"Is Your Performance Appraisal Form Making Matters Worse?"
by Linda L. Bailey, SPHR

Is your performance appraisal form keeping you from a productive two-way conversation with your employees? If it is designed like most of them – it is.  Has your performance appraisal form hindered you from having an in-depth developmental conversation with your employees?  If your employees are stuck on their 2.8 or 3.65 score – it has.  When employees fixate on a numerical rating they receive (or didn’t receive or somebody else received), they are missing the point and purpose of a good performance appraisal.  The purpose of a good performance appraisal is to assist an employee with their professional development and growth.  A performance appraisal form that includes a numerical rating, by design, takes the focus off of the major intent of the performance appraisal.

 

Many of the performance appraisal forms currently being used have 5 rating categories with the middle category usually defined as “satisfactory”.  Each category contains a number, usually from 1 – 5, with the middle category usually a “3”.  Many organizations devise their merit budgets around most employees falling in that middle category.  Being in the middle of the 5 categories reminds us of being average, in the middle of the bell-shaped curve, the equivalent of a “C” grade in school.  Is it any surprise our employees come out of their performance appraisal meetings upset with their ratings instead of focusing on their development and growth?

 

As a manager or supervisor, assigning an employee to the “C” or middle category can have some serious repercussions.  It can be de-motivating to downright derogatory.  So that middle category is avoided.  A higher category may not be entirely deserved, but a little over-inflation is justified when considering the alternative – giving an employee a “C” and reaping the repercussions.  Many of the performance appraisal forms we use are literally driving some of our inflated appraisal results.

 

We don’t hire “C” level employees – at least not on purpose.  I believe most of us strive to hire “A” players.  And I believe most of those “A” players are doing exactly the job we want them to do most of the time.  That shouldn’t make them average, but some of our performance appraisal forms force us to go there.

 

If you, or your organization, absolutely insist on using a numerical system, consider using a range of 70 – 80 – 90 – 100.  It would make more sense to our employees.  It would certainly feel much better than being a “3.65” (or whatever).   Not receiving a score of “100” wouldn’t be as difficult to explain.  Best of all, it might help our employees focus on the real purpose of the performance appraisal process and conversation. 

 

 

 Linda Bailey, SPHR, is a consultant, speaker, trainer and teacher in Human Resource issues facing employers, emphasizing the employer-employee relationship.  With a goal of “helping employers from needing employment lawyers”, her expertise covers both crises intervention and continuing management solutions. Linda can be reached at (727) 528-0556 or e-mail at Linda@BaileyCG.com.  Website is www.BaileyCG.com.