CHAPTER 1
Introduction and Overview
How to Get Maximum Performance from Employees
The major challenge that faces managers in all types of organizations is how to get maximum performance from their employees. First, they need to motivate their employees to get maximum effort from them. This means ensuring that people will try their best to do the job; whether the manager’s effort is successful can be measured by the energy and time employees expend. If only motivation guaranteed maximum results! Unfortunately, much of this energy and time is wasted. Therefore, the second requirement is for managers to get maximum accomplishments and achievements from their employees. This twofold challenge—effort plus results—faces every manager.
Ways to Improve Employee Performance
On a recent visit to India, I was asked by the manager of a small clothing shop in the Chola Hotel in Madras, “What is the one thing that managers can do to get their employees to do their best?” I replied that it isn’t as simple as “just one thing.” He repeated the question: “What is the one thing that managers can do to get their employees to do their best?” I hemmed and hawed and started to tell him that there are eight things.
He interrupted and said, “Don’t tell me eight, tell me one!” I said, “I can’t.” He replied, “Then I’ll tell you!” I answered, “O.K., you tell me.”
And he did. “You have to give your people encouragement. It doesn’t mean just money, although that’s one of the ways to encourage your people. It also means a pat on the back when they do a good job. If you rub them into the ground with your heel, you won’t get the best work from them, and they won’t like you, besides.”
I was supposed to be the expert who was conducting seminars on leadership for managers in business and government in India. And I received a good lesson in motivation from a shopkeeper in the basement of a hotel.
It isn’t quite as simple as encouragement, but that’s a good start. Here are the eight conditions I was going to describe to the shop owner that will get maximum effort and results from employees:
1.Make the job important in the eyes of the employee.
2.Select a person who has the potential to perform the job.
3.Clarify what’s expected of the employee in the job.
4.Train the employee in the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
5.Evaluate performance, and communicate results and expectations to the employee.
6.Help him improve performance.
7.Build and maintain rapport with the employee.
8.Reward for performance.
These eight conditions are developed further in the following paragraphs.
Make the job important. People who feel their jobs are important are more apt to try their best, because they realize that it does make a difference how well the job is done. When the manager increases the scope and importance of the job, people are more apt to put forth maximum effort.
Select the right person. The well-known Peter Principle states that people tend to rise to their level of incompetence.1 One reason for incompetence is that people are promoted on the basis of performance. Where the old job and the new ones are alike, performance is a valid basis for promotion. But where the jobs are different, performance may be a poor criterion for promotion. This is especially true where the promotion is from “doing” to management. Management, according to Lawrence A. Appley, past president of the American Management Associations, is “getting things done through others,” rather than doing them yourself.
When you are considering a person for a job, whether it is an entry-level job or a promotion, the problem is to match the person to the job. Usually the match is not a perfect one because the candidates have never done that exact job before. Therefore, the potential of the person must be determined. In other words, you should ask: “With the proper training, would this person be able to perform the job successfully?”
Potential is a difficult thing to measure. Typically, the candidates’ backgrounds are analyzed with special emphasis on education and experience. Next, interviews are conducted, and the candidates are evaluated on the basis of their answers to questions, as well as their appearance and the impression they make on the interviewer. Often references are checked to find out from former supervisors or acquaintances how the people performed in previous jobs. Some organizations also use testing and assessment centers. The higher the job level, the more time and money an organization should spend to determine potential.
There is good evidence that many people are promoted to supervisory positions who never should have been. The typical selection process places undue emphasis on performance, years of service, and cooperative attitude. A more systematic approach stresses the importance of desire—wanting to be a supervisor—as well as leadership qualities.
Clarify what’s expected. Many frustrations and failures occur because employees don’t understand exactly what’s expected of them by their supervisors. They put forth much effort doing what they think is wanted, rather than what is wanted.
When I worked for a large chemical corporation, my friend Ken worked for Michelle, a vice president. One day Ken and I had this conversation:
Ken: I think I’m in trouble with Michelle, my supervisor.
