Employee Evaluations

Is there anyone out there who does not do evaluations? If so, why not? We're undecided if we should continue this practice. :-?

Comments

  • 27 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • There are certain departments within our agency that do not do them. Generally it is the higher level management that is missed in the eval process-although, that's not always the case.

    I would caution against bringing the process to a halt. While it does generate an incredible amount of paperwork and is time-consuming, evaluating employees on a regular basis provides a benchmark for progress and job skills. If there is a decline, you've begun the needed papertrail. This also assists new management in getting to know the employees strengths and weaknesses.

    An evaluation should be fair and as impartial as possible. It is harder to evaluate in postions that are not always cookie cutter tangible--but a manager should know his/her people well enough to be honest and accurate.


  • Thanks. I guess I should have been more specific. We are a manufacturing facaility and will continue to do evaluations on our production employees, however, our management employees are the ones I'm questioning.
  • If you are committed to not developing and improving your management team or not having any documentation to support terminations, then go for it. Seriously, poorly done evaluations are probably worse than no evaluations. But that should not stop you from doing them. Why do you want to discontinue them? When you answer that question you will see where you have opportunity to improve them. It is not easy, but well done evaluations are critical and one spoke in the wheel of a successful organization.
  • We're trying to decide if evaluations are really effective. I believe that they are when you give employees goals and objectives and hold them accountable. However, my managers are the worst ones for doing evaluations. It's like pulling teeth to get them to do them and even then, they won't get them done. I have supervisors and engineers who have not had evaluations in over three years. I guess I'm really asking for help!! (:|
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-29-03 AT 02:56PM (CST)[/font][p]Are those supervisors and engineers that haven't been reviewed top notch performers with development potential? Are they doing all they can to help the organization? Do they have long/short range goals they are working toward that are aligned with the org.? If all this is true for all of your managers you don't need evaluations. If it isn't, start working.

    Talk to your managers and ask them how you can make the review process easier for them. The easier they are the more likely they'll do them. They also may buy into the easy part. Next work with them to develop CLEAR expectations. They should be in line with the vision, mission and values of your company. You also need to figure out your format-rating, ranking, narrative, etc. Pro's and con's to all. If your managers could care a less about helping you, try to elicit support from senior mgmt. Take your case to them as to why reviews are beneficial (see above for examples). If they don't care either, polish up your resume. I could give you a lot more info, but I hate typing. If you would like to talk more let me know.


  • CWELLS: Only because the GM supports written evaluations we get them done! We do a 60 day introductory written eval and this also provides the biggest quality increase available to the department manager. We do a mid-year quick action form with personal self evaluation and supervisor evals on the same document. Increases are not tied to the evaluations. Some get increases at this time most do not. An End-year full front and back with 10 areas of evaluation are done in December. Wage increases are given during the year based on performance, therefore, wage/salary increases are not tied to the evaluations. We use a one page homemade form for MID-YEAR and a standard front and back printed and bought form for the end-year eval. On recent legal hearings I have use the end-year evaluation with listed expectations as the beginning place for performance and discipline documentation. For long term employees the hearing officers have been particularily interested in the reading and submission of this eval, followed with a written warning, followed with a written warning w/suspension, followed by a termination action which started with the end-year eval. The rest of the ee's file was not relevant to the current performance issues, which led to a final termination.

    PORK
  • Are there really companies out there that do not understand performance evaluations? If they have a better way of measuring effectiveness without going through the process - that would be something to know. Do all the management people perform at the same level? Are the distinctions easy to quantify or qualify? Do you look at any performance criteria that are not related to widgets produced and inventory wasted? How about employee turnover? Doesn't that cost a bit and thus worth measuring? All the points above about developing your people should be noted and more importantly, incorporated into your process.
  • cwells - so glad you asked that question! I just finished a meeting with my systems team (a group of managers) and tomorrow I'm going to present a plan that eliminates performance appraisals, as we know them, at my company! That's right folks - we're tossing 'em! You know, the yearly ones where everyone tries to remember back the past 12 months & identify all of the issues that arose, meanwhile can only come up issues from the last month or two. The yearly ones where try as you might, HR ends up chatting with managers & supervisors about being objective and consistent & asking for specific instances on the review, rather than accepting "Joe does great work" or, "Joe's quality is below standards".

    Instead we are moving to the following:

    1. In keeping with Lean & the one-piece flow philosophy, performance will be evaluated on a daily and weekly basis. How do we do this? We already have a system in place called Performance Notes Online that was created by our IT folks for supervisors to document good and poor performance. We've expanded our services in HR to allow us to type this information in for our typing-challenged supervisors. AND, we already have rules/accountability regarding the information & we discovered that a yearly review is just a regurgitation of the same PNO's.

