Tuesday, 17 April 2007
Scaling Job Behavior
A rating scale is only as good as its definitions. An organization's ability to quantify performance levels is imperative, if they want to provide an easy and effective performance appraisal process for their managers and employees.
Most organizations using pencil and paper appraisal processes have a single template used for all employees. Some organizations will customize the template for a specific position. Few if any consider weighting individual job factors/competencies.
Any rating system must have a score that would be considered the acceptable level of performance.
3 Point scale: A score of 2 would imply the Acceptable level of performance. A score of 1 would imply Unacceptable and a score of 3 would imply Exceeds Expectations. The big question remains, how unacceptable or exceeds by how much? There may not be enough variables to successfully employ Performance-Based Compensation.
7 Point scale: Here we have a substantial number of variables but must quantify or define the performance required to achieve the score assigned. "How do I determine if I should give this employee a 6 or a 7?"
5 Point scale: Could be described as the Goldilocks scale "not too many, not too few variables". This scale seems to be the most popular among organizations requiring appraisals. The performance levels still need to be quantified or defined but are not as finite.
The important thing about all of these choices is, they work off an average, or acceptable score.
4 Point scale: Organizations using four variables usually choose 2 as the acceptable level of behavior. Now you have one level of Unacceptable and two levels of Exceeds Expectations. This doesn't appear to be a big deal until you consider bonus distributions, salary increases or promotions.
Finally, weighting factors/competencies will significantly enhance any rating scale. Obviously, one job behavior can be substantially more important than another. For example: if I am evaluating two Account Executives on the criteria Sales Quota and Appearance, one executive scores 5 in the Sales Quota factor and a 3 in the appearance factor, while the other executive scores 3 in the Sales Quota factor and a 5 in the appearance factor, without weighting they both end up with the same total score. Are they equally valuable to the organization? I doubt it.
This entire discussion becomes moot if the organization is not using the appraisal process as a tool to determine compensation, employee development or succession planning.
Most organizations using pencil and paper appraisal processes have a single template used for all employees. Some organizations will customize the template for a specific position. Few if any consider weighting individual job factors/competencies.
Any rating system must have a score that would be considered the acceptable level of performance.
3 Point scale: A score of 2 would imply the Acceptable level of performance. A score of 1 would imply Unacceptable and a score of 3 would imply Exceeds Expectations. The big question remains, how unacceptable or exceeds by how much? There may not be enough variables to successfully employ Performance-Based Compensation.
7 Point scale: Here we have a substantial number of variables but must quantify or define the performance required to achieve the score assigned. "How do I determine if I should give this employee a 6 or a 7?"
5 Point scale: Could be described as the Goldilocks scale "not too many, not too few variables". This scale seems to be the most popular among organizations requiring appraisals. The performance levels still need to be quantified or defined but are not as finite.
The important thing about all of these choices is, they work off an average, or acceptable score.
4 Point scale: Organizations using four variables usually choose 2 as the acceptable level of behavior. Now you have one level of Unacceptable and two levels of Exceeds Expectations. This doesn't appear to be a big deal until you consider bonus distributions, salary increases or promotions.
Finally, weighting factors/competencies will significantly enhance any rating scale. Obviously, one job behavior can be substantially more important than another. For example: if I am evaluating two Account Executives on the criteria Sales Quota and Appearance, one executive scores 5 in the Sales Quota factor and a 3 in the appearance factor, while the other executive scores 3 in the Sales Quota factor and a 5 in the appearance factor, without weighting they both end up with the same total score. Are they equally valuable to the organization? I doubt it.
This entire discussion becomes moot if the organization is not using the appraisal process as a tool to determine compensation, employee development or succession planning.
Posted by at 8:43 PM in Performance Tips