Don: What do you mean?
Ken: I don’t think Michelle is happy with my performance.
Ken: I just have a feeling.
Don: Has she told you she’s unhappy with your performance?
Ken: No, she hasn’t told me anything about my performance since I started working here nine months ago.
Don: Then why do you think she’s unhappy?
Ken: Well, she gave me a three-page job description when I came, and I can’t do everything that she expects.
Don: What are you doing?
Ken: I’m doing the things I think are most important.
Don: And?
Ken: I’m not sure she thinks they are the most important.
Don: I have a suggestion.
Ken: What?
Don: Go and see Michelle and tell her your problem. Take the job description with you, and show her the things you are doing and the things you aren’t doing. And see if she agrees.
Ken: I can’t.
Don: Why not?
Ken: Because she’s not available. She’s either up in the president’s office or else she’s out of town or busy entertaining some important people.
Don: Then the only suggestion I have for you is to try to do the things that she thinks are important instead of those you think are important.
About three months later, I learned that Ken had been terminated for “poor performance.” Because of our conversation, I was most interested in learning more about the termination. I got my chance one noon when I saw Michelle sitting alone in the company dining room.
Don: Michelle, can I talk with you for a few minutes?
Michelle: Sure.
Don: I understand that you terminated Ken a couple of week ago.
Michelle: That’s right.
Don: Would you mind telling me why?
Michelle: Not at all. He just wasn’t doing his job.
Don: Can you be more specific?
Michelle: Sure. He was spending his time and energy on the unimportant parts of his job and wasn’t getting the most important things done.
Don: Did you ever tell him what the most important parts of his job were?
Michelle: I gave him a job description. I expected him to be smart enough to know which things were most important!
Then I related to Michelle the conversation that Ken and I had had several months earlier. Michelle replied, “Well, that’s life. If he wasn’t smart enough to separate the important things from the unimportant things, that’s his problem!”
I was very disappointed in Michelle, not so much for actually terminating Ken but for her attitude about it. I had hoped that Michelle was feeling some guilt and might have learned something from the incident.
There are many Michelles in management who do not clarify what is expected of employees. And there are many Kens who suffer the consequences even if they have the necessary qualifications and try their best. I only hope that most of the Michelles who read this book will look at their own situations and either take the initiative in clarifying what’s expected or at least make themselves available to employees who have the courage to ask for clarification themselves.
Train the person. No matter how well the person matches the job, some training is always necessary. Training includes the teaching of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The first step is to decide who will be the trainer. The qualifications are:
Knowledge and skill in doing the job
A desire to teach
Communication skills
Patience
A positive attitude toward the organization and the job to be learned
A knowledge of teaching methods and procedures
Time to train
Many supervisors like to do the training personally. They are usually the best ones if they meet the other requirements listed above. But some are too busy or lack one or more of the qualifications, so they delegate the training to someone else. If this is done, the supervisor should be sure that the chosen trainer is qualified; even then, some checking is necessary to be sure that an effective job has been done. The supervisor may delegate the task to another person, but the supervisor has final responsibility and must live with the results.
If the person being trained is a supervisor, the training should emphasize management knowledge, skills, and attitudes. This means that the manager usually has to call on outside help for the training, such as in-house management courses or those presented by outside organizations. And it’s a good idea to begin the management training as soon as the new supervisor is appointed. As an example, a one-day conference at the Management Institute of the University of Wisconsin—Extension is called “Basics of Management for New Supervisors,” and it is designed for organizations that do not have a similar in-house program. Other universities, associations, and consultants offer similar training programs.
In addition to courses, a management library should be available for new supervisors. The books should be carefully selected so that they are readable and practical for the supervisor.
The jump from “doer” to manager is a big one. Great care must be taken to ensure that the new supervisor not only knows the difference between a “doer” and a manager but also has the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for success.
