegate, employee supportiveness, and so on. Managers are often hesitant to be evaluated by the people they supervise, particularly when it might be used as a basis for compensation decisions. However, when the information is used for developmental purposes, managers tend to be more open to the idea. Evidence suggests that when managers heed the advice of their subordinates, their own performance can improve substantially. To avoid any problems with retaliation, subordinate evaluations should be submitted anonymously and the results of the individuals combined in a single report.

Peer Evaluations

Individuals of equal rank who work together are increasingly asked to evaluate each other using a peer evaluation (A performance evaluation done by one’s fellow employees, generally on forms compiled into a single profile for use in the evaluation meeting conducted by the employee’s manager) With peer evaluations, coworkers complete an evaluation on the employee. The forms are then usually compiled into a single profile, which is given to the supervisor for use in the final evaluation. One advantage of peer evaluations is the belief that they furnish more accurate and valid information than evaluations by superiors. Supervisors often see employees putting their best foot forward, while those who work with their fellow employees on a regular basis may see a more realistic picture. Peers can readily

1/24/2021 Print Preview

https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=48845323535012744196703717175&eISBN=9781285872674&id=1035906966&nbI… 3/4

identify leadership and interpersonal skills along with other strengths and weaknesses of their coworkers. For example, a superior asked to rate a patrol officer on a dimension such as “dealing with the public” might not have had much opportunity to observe it. Fellow officers, on the other hand, likely would have.

For employees who have trouble confronting their coworkers about problems, the reviews provide a forum in which to address issues and resolve conflicts. They also provide an opportunity to hand out praise. However, peer evaluations alone should not be used to make administrative decisions related to salaries, bonuses, promotions, and other major decisions about an employee. They should also be kept confidential, so interpersonal rivalries or hurt feelings don’t result among coworkers. Instead of listing individual comments and ratings from an employee’s peers, the ratings should be tallied to arrive at a composite score, and the comments summarized by the worker’s supervisor.

Team Evaluations

An extension of the peer evaluation is the team evaluation (A performance evaluation that recognizes team accomplishment rather than individual performance) . In a team setting, it may be nearly impossible to separate out an individual’s contribution. To address this issue, organizations ranging from Boeing and Texas Instruments to Jostens and Ralston Foods have used team evaluations to evaluate the performance of their teams as a whole. These companies believe that team evaluations can help break down barriers between individual employees and encourage a joint effort on their part. Frequently, the system is complemented by the use of team incentives or group variable pay. (See Chapter 10 and Chapter 16.)

Customer Evaluations

Customer evaluations (A performance evaluation that includes evaluation from both a firm’s external and internal customers) are another source of performance evaluation information. External customers’ evaluations, of course, have been used for some time to appraise restaurant personnel. However, companies such as Federal Express, Best Buy, and Isuzu are among the companies that have utilized external customers as well. To provide feedback to its technicians and see how well they have performed, Sears routinely calls customers after the technicians have serviced their appliances. Other companies survey their vendors and suppliers as part of the evaluation process. By including the firm’s business partners in the performance reviews, managers hope to produce more objective evaluations, more effective employees, more satisfied customers, and better business performance.

In contrast to external customers, internal customers include anyone inside the organization who depends on an employee’s work output. For example, managers who rely on the HR department for selecting and training employees would be candidates for conducting internal customer evaluations of employees in the department or the department as a whole. For both developmental and administrative purposes, internal customers can provide extremely useful feedback about the value added by an employee or team of employees.

1/24/2021 Print Preview

https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=48845323535012744196703717175&eISBN=9781285872674&id=1035906966&nbI… 4/4

Chapter 8: Performance Management: 8.2c Who Should Appraise an Employee’s Performance? Book Title: Managing Human Resources Printed By: Carmen Banner ([email protected]) © 2016 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning

© 2021 Cengage Learning Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may by reproduced or used in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, or in any other manner - without the written permission of the copyright holder.