    2. Managers, because of their, dare I say it, duty, to the bottom-line, already meet with the CEO every 6 weeks and so added to that meeting, the CEO will track to see where the manager is going, the results & vision for the next 6 months to a year.

    So you see, employees know where they stand on a daily & weekly basis, rather than waiting all year to here, "Joe, you do great work" and HR still gets it's documentation. To all of you who might say, "Yeah, but what about the employee - what wil their reaction be," I'm not worried about the employee reaction, because honestly, as long as someone says good job or you need to do this better on a daily/weekly basis, the annual review is really just a time set aside to discuss what's really on their minds - how much more money do they get.
  • Perhaps I misread Cwells, but I did not get that they were doing the kind of up-to-the-minute evaluations described by mwild31. I like the much of this information, however, when it comes to raises, bonuses, and the like, won't the most recent evaluation hold proportionately more weight than the achievements during the rest of the year?
  • No we are not doing up-to-the-minute evaluations. Our Sr. V.P does his, but our middle managers are the ones who will not do them for their subordinates. Our production supervisors do them for production employees, but the supervisors don't get them because their supervisor hasn't had one in 3 years. His comment was "I don't get them, so why should I do them". This from the person who is in charge of 9 production superviors. The reasons I receive from other managers as to why they will not do their evaluations is because their too busy, not enough time, they're a waste of time, they don't mean anything anyway. . . you get the point.
  • Marc, I was describing an alternative approach to formal performance appraisals.
  • No, I didn't do them at my former employer and only encouraged former clients to do them if they were committed to doing them right. Having reviewed lots of appraisals as part of my review of documents as an expert witness I find them poorly done, inaccurate and generally stating the opposite pertaining to performance as the company tries to maintain in the lawsuit. They are the first thing that I look at in my review and I rarely find them supportive of the company case - bad for the company, but good for the former employee.
  • No we are not doing up-to-the-minute evaluations. Our Sr. V.P does his, but our middle managers are the ones who will not do them for their subordinates. Our production supervisors do them for production employees, but the supervisors don't get them because their supervisor hasn't had one in 3 years. His comment was "I don't get them, so why should I do them". This from the person who is in charge of 9 production superviors. The reasons I receive from other managers as to why they will not do their evaluations is because their too busy, not enough time, they're a waste of time, they don't mean anything anyway. . . you get the point.
  • > I believe that they are when you give employees goals and objectives and hold >them accountable. However, my managers are the worst ones for doing >evaluations. It's like pulling teeth to get them to do them and even then, >they won't get them done. I have supervisors and engineers who have not had evaluations in over three years.

    I think you have answered your question in your above statement. Appraisal programs should not be done away with because some people don't like them and some won't do them correctly and others do just enough to get by. I think what you might need is training and reinforcing the value of appraisals throughout the organization and finding ways to make them work. I know it's sorta trendy to do away with things like appraisals; but, there ultimate value outweighs trendiness. I've known companies that did away with name tags and others that started calling everybody Mr. or Miz. and others that made everybody put on a blue jump suit when they entered the building no matter what your 'rank' was so that everybody at the facility looked like George Jetson. Breaking paradigms for the sake of seeing them crumble is not a good use of time or money.