Evaluate performance and communicate the appraisal. People want to know how they are doing on the job, and it is the responsibility of the manager to tell them. This requires the manager to evaluate their performance and communicate the appraisal to them. This process of appraisal and communication should be regular and ongoing; managers should not wait until the annual appraisal interview to do it. Nor should they rely entirely on informal day-to-day coaching. Instead, both formal and informal appraisals are necessary. This book covers in detail the process as well as the forms and procedures for an effective performance appraisal program.
Help the person improve. The appraisal should measure how well the various parts of the job are being performed. It should identify the employee’s strengths, as well as the aspects of the job where improved performance is needed. When these have been identified and agreed on between manager and employee, a performance improvement plan should be developed and implemented. Methods for doing this are covered in detail in this book.
Build and maintain rapport. Rapport can be defined as a good working relationship or a climate of mutual trust and respect between manager and employee. To build rapport, the manager must try to understand and meet the employee’s needs and wants, not just the organization’s. Only when both are met has the manager really succeeded.
There are many ways to build rapport. An obvious one is for the manager to praise good work and give credit when due. Another is for the manager to take a personal interest in the hobbies, family, problems, and other things that are dear to the heart of the employee. Perhaps the most important thing that a manager can do is to make clear that he or she is interested in the successful performance of the employee on the present job. Also, the manager must show an interest in the future of the employee with the organization.
This consideration for the future presents a real challenge to a manager. Many organizations have developed formal approaches to career planning and development. They have found there are some advantages and some drawbacks to the formal approach. On the positive side, it demonstrates a concerted effort to see that employees move ahead in a systematic fashion. It shows that the organization is willing to spend time and money to be sure that promotions are made fairly. On the negative side, employees might get the impression that the promotions are going to come in a planned progression. The organization might give false hopes to those who aren’t going to be promoted or to those whose promotion opportunity is far in the future.
Advancement in an organization usually depends on three separate and distinct factors:
1.The interests, desires, and aspirations of the employee
2.The potential of the employee as determined by management
3.Openings
Some organizations ask employees to indicate their ambitions and goals. Sometimes this is done formally at the conclusion of a performance appraisal interview. Sometimes it is done informally in conversations between manager and employee. And some organizations do it as a separate project by sending forms for employees to complete. All these approaches can be effective in gathering this important information.
In addition to determining the interests, aspirations, ambitions, and goals of employees, management must determine potential for advancement. At best, the process requires some subjectivity and comes down to an educated guess. The attitudes of many unions, for example, is that you can’t really tell whether a person can perform a higher-level job unless you give the person a chance to try. And in some cases they may be right. But management must determine potential with as much objectivity as possible. The assessment center approach is one of the best ways.
The final factor that determines advancement is the number of promotional opportunities that will occur. In most organizations, large and small, people can’t advance unless an opening is created by retirement, promotion, death, transfer, resignation, or growth. In some organizations, these openings occur frequently. In others, they occur infrequently.
Career planning and development must consider all three of these factors. There are eight possible combinations of these three factors that a manager could face. In the examples, the term “management” is used to mean whoever inside or outside the organization assesses potential.
Situation 1: Kimberly wants to be promoted, management doesn’t feel she has the potential to do a higher-level job, and a promotional opportunity exists.
Situation 2: Kevin wants to be promoted, management feels he is promotable, but no openings exist.
Situation 3: Kathy has no desire to be promoted, management feels she has the potential for promotion, and no openings exist.
Situation 4: Barbara has no desire to be promoted, management feels she has the potential, and an opening exists.
Situation 5: Neil wants to be promoted, management feels he has the potential, and an opening exists.
Situation 6: Chris has no desire to be promoted, management feels he has no potential, and no openings exist.
Situation 7: Colleen has a desire to be promoted, management doesn’t feel she’s promotable, and no openings exist.
Situation 8: Bryan has no desire to be promoted, management doesn’t feel he’s promotable, and an opening exists.
These situations can be depicted in a table, as shown below. Quick reference to the table shows that situations 6 (Chris) and 8 (Bryan) are easy to handle. In both cases, the desire of the employee agrees with the analysis of potential by management. Neither Chris nor Bryan wants to be promoted, so no problem exists.
