Employee Performance Evaluation: Facts and fallacies

Finding the proper way of evaluating employee performance has been a perennial issue. Many attempts have been made, particularly in the public sector where the presence of human resource management systems are comparatively low.

This article attempts to revisit some key fundamentals of Employee Performance Evaluation (EPE) with reference to the public and private sectors.

I participated, on invitation, as a member of the advisory committee for the Ministry of Public Administration, recently. Among the key issues focused on, performance management as usual occupied a prominent place.

Performance is all about delivering results and fulfilling expectations. A performance management system of an organisation should answer what, why and how aspects of organisational performance.

My focus today is on employee performance, particularly, on how it is evaluated. EPE can be a treasure or a torture based on a variety of contributing factors. They can be institutional and individual. Performance oriented culture where employees are clearly aware of what they have to do to achieve organisational objectives, is one such example.

‘Are you satisfied with your performance evaluation?’ I have posed this question to numerous groups representing a wide cross-section of the Sri Lankan business community. The majority give the diplomatic answer “to some extent”.

According to research by Larson and Callahan (1990), 65 percent of the organisations are dissatisfied with their performance management system. Based on other recent research, the worldwide situation in this regard has not changed much.

What could be the possible reasons? Let me propose five fallacies of EPE that would address the key issues.

Form filling vs fact finding

Sadly, EPE has become a form-filling ritual in some organisations. I have personally seen how some senior administrators give blank sheets for their subordinates to sign saying that, “This will help you to get your increment”. The vital link between EPE and organisational performance is alarmingly lacking.

In refuting this fallacy, what should happen is proper fact-finding. The appraiser should have a clear understanding about the employee’s actual performance, based on factual evidence. It cannot be done overnight unless a manager carefully observes and take notes throughout the year.

Fast judgment vs fare assessment

Everyone is pressed for time. Managers resort to rush through a large pile of appraisals and inevitably give a fast judgment. Why it is not OK in most cases is, an over-reliance on your memory, without considering the strengths and shortcomings of the person in detail. It may be argued as a case for efficiency, but effectiveness in achieving the expected results is far more important.

Therefore, the only way to overcome this fallacy is to have a fare assessment. That demands the investment of your time. It is doing justice to someone’s future by accurately assessing past performance.

Fun praise vs focal points

There is a temptation among managers to be popular. They resist giving bad news or negative feedback to their subordinates. I recall once, a Production Manager telling a HR professional that he will sign and deliver the increment letter, but the warning letters or disciplinary letters should be signed by HR. The danger of this approach is that a manager might divert to the extreme of giving ‘fun praise’.

According to Jack Welsh, the biggest injustice against an employee is the deprivation of his or her right to know how exactly he or she is performing. We have the typical Asian culture emerging here. Rather than telling upfront, if someone is under-performing, we tend to say, “not bad”, “you are OK”, and “do not worry”. The employee is getting a false signal that he or she is doing well, which might not be the reality.

One sure cure to move away from this fallacy is to have focal points for performance discussion. Your feedback to the team member should be focused on specific behavioural aspects, backed by real examples.

False opinion vs full observation

In management, we have a high regard for the MBO approach which means ‘management by objectives’. Unfortunately, we have another MBO in Sri Lanka. That is ‘management by opinions’. We tend to jump to conclusions based on what someone has told us about a particular person, without proper fact finding.

One reason for such tendency could be the lack of time for a superior to observe his or her team members and assess how they are going ahead in achieving their objectives. Instead, trusting the ‘grape wine’ too much, or relying on others input on a person will often lead to false opinion. Why this is damaging, is that the respective person is not getting an opportunity to share his or her side of the story.

In overcoming this fallacy, the only way possible is regular observation. Maintaining a log book where you note down the pluses and minuses in respect to the behaviour of your team mates. It can be in soft copy involving any good program or a traditional note book.

Futile accusation vs frank discussion

This is another common issue with managers lacking empathy. Reaching one sided judgments without looking at both sides of an issue. Take a behavioural issue such as indiscipline for example. The supervisor can make a firm accusation that the particular team member is not following his instructions. Instead, having a frank discussion and giving specific feedback will heal the wounds.

A frank discussion will pave the way for a genuine two-way process in ironing out differences between a team leader and a team member. It should be an integral part of the EPE. The fallacy of futile accusation can be nullified only by engaging in such a process. Rather than cluttering your mind with negative perceptions of an employee, going with an open mind and verifying the doubts through a discussion is the tested and proven method for performance enhancement.

Forward path beyond five Fs

The above five fallacies of EPE are inter related and influence a person to take an incorrect decision about another person. That’s where institutional mechanisms can add value. Developing the conduct EPE through training is one such example. Ensuring transparency of the EPE process, with the HR department acting as an auditor is another possible initiative.

In this context, discussion of key progressive actions are of importance. The private and public sectors can define, design, develop and deliver performance management systems where evaluation of performance is an essential part.

The writer can be reached through [email protected]