Organizational Behavior and Leadership
Organizational Behavior and Leadership
There are various gaps in the firm’s current evaluation form. To start with, the organization focuses on the employees’ personality, as opposed to his or her performance. For example, the manager rates the engineer based on his neatness and sociability. In addition, the manager is the only person mandated to evaluate the engineer. This is ineffective since the supervisor could fill the form based on his personal opinions. Moreover, the form provides vague information regarding the employee. For instance, the manager rates the engineer as disorderly based on the state of his desk. This generalization hinders efficacy of the evaluation process. Some of the common performance evaluation criteria include one’s contributions to the company’s accomplishments. This entails the employee’s successful deals or sales amount. The evaluation process also considers one’s professional development. For example, the executive values a worker who continues his or her education. Work ethics is also a common criterion in evaluating the workforce. This includes punctuality, integrity and devotion.
These evaluation criteria help in attaining detailed information needed to rate an employee. Firstly, the worker’s contributions aid in ranking workers based on the company’s objectives. For example, in a sales department, the evaluator should consider the amount of products sold by an individual within a certain period. Deliberation of professional advancement of a worker also aids in identifying his or her skills, potential, and willingness to acquire additional knowledge. This also acts as a motivation tool by encouraging the human resources to attend educative conferences and trainings. Work ethics is also valuable in the evaluation process. It promotes harmony among the company’s stakeholders while ensuring that the employees obey the organization’s principles. In addition to other aspects, this set of evaluation criteria ensures comprehensive assessment.
The 360-degree feedback is an appraisal procedure that involves supervisors, colleagues, and customers. This method is helpful in enhancing coordination in a company. This is by categorizing common weaknesses and strengths in a department and the entire institution. Through these detailed responses, the corporation scrutinizes habitual patterns among the workforce. This assessment mechanism also promotes individual growth. The employees analyze the responses obtained from the process. Consistency of negative responses will motivate the worker to improve his or her performance and character. Recruits tend to accept reactions from colleagues and customers as opposed to their supervisors. According to them, the executive is unfair in its feedbacks.
Some disadvantages of the 360-degree feedback mechanism involve dishonesty. This is because the system does not uphold anonymity of the respondents. The workers feel uncomfortable to provide honest reactions to the supervisor regarding the performance and character of a colleague. This dishonesty affects the efficiency of the program in developing the company. Additionally, it is difficult to rate the behavior of a worker based on his or her interactions with different people. This is because the member of staff has varying relationships with these respondents. For example, the relation between an employee and a supervisor is different from that of recruits of the same professional rank. Based on the rapport between the employee under scrutiny and the respondent, the feedbacks attained through this appraisal system differ.
Various performance evaluation methods are effective in analyzing collected responses. One of these tactics is the critical incident technique. Under this assessment approach, the manager keeps a detailed record of the employee’s behavior on a daily basis. He or she uses this information to rank the performance of the worker as desirable or poor. Use of checklists also helps in analyzing the collected data. The rater uses the organization’s objectives and principles to formulate questions useful in ranking the worker. The manager may also use the graphic rating scale. This technique ranks the quality and quantity of work done by a member of staff based on the responses collected. The rating scale is a printed form that contains the personal details of the worker such as the department, name and job title. The evaluation ranks include unsatisfactory, fair, good and outstanding.
Common errors that affect the accuracy of the performance evaluation procedure include stereotypes. The assessor may view a certain group of people in a negative manner. For example, he or she may label young employees as ill mannered. Halo effects also affect the truthfulness of the feedbacks. This prejudice involves making conclusions based on the first impression. For example, an evaluator may term a worker as impolite because of the initial perception of the individual. This affects the correctness of the assessment report since the rater may have misjudged the employee. Consensus tendencies are also an opening for errors in the evaluation process. This is because some supervisors rate the behavior of a recruit by using previous reports. For this reason, the assessment becomes discriminative with the members of staff who had poor records in the past bearing the burden.
Several techniques can develop the performance evaluation process. For instance, regular feedbacks will help in improving employees’ behavior. They will be aware of a potential predicament and appropriate strategies that will assist in improving their performance. Furthermore, affirmative feedback will constantly motivate the workforce. Setting of measurable targets will also improve the appraisal procedure. This will motivate the recruits through constant supervision from the administrator. The evaluators should also acquire training on how to stimulate the labor force towards achieving individual and organizational objectives. Supervisors should have adequate knowledge on how to stabilize productive analysis and affirmative responses.