WK7 ASSIGNMENT

However, it is also clear that the HR director erred in deciding to evaluate the effectiveness of the performance appraisal process by indexing that supposed effectiveness to the number of managers who adopted the process. That metric is useful only if the frequency of adoption is a proxy for gains in performance, a line of reasoning in need of clarification and exposition. One way for the HR director to flesh this out would be to obtain an understanding of why some managers were adopting the new performance appraisal process and why some were not. If the municipality’s managers are in fact concerned with the performance of their units, the survey would presumably point to ways the managers think the new process helps or does not help them get a handle on the productivity of their employees. The advantage of this would be that the survey would provide invaluable feedback, with which the performance appraisal process could be tweaked to address the concerns of the non-adopters and build upon the positives as seen by the adopters. The takeaway is that it is not entirely correct to assert that “the number of managers using the form has no bearing on productivity” (Hale, 2007) – the number of managers adopting the new process could serve to evaluate the process’ effectiveness, but only with some auxiliary development.

As Hale points out, the most straightforward metric for determining the value of the new appraisal process would be to measure “whether performance had improved” (Hale, 202). But, perhaps just as clearly, there seems to be something wrong with the reasoning implicit in that response. It seems shortsighted to apply the broad desideratum of improved performance to the seemingly more fundamental prerequisite initiative of becoming better able to measure performance (Hale, 2007).

Assuming many additional criteria are required to evaluate the value of the HR director’s new appraisal process. Given that the ‘industry’ in question is a municipality, relevant productivity and people performance metrics are to be found in, for example, time-at-task, attainment of objectives, and rework. For example, if the municipality receives a call about a broken water line, the time-at-task involved in repairs, the successful repair, any need for rework, plus response time, all represent the expression of productivity or lack thereof, (Hale, 2007).

Likewise, the municipality may also measure productivity in terms of customer satisfaction such as by way of perceptions and opinions expressed in the media, and by the number of complaints received; similarly, employee satisfaction, in terms of morale, grievances, and turnover and retention can point to improvements brought about by other organizational factors such as a new employee performance appraisal process. It is difficult to address this concern because the specifics of the HR director’s new process are left unstated. Consider, however, that measuring the effectiveness of the new process via the extent of its adoption by managers starts to make a little more sense if the basic metrics just mentioned such as time-at-task, complaints, turnover among others are already in place. As with almost everything performance related, the details are vitally important (Hale, 2007).

References

Hale, J. (2007). The performance consultant's field-book: Tools and Techniques for improving organizations and people. John Wiley & Sons.