At first glance, situation 5 (Neil) also seems to be an easy one. Neil wants to be promoted, management feels he can handle the job, and an opening exists. However, complications arise because Neil is a white male. Situation 1 (Kimberly) must also be considered. Even though management doesn’t think she has the potential, she wants the job. And potential is subject to debate. Besides, upgrading minorities may be part of management’s obligation under its affirmative action program.
Also, situation 4 (Barbara) must be considered when we consider Neil and Kimberly. Management has stamped her promotable even though she has no desire to be promoted. Perhaps she doesn’t realize that she can do the job or hasn’t really thought too much about it. Isn’t it the obligation of management—as well as a sign of good judgment—to persuade her that she can handle the job? So now the organization has three people to consider in filling the opening.
Situation 2 (Kevin) presents an interesting challenge to management. Kevin wants to be promoted and is considered qualified, but no openings exist. Can you keep him, or will he become impatient and leave? Possible approaches for keeping him include job enrichment, special assignments, delegated tasks, and other types of challenges and rewards that might satisfy him until an opening occurs.
Situation 7 (Colleen) presents another challenge to management. Colleen wants to be promoted, but management doesn’t feel she has the potential to be successful. No immediate problem exists because there are no openings. But as soon as an opening occurs, the organization will have the same problem it currently has with situation 1 (Kimberly).
Situation 3 (Kathy) offers a pleasant problem for management with no particular time pressures. Kathy has no desire to move up, but management feels she has potential. This allows management time to persuade her that she is promotable or to wait until an opening occurs and treat her case like situation 4 (Barbara).
These eight situations illustrate the problems of career planning and development. The planning must be less than scientific, and plans must be flexible instead of firm. Goals and aspirations as well as potential should be frankly discussed. Also, the existence or possibility of openings should be made clear. Conversations should result in a realistic understanding of the employee’s future in the organization, and the entire process should demonstrate clearly that the manager is sincerely interested in the employee and his or her future success and happiness. These conversations can help to develop rapport between manager and employee and help achieve maximum effort and performance.
As stated earlier, many organizations have formalized their approach to career planning and development. An example is the Crocker National Bank of California.2 During the first two and a half years of the program, more than 200 employees were involved, ranging from senior vice presidents to bank tellers, with a majority in lower exempt professional positions. In San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, the program was made available to any of the 14,000 employees whose supervisors or employee relations representatives recommended them. The following steps were taken in developing the program:
1.Obtained the support, cooperation, and participation of senior management.
2.Integrated career counseling into the performance appraisal system.
3.Obtained adequate professional staff to initiate a system for career counseling.
4.Developed a communications network of resource people and a centralized job information and education resource center.
5.Established clear referral procedures for career counseling.
6.Initiated individual career counseling services.
a.Counseled employees on self-analysis, diagnosis of the organization, and action plans.
b.Educated managers in career planning techniques and the bank’s career opportunities.
7.Evaluated the program every six months.
8.Reviewed progress of counseled employees every six months.
9.Updated information files regularly.
10.Planned and presented career planning workshops on a pilot basis.
11.Trained and certified employee relations representatives in career counseling techniques and knowledge of the bank.
12.Presented career planning workshops on a continual basis.
An extensive research project was implemented to evaluate the career counseling program. Here are one-year results for 1978:
Turnover was reduced by 65 percent.
Performance was improved by 85 percent.
Promotability was increased by 75 percent.
Savings of $1,950,000 were realized.
Reward for performance. The eighth and final requirement for getting maximum effort and performance from employees is to reward for performance, not on the basis of years of service, favoritism, or anything else. Rewards can be monetary, such as wage incentives, merit salary increases, bonuses, profit sharing, and prizes. Or they can be nonmonetary, such as praise, special job assignments, more responsibility, delegated tasks, asking for ideas, better working conditions, status symbols, and authority.
