1

Title

Student’s name

Institutional affiliation

Course name and code

Instructor’s name

Due date
 2

Form 11-1 is more job-related. This form categorizes different sectors that affect an

employee's performance thereby creating a detailed structure and framework through which a

clear reflection of the employees can be mapped. The eldest performance appraisal rating scales

were realistic scales they by and large furnished the rater with a continuum on which to rate a

specific quality or conduct of the representative. This form again defines the things covered at

each specific subcategory thereby making it more adaptive and composite in a job setup. In

addition, a job is composed of different classes of hierarchy and thereby calling for different

evaluation degrees which are provided for in this form. I would rather use form 11-1 to evaluate

my employees because the findings from the analysis results will give a true and composite

evaluation of the performance of my employees. Again, I would prefer the same form to be used

to evaluate me by my supervisor. As an employee I have a target to become better and improve

my skills and performance and therefore for me to achieve this I require a well-developed

framework to gauge my current position.

Form 11-1 is more accurate in gaging employees. This form structures its evaluation

criteria to cover and address all the areas that are critical in the delivery of services by

employees. For example, it addresses quality of work done, adaptability, safety, and work habits

all of which affect the general performance. Form 11-3 is also good at rating its employees more

accurately. It comprises a clear set of directions and set objectives upon which an employee is

evaluated on their basis. For example, delay in the delivery of services to patients and failure to

accomplish a specific task within the allocated time will automatically rate employees low.

According to my form, 11-6 is less accurate because it relies on individuals' assessments to rate

an employee. This method of evaluation is highly subjective and can be affected by many factors
 3

ranging from personal state of mind at the time of evaluation, moods, anxiety rather than being

objective by using a clear structure to guide the evaluation

Form 11-6 is easier to develop and requires less time to develop because it includes bars

with a rating varying in a certain range. It doesn't give a guideline on the specific areas of

evaluation. On the other hand, forms 11-1 and 11-3 are more expensive to design and they also

take more time to structure. These forms contain a detailed description of the groups and

subgroups of evaluation through which an employee can be rated. Again form 11-6 is easy to

complete because it just requires one to tick a rate provided for in the averaging bar. The form

does not all for critical analysis of employee’s performance by it is based on subjective

assessment. Forms 11-1 and 11-3 are complex to fill and also a bit integral. They contain

different classes and subclasses and each employee must be rated about all those categorizations.

Form 11-1 and form 11-3 are good vehicles to be used in counseling and developing

employees. Worker evaluation measures are not just with regards to observing representatives'

qualities and shortcomings. It's likewise more than about deciding whether one is a decent

entertainer for sure restorative moves to make to work on a representative's exhibition. These

forms, therefore, provide a good basis through which supervisors can use in identifying areas that

need improvements and also select individuals that are candidates for doing better in the future

based on the current performances. Form 11-6 on the other hand has limitations on the areas that

should be used to guide counseling and employees' improvements. Good analysis and evaluation

of employees help supervisors to realize individual potentials within their work frames.

Therefore form 11-1 and 11-3 can be used to promote employees and also offer guidance for

other personnel decisions.

 4

Work cited

Farndale, E., & Kelliher, C. (2013). Implementing Performance Appraisal: Exploring the

Employee Experience. Human Resource Management, 52(6), 879–897.

https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21575

Pestonjee, D. (2015). An Integrated Process Model of Performance Appraisal. Academy of

Management Proceedings, 2015(1), 19150.

https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2015.19150abstract

Tips for Successful Performance Appraisals. (2003). International Society of Hair Restoration

Surgery, 13(6), 482.1-482. https://doi.org/10.33589/13.6.0482