    For those supervisors are intent on making the system NOT WORK, find a way to tie their performance to their pocketbook and you will see their interest increase.
  • Thank you for your responses. I have training setup in a couple weeks for employeee development / employee evaluations. My biggest "pain" told me to count him out that he wasn't doing the training. He's the one with 9 supervisors reporting to him. What a great example he sets! We'll see if he does the training!!! x;-)
  • You need to elicit upper mgmt support if you don't already have it. His supervisor should have a talk with this gentlemen and explain that part of his job includes this process and without it he is not doing his job. I hate to say this, but without that support you are wasting your time.
  • You may have some problems at the facility much larger than the issue of performance appraisals. If the corporate culture buzzwords are coming down from the top in a meaningful fashion then your VPs are either going to get themselves on-board or leave the ship. If you feel that your ideas about performance reviews (as well as other things) are not being supported from top down, you will eventually either adjust to the corporate-think or leave for another opportunity. In a well functioning environment, no staff at any level, including VPs, can simply decide what it is they want to embrace or reject, attend or not attend. Before you launch this training I recommend you get a real solid understanding of where the executive leadership wants it to go, or not go.
  • Right on! If the training is not mandatory, the evaluations won't be either. Most evaluations do have a direct tie to the ees finances - at all levels. If that is not the case, get them tied in.
  • That's another can of worms Marc. About a fourth of the Forum in earlier discussions have said they think there should not be an evaluation-compensation connection. I see them as inextricably connected, but that's just me.
  • There are two books to read that give lots of insight on this topic, controversial as it may be. "Abolishing Performance Appraisals: Why they backfire and what to do instead" by Tom Coens and Mary Jenkins and also "Punished by Rewards" by Alfie Kohn. Be ready to have an open mind to break old traditions. O=*
  • I know we have "other" problems. My manufacturing manager doesn't feel he should have to do the general supervisors evaluation, and hasn't done it in three years, so the general supervisor doesn't feel he should have to do the production supervisors evaluations (some of these haven't been done in 2-3 years). These are my two problems. Everyone else is doing them, sometimes late, but, they are doing them. How do I pull their heads out to get them to do them? x:-/ Personally, if I could get rid of these two, a majority of my problems would be gone.
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 10-01-03 AT 09:07AM (CST)[/font][p]I thought we had provided our opinions on how to deal with you situation several times. Now you ask the question again. Please clarify what information you need to help you. Without that I can only restate what I already said.

    edit:
    Sorry, I had not had my coffee yet. My daughter woke me up at midnight and 5:00am, so I was a little grumpy.

    Don hit the nail on the head. Are you the highest level HR person at your facility? If you are I think your problem is credibility. I'm not saying it's your fault, though. Your Man. mgr is probably a hard headed pain in the aXX. Their are some things you can do to work on your credibility with the Man. mgr.

    1. Understand the he/she only cares about what they are producing and doing things that help them produce it better and cheaper.
    2. You have to show him how what you do helps him produce things cheaper and better. Can you find an example where a performance review actually helped the production process? If not, start looking and asking the people doing the reviews. Use that thought process whenever you try to "sell" something to this person. It's too bad you cannot mandate, but you've got to work with what you have.
    3. You get your credibility ONE step at a time. Don't force it and don't expect it to happen over might. If you present it the way he/she wants to hear it you should succeed.

  • What you should do now is have a conversation with the Manufacturing Manager's supervisor and explain to him what you've explained to us. If you can get his attention and his assistance, you're halfway home. If he expresses disinterest, you are pretty much imobilized, except that you might walk in and talk to the highest person in your organization. if you have a policy requiring evals and they are not being done by two people who say they don't have time to fool with it, that is inexcusable, except for the fact that it IS BEING EXCUSED.
  • In my opinion...CONTINUE doing reviews. This is the first piece of evidence I've needed in any type of employee dispute from legal issues to unemployment. I feel they are a necessary communication tool between the Manager and the employee, in many cases they force the necessary guidance an employee may otherwise not get; therefore if the employee is not clear on their performance, goals and expectations, how can you hold them accountable for the job that they're doing. Just something to consider.
  • I haven't read the books recommended by HRBeginner but I agree with the titles. Performance appraisals bring no end of trouble when they are not done correctly. Here are some actual examples from cases on which I have served as an expert witness. A manager who was abusive and discriminatory, to the point of employees discussing ways to get rid of him (permanently) was appraised as a "great leader" by the CEO. A whistleblower, after 25 years of good appraisals, suddenly had communication problems, failures to attain deadlines etc. etc. That one was a time line problem. The plaintiff won a high six figure judgement and the appraisal played a critical role. In a discrimination case, the plaintiff was appraised as a poor communicator when the other people involved in the interactions and who appeared to be as poor a communicator as the plaintiff might have been were not appraised that way. That one also went to trial, the plaintiff won a six figure award and the appraisals were critical. In another discrimination case an employee was not promoted because he was not "diplomatic". The appraisals said that his personality was "positive". These are some of the cases where I was on the side of the plaintiff. There have been many defense cases where I have told the defense attorney that the appraisals are going to be a problem.

    If appraisals are to work they must be viewed by ALL managers as their management tool, not an HR thing. There must be full backing from the chief executive who does his/hers accurately and on time as well. Using the goals and objectives approach is better, but the same managers who are don't call it like it is in the trait appraisal approach will figure out ways to justify why it wasn't the employees fault that the employee couldn't meet the deadline or will hold the employee accountable for missing a deadline even when there were other events, not of the employees making, which created that outcome.
  • Whose attorney called you in each case?
  • In the four cases mentioned, the plaintiffs attorney. In the defense cases, it is the management attorney that calls. My cases have been 50/50 plaintiff/defense.
Sign In or Register to comment.