Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Performance Appraisal
Performance Appraisal
Development: The
systematic
procedure
of
performance
Company Logo
Company Name
1. Employee Information:
Name
Job Title
Department
Review Period
Employee ID
Date
Manager
2. Ratings:
1=Poor
2=Fair
3=Satisfactor
4=Goo
5=Excellen
Job Knowledge
Comments
Work Quality
Comments
Attendance/Punctualit
y
Comments
Initiative
Comments
Communication Skills
Comments
Dependability
Comments
Overall
Rating
(average
the
rating
numbers above)
3. Evaluation:
Additional Comments
Goals (as agreed upon by
employee and manager)
4. Verification of Review:
By signing this form, you confirmed that you have discussed this review in detail with your
supervisor. Signing this form does not necessarily indicate that you agree with this
evaluation.
Employee Signature
Manager Signature
Date
Date
Considerations
If a company uses 15 people to evaluate personnel, the effect may be 15 different
rating scales. Even with intense training, some evaluators will be too strict. Some will
be too lenient, and others may find it hard to screen out their personal agendas.
Rating scales work best when managers and employees agree on the definition and
degree of factors included in the evaluation, and that's difficult to achieve.
Perception
No matter how the rungs on the rating scale are labeled, what is meant as a
compliment by the evaluator -- "you sometimes exceed my 'high' expectations" -may sound like a C+ to the person being evaluated. And C+ sounds way too average
to most employees.
Feedback Block
Workers may not hear the positive feedback in any essay part of the evaluation
because they're fuming at a rating-scale grade they perceive to be too low. They may
also miss the suggestions for improvement because they're basking in a grade that
suggests their work is already superior. A rating scale becomes an obstacle to
substantive give-and-take about an employee's work.
Misleading Scores
Adding up to a final score assumes that an exceptional strength in one area can
mitigate deficiencies in others. Evaluators may allow the "halo effect" to skew the
evaluation, letting an obvious strength subtly boost ratings in other areas.
Middle Muddle
Graphic rating scales have proved best at identifying the very best and the very poor
employees. Because evaluators find it safer to operate in one zone of the scale, it
becomes difficult to differentiate employees who land in the middle group, especially
when those employees have different combinations of strengths and weaknesses.
Proximity Problems
Even with repeated cautions and admonitions to maintain performance logs,
evaluators may overweight employees' most recent behavior in performance
reviews. Two employees might have the same number of errors over the evaluation
period. However, a worker who has had a recent rash of miscues typically is judged
more harshly than one who hasn't.