Probably the most effective and least recognized of the nonmonetary rewards is authority, or freedom to act. There are four degrees of authority:
1.Do what the supervisor says—no more and no less.
2.Suggest and recommend to the supervisor, but take no action until the manager approves.
3.Act, but tell the supervisor afterward.
4.Act.
In the first two degrees, the employee has been given no authority. The second degree is more pleasant than the first, but there is no freedom to act until the supervisor says O.K.
The third and fourth degrees give the employee the authority to act. In the third, the supervisor wants to know about the action after it has been done. There are several reasons why this may be. Many supervisors want to know what goes on in their departments, either because they feel they should know or because their managers expect them to know. Also, if the action causes problems, the supervisor should know so that corrective action can be taken and future problems avoided.
There is also a different kind of reason for knowing what action the employee has taken, one related to rewards for performance. If the employee consistently makes poor decisions, the supervisor should move the employee back to degree 2, in which the employee checks with the supervisor before action is taken. If the action in degree 3 is consistently good, the employee can be moved to degree 4. In other words, performance is rewarded with more authority. And this type of reward is very significant to many people.
Promotion has not been mentioned as a reward. Obviously, past performance should be considered when a person is a candidate for promotion. Where the new job is entirely different from the present job, performance should carry very little weight. As was stated earlier, this is especially true when a person is promoted from a “doer” to a position as a first-line supervisor. If the new job is similar to the present job, performance should carry much more weight as one of the criteria for selection. For example, when a person is promoted from one level of management to another, promotion is an important reward for performance.
Summary
Managers must depend on the performance of their employees. As one manager put it, “When they’re doing their jobs, I’m doing mine!” This section has described the eight requirements for getting maximum effort and performance from employees. The rest of the book deals in detail with three of these eight factors: clarifying what’s expected, appraising and communicating quality of performance, and coaching for improved performance. It is important to put these three factors in the proper context and to recognize that other things can also be done to improve performance.
The Performance Review Program
Before we go any further, let’s define some important terms that are used throughout the book. Then four aspects of a performance review program are discussed in detail: program objectives, forms and procedures, frequency of reviews, and equal employment opportunity and affirmative action considerations.
Definition of Terms
The term “performance review” is used in this book to include significant job segments, standards of performance, appraisal, appraisal interview, and on-the-job coaching. These terms are used with the following meanings:
Significant Job Segments. These are the most important parts of the job. Not every detailed duty and responsibility should be evaluated. The word “significant” is a subjective term, and each organization (and even each manager) should determine its exact meaning. Chapter 2 covers this.
Standards of Performance. These are the conditions that exist when the work has been done in an acceptable manner. They explain how well the job should be done, while significant job segments describe what should be done. These standards become the basis on which performance is judged, and are discussed in Chapter 2, as well.
Appraisal. This is the evaluation or judgment of how well the job has been done. It is always done by the supervisor with or without input from other people.
A self-appraisal is an evaluation by the employee. Some organizations require it in their performance review programs. Other organizations do not include it or leave it up to the supervisor whether to ask the employee for a self-appraisal. Chapter 3 deals with this.
Appraisal Interview. The appraisal interview is the discussion of the appraisal between the supervisor (reviewer) and the employee (person being reviewed). As described in this book, it consists of the following aspects:
Communication of the supervisor’s appraisal to the employee
Communication of the employee’s appraisal to the supervisor
Agreement on a fair appraisal
Agreement on the strengths of the employee
Agreement on the job segments needing improvement
Agreement on a performance improvement plan that spells out the specific things to be done to improve performance
The length of interview time to cover all these items varies greatly. In most cases, the supervisor should conduct two or even three interviews instead of trying to discuss all of them in one interview. Chapter 3 covers the appraisal interview, and Chapter 4 discusses the performance improvement plan.
