Evaluation of Employees Performance - Literature review Example

Performance [Name] [Institution] Introduction Evaluation of employees’ performance is known as appraisal which employs some standards that are set prior to the exercise. Appraisal should direct employees on how to improve their performance set their goals and assess the effectiveness of subordinates and make decisions pertaining to hiring and other related issues (Robbins et al., 2011 p. 142). This excerpt aims at discussing the issues surrounding the use of multiple evaluators when conducting a performance assessment. The paper will also describe how my job evaluates performance in addition to discussing how multiple evaluators would affect this evaluation. Major Issues in Using Multiple Evaluators during Performance Evaluation Multiple evaluators are interventions that have become more common in numerous firms around the globe. Report by Cohen & Bailey (1997 p. 241) has revealed that almost 90% of Fortune 1000 organisations employ some kind of multiple evaluators. As a result of the popularity of the method, researchers have become more enthusiastic about this field. Despite the popularity, the effectiveness of multi-source feedback is questionable. This is because Smither, London and Reilly (2005 p. 33) argued that evaluators should not expect a lot of effectiveness from the feedback they obtain. This is a limitation that could be explained by the issues surrounding the multiple evaluators as described below. For one, the practitioners have exceptional expectations from the process which is just a part of the feedback and development offered by performance management system. The subjects may be influenced to anticipate much by proponents from the feedback in their efforts to get organisational assistance for implementation. There is also the problem of difficulty in giving effective appraisal unless all participants are trained prior to the exercise. The other issue is failure to connect in which case the practitioner should ensure that feedback is given to people on the basis of their performance of the anticipated job duties and competencies. Otherwise, there may be a gap between the program and the firm’s objectives. In fact Smither, London and Reilly (2005 p. 34) believe that it is impossible to rely on this feedback without getting convincing evidence of the association of multisource rating with other performance indices; this would mean availability error would prevail. The evaluator has an issue of inadequate information since its processes are anonymous (resulting into randomness error) and those receiving feedback are not in possession of recourse in case they want to comprehend the feedback further. The practitioner cannot get a person to clarify unclear matters or provide more data concerning a certain rating; this would result into confirmation bias (Robbins et al., 2011 154). Furthermore, follow up is also a difficult task and the overall process end up using a lot of time and money. According to Smither, London and Reilly (2005 p. 36), the rater sources may disagree conceptually. The ratings may be deflated or inflated so as to make an individual look either bad or good respectively. This would result from biased or inexperienced rater who would collaborate to make the entire process to inflate all the feedback. Smither, London and Reilly (2005 p. 45) have also found that rating affected the results from the feedback because if an employee was rated low, he/she did not display any significant advancement. The other issue may arise from examining at average rating across items at time 1 vs time 2, which could be a crude measure of behaviour transformation (Smither, London & Reilly, 2005 p. 44). The issue of randomising the feedback would result into errors because of lack of evidence (Robbins et al., 2011 p. 155). Another issue is poor discriminant validity of dimensions as well as that of items under study. This could result in inability of feedback recipient to recognise strong and weak areas in the feedback report. Sometimes it is very difficult to identify an improvement in multisource feedback while other times, it is too small. Sometimes the feedback program requires to be repeated several times before realising any improvement in performance (Smither, London & Reilly 2005, p. 44). Multiple evaluators are influenced by variables such as organisational-level (Smither, London & Reilly 2005, p. 58). Hence, practitioners should enhance they address these issues in order to ensure the overall effectiveness of the feedback process. Performance Evaluation in my Job My job uses conceptual criteria that examines the relevance of the job to success and is known as criterion relevance. For instance, managers in my firm examines if the employees output amounts to the success or increased productivity. The criterion at my company is achieved through evaluating learning of the trainees that are prerequisite for the job. All the employees are assessed for their performance when the training ends as well as after the time one is on job. Further, the criterion is often free from contamination since it does not encompass factors that relate to job performance. For instance when trainings are being held, my firm ensures that there are no extraneous variables that were not supposed to be in the program. The criterion at my job is not deficient since it does not omit factors that are relevant to the task performance and they are all present to ensure the appraisal is a success. The company’s criterion is also reliable, an aspect achieved in my job by ensuring that the criterion measure is consistent (Anderson et al. 2001, p. 119). Effects of Multiple Evaluators on my Job Evaluation Multiple evaluators would impact greatly in the evaluation of performance at my workplace. It would deepen the understanding of workers concerning their performance. The process would assist the company to align business strategy with job performance by creating value. Similarly, the feedback obtained would offer workers insight into their skills that they should develop so as to assist the firm in achieving its goals. Another effect is the input the process would offer the company’s senior executives on their styles of management. Additionally, the employees will get the chance to receive feedback of their performance from their supervisors and other partakers of the process. The employees will also be in a position to understand how others view his/her performance most especially on behaviour. The employees thus become aware of their weak and strong points and they are able to know which area to put more effort. Using multiple evaluators would enhance the currently used appraisal method and would ensure the company gets the desired skills and behaviors from the employees. Besides the positive effects, multiple evaluators if not properly used would result into negative repercussions. For instance, if the process is not carefully planned and organised, a lot of unnecessary time and resources would be consumed. There are also errors that would result if the intervention is not properly implemented like the overconfidence and randomness errors among others (Robbins et al., 2011 p. 154-156). Conclusion Multiple evaluators are a good appraisal intervention and should be employed by all firms in the bid to evaluate the performance of their employees. However, care should be taken while using the intervention to ensure the company achieves its performance goals without causing negative impacts. It is thus the duty of the practitioner to ensure the evaluation process is successful by addressing all the flaws, biases and errors that could result from the issues discussed above. References Anderson, V., Ones, D., Sinangil, H., & Viswesvaran, C 2001, handbook of industrial, work and organisational psychology, London, SAGE Publishing Company. Cohen, S., & Bailey, D 1997, what makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from shop floor to the executive suite, Journal of Management, 23(3): 239-290 Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., Millet, B., and Waters-Marsh, T 2011, organizational behavior, NSW: Prentice Hall. Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R 2005, Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and a review of empirical findings, Personnel Psychology, 58, 33-66. Read More