The performance appraisal system used by our organization is done annually. The purpose of the review is for employee as well as manager, to aptitude performance from the past year relating to the specific responsibilities and objective of that employee. This gives the opportunity for managers to give feedback on the strengths and development areas that are summarized from that previous year. Employees must also use this opportunity to give feedback on how they can best perform and develop themselves. This Annual review period is an opportunity to communicate and work together to build unity in the workplace. Realistic plans may be made for the employee's development and growth.
The supervisor and the employee review the job description standards and compare the employee's accomplishments against the standards set. The data comes from established performance metrics, employee self-assessment and customer or coworker feedback from daily activities. There are five levels of the performance rating. Outstanding is the highest rating. To get an outstanding rating means the employees contribution to the business far exceeds requirements. The employee is personally committed to the company's mission, values and goals at a consistent level.
The employee takes the initiative to identify challenging work goals and tries to find solutions. The employee's quality is never a question, even under challenging situations. The next rating is an excellent rating. The employee who receives an excellent rating produces more than required. The employee takes the initiative in developing and finding challenging work goals. Each responsibility is finished with quality and on time.
That employee needs little direction or supervision. The employee thinks beyond the details of the job and contributes to the objectives of the department. All of the employee's decisions and actions are higher than expectations. The next level of rating is commendable. This employee performs what is expected of an experienced individual in the department. The employee's errors are minimal and they have learned from their mistakes, some improvements from them are expected.
They schedule projects and work on problems in an orderly manner. They understand suggestions and recommendations abut their work with confidence. They complete work assignments almost always on time. This employee requires normal supervision and follow-up mentoring. They generate quality and quantity in their individual work efforts. The lowest level of performance rating is development needed.
The employee's performance does not meet required expectations. The employee is aware of negativity that they are proclaiming, and also the lack of quality and quantity of their quota. The employee is aware that a general inferior continuation at this level will lead them to possible termination. The fifth level of performance rating is a neutral generalized new in position. This rating is for employees who are in a position for less than six months. If the employee has transferred into the new department, all performance information is received from their previous manager.
I feel the ratings should not be categorized in five separate levels. There should be only three levels of ratings. The three should be excellent, commendable and development needed. To my understanding the outstanding rating and the excellent rating are exactly at the same level. These two ratings mean the same thing. I perceive the outstanding rating, which is the highest rating, is unattainable.
I f the employee has an excellent rating, how much higher can they go? The outstanding rating was established to save the company money. Save the company money that they really do not intend to give out in raises. This unattainable goal is unrealistic and was established for one purpose, to keep costs down. The neutral performance rating of new in position should be thrown out.
This rating does not measure the validity of the employee. It does not measure the relevant aspects of the job being done. This is also a way of keeping costs down. A manager can evaluate a new employees work by quality and quantity measures. The new employee should be evaluated by their past performance of work.
These new employee suffer by this rating because they are not getting an objective view on their strengths and developmental areas. These new employees are also not getting quality feedback by their managers of established metrics and development. This rating of new in position is worthless. The annual performance review also has other aspects, which should be changed. The review is broken down by various categories. In these categories, the review asks for a rating of how important that specific category is.
For example, take the area of quality. Quality consists of how each employee completes their work assignments and if that work meets standards. Quality of the work contains no or few errors it asks to what degree of importance is quality. The employee has levels of rating of importance, such as minimally important, important, or critically important.
This does not make any sense because if it was not important, it should not be on the review. The importance rating of each category should be dismissed from the review entirely. The annual performance writing is broken down into nine categories. The nine categories are quality, productivity, job knowledge, documentation, safety, identifying and solving problems, communication and interaction, leadership and integrity. These nine categories are called job performance factors and definitions.
I feel documentation, leadership and safety have nothing to do in validity and reliability. These three areas have nothing to do with how the job is performed. Documentation, leadership and safety have nothing to do about achieving the goals of the company. Quality and productivity are the only aspects of specificity measurements. These two categories are to be expected on the review.
Employees are asked to write their own self-assessment on each category. We feel we are writing our own reviews. Oftentimes our supervisor just duplicates our exact self-assessment on to our final review. The managers will take the self-assessment we have written on each category and find fault against us with them. They sometimes write demeaning things that do not amplify a good review. For example, in the category job knowledge my self-assessment was that I adapt well to new assignments and I want to be well informed of any new issues.
The supervisors comment for me under job knowledge was a need to develop problem-solving skills and to become a productive member of the department. Those comments reflect that I am not working up to my capacity and that I am not a productive member of my department. I argue the point of how destructive these comments toward me sound, but they are never removed from the final draft of the review. The employee can state their case and have backup facts and figures to their own favor, but it never is profitable. This makes me consider the fact that managers seek to give minimal raises, by rewording the facts and opposing our views. This is when the comparative approach comes in to play.
Breaking employees down into sections ranks our raise distribution. The employees understand the managers' opinion always overrules our own. This communication of negativity creates tension in the department. A development plan is discussed.
During this discussion, this is when the employee gives acceptability measures. Performance improvements are based on the performance evaluation. Employee's interests and aspirations are evaluated. An effectiveness plan is written with areas for improvement and activities planned to ensure these improvements take place.
Future opportunities are also discussed with the capacity to develop beyond present level of work. Review processes are often cumbersome tasks that do little to assess how an employee's work actually advances the business and organizational goals. The employees are not accruing the skill they need to do their jobs. Which results in the wrong people who are placed in key roles.
Employees receive raises and promotions for work that has no bearing on the business. Employees should be evaluated and rewarded based upon their individual impact to the organization. Employee development planning is just a formality written in to performance reviews. Managers suggest the improvements in skill development, and there is no thought of strategic needs.
These developmental plans are ineffective and reduce productivity by focusing on the wrong areas. These conditions do not empower employees. Employees are told what to do and they have a small amount of insight on what their actions are contributing to. Employees feel powerless; we are reluctant to take the initiative for fear of doing the wrong thing. We do our jobs as told, and have little sense of personal responsibility or commitment. Our goals are set for what is measurable rather than what goals are important.
We have very few interactions with our manager over the course of the year to discuss how things our going. Employees have lack of information about the company's goals. We are discouraged from asking for help or coaching assistance from our supervisor. Our goals are assigned to us without mutual agreement. We must change the organization to give employees the understanding for how our work contributes to the organization. Employee's goals are achieved by our freedom to choose the best way to take on these goals.
Supervisors must be supportive and actively coach employees. There must be minimum supervisor control and interests of discovering better ways of working. When employees discover this, it will be reflected in our reviews.