On-the-Job Coaching. After the formal performance appraisal interview has been conducted, both the supervisor and the employee go back to their day-to-day activities. Part of the supervisor’s activity should be the on-the-job coaching of the employee. This coaching should be a direct follow-up to be sure the agreed-on performance improvement plan is carried out. It should serve as a regular means for praising good performance and correcting mistakes. It should be the vehicle for updating significant job segments and standards of performance. In short, it should be a method for following up on an interview and avoiding surprises in the next formal performance appraisal interview. Chapter 5 covers coaching.
Program Objectives
There are three basic reasons why organizations have performance appraisal programs: to provide information for salary administration, to provide information for promotion, and to improve performance on the present job. The next three subsections deal with each of these objectives and its relationship to performance appraisal.
To Provide Information for Salary Administration. Many factors should be considered in determining salary increases. They include:
1.The employee’s performance. This can be measured by actual results or by results compared to objectives if the organization has a program of management by objectives.
2.The amount of improvement in performance since the last salary increase.
3.The minimum and maximum salary range for the job and where the employee’s salary is presently located in the range.
4.A comparison of the employee’s performance with the performance of others doing the same or similar jobs.
5.A comparison of the employee’s salary with salaries of others doing the same or similar jobs.
6.Length of service. Some increase is usually given for being on the job another year.
7.Education. In some organizations, additional education, particularly if a degree is granted, is rewarded with a salary increase.
8.The rate of inflation since the last salary increase. A raise given for this reason is usually called a cost-of-living increase.
9.Established guidelines. These could be established by outside sources, such as the president of the United States, or by company policy. For example, a maximum salary increase amount can be set.
10.The salary that other organizations are paying people in the same or similar jobs.
Performance appraisal systems can provide information relating to factors 1, 2, and 4. It is important to recognize that many other factors must also be considered in determining salary adjustments.
To Provide Information for Promotion. Many performance review programs include the appraisal of potential, as well as of performance. Usually, the manager considers past performance as one indication of the potential of the individual to do higher-level jobs. Past performance is probably the best predictor of future performance if the present job and the future job are pretty much the same. Other factors to be considered are desire, intelligence, personality, emotional stability, leadership skills, and other characteristics related to the job to be filled. An individual may be an outstanding performer and not be promotable because the requirements for success on the present job are different from those for the higher-level job. Likewise, an employee can be performing a job at a mediocre or even unsatisfactory level and be promotable because the necessary knowledge and skills are entirely different.
To Improve Performance on the Present Job. The third objective of performance review is to improve performance on the present job. To achieve this, past performance is reviewed, and steps are taken to improve future performance. This book provides philosophy, principles, approaches, and specific forms and techniques for accomplishing this objective.
One Program for All Three Objectives?
Some organizations have one program that is designed to accomplish all three objectives. Usually such programs fail to accomplish the third one, which is to improve performance on the present job. The main reason is that there is so much emotion involved in the discussion of salary and promotion that it is not possible to be objective about ways to improve performance. For example, a person may be doing an outstanding job, have substantially improved performance since the last review, and still not receive a large salary increase. Also, a person may be an outstanding performer and yet be deemed not promotable. These situations don’t lend themselves to encouraging and helping employees improve their performance.
Table 1-1 reveals a number of significant differences between performance reviews for improved performance and those for salary administration purposes. Because of these differences, performance review for improved performance should be separated from performance review for determination and discussion of salary increase and promotability.
In an extensive study on performance reviews, researchers at General Electric came to the following conclusion:
Implicit in performance appraisal programs as now structured are two distinct objectives: (1) letting a person know where he or she stands via ratings and salary actions, and (2) motivating him or her to improve. The results of this study showed that attempts to achieve the first objective frequently produce threat and defensiveness, and these reactions, in turn, interfere with the achievement of the second objective.
A merit-pay type of salary plan makes some variety of summary judgment or rating of performance necessary, or at least desirable; but this rating should not be expected to serve also as a primary medium for changing performance. Quite separate from this rating activity, the manager can use goal planning discussions, special assignments, and other techniques to achieve improved performance on the part of employees.3
Table 1-1. Comparison of two kinds of performance reviews.
Clearly, then, the two kinds of performance reviews should be separate. One approach is to have separate annual reviews for salary administration and for improved performance, scheduled approximately six months apart.
Forms and Procedures
Many different types of performance review forms have been developed and used by organizations. They vary all the way from a blank piece of paper to a twenty-two-page form used by a general sales manager for five regional sales managers. Some forms are very simple with a list of factors to be rated and a few boxes to check. Others require the manager to work with the employee to develop the factors on which the appraisal will be based. There is no right or wrong form. The important thing is that the form accomplish the objectives of the program.
To achieve improved job performance, a form should be designed to accomplish this objective and not necessarily to accomplish the objectives of determining salary increases or potential for promotion. If the form provides information that is helpful in determining potential or salary increases, so much the better.
In addition to accomplishing program objectives, the form should fit the organization or department that is using it. For example, the form for appraising a production foreman may be quite different from one for an office supervisor or an engineer. Or one form may be designed to apply to all types of jobs.
Another consideration in designing a form is that it can be used effectively by the managers. For example, if an organization has limited clerical help, poor facilities in which to conduct interviews, and managers who hate paperwork, common sense tells us to keep it simple. On the other hand, if the managers are sophisticated and oriented to paperwork, a more complicated form can be used.
As nearly as possible, the form should be self-explanatory. A manager should not have to study a manual to understand how the form should be completed. Also, the words used should be as clear as possible. Words like “dependability,” “responsibility,” and even “quality” have different meanings to different people. The manager might think “quality, accurate work” means perfect work, or work with no scrap, while the employee might think it means work without too many mistakes or without too much scrap.
All forms should include not only what should be done but also how well it should be done. This combination clarifies what is expected so that the manager’s and the employee’s appraisals will be based on the same understanding of the job.
Examples of various types of forms are provided in Chapter 11. Comments are included on the positive and negative aspects of each form.
Frequency of Reviews
Formal performance reviews covering the entire job of an employee should be conducted at least once a year by the manager; twice a year is preferable. The frequency is influenced by five main factors:
1.How complicated is the program? If the forms and procedures are complicated and involve much time and paperwork, the review should be done only once a year. If they are relatively simple and take little time, it can be done semiannually.
2.How enthusiastic are the managers about the program? If managers are enthusiastic about reviewing performance and feel it helps both relationships and productivity, it can be done twice a year. If it becomes a chore they dread and complain about, once a year is probably sufficient. It is better to start on a once-a-year basis and move to twice a year than to start with twice-a-year reviews and have the managers become discouraged and sour on the program.
3.How much staff help is available to coordinate the program? A coordinator and secretarial help are required to keep up with forms, schedules, and other paperwork. If enough such staff help is available, then twice a year might be advisable.
4.How many people are going to be appraised by the manager? This is related to the first factor because it influences the total time needed for performance reviews. In general, the more people that must be reviewed, the less frequently reviews can be done.
5.How skilled are the appraisers? If a new program is being integrated, it is better to require a formal appraisal only once a year while the appraisers learn the approach. This doesn’t put too much demand on the managers’ time and gets the program off to a good start. As the managers become trained and effective in conducting the reviews, the frequency might be increased to semiannual reviews, depending on the four factors described above.
Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action Considerations
Contract compliance regulations have been developed by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) of the Department of Labor. It is the policy of most companies—large and small—to have employment and personnel policies that are nondiscriminatory with regard to race, creed, color, sex, religion, and age. Such policies determine practices in recruitment and hiring, promotion, pay, training, layoff and recall, and reviews of employee performance.
An affirmative action program is a set of specific, results-oriented procedures by which an employer makes a commitment to apply every effort, in good faith, toward equal employment opportunity. Procedures without effort to make them work are meaningless, and effort undirected by specific and meaningful procedures is inadequate.
An acceptable affirmative action plan must include an analysis of areas within which the employer is deficient in the employment of minority groups and women. It must also include goals and timetables to which the employer’s good-faith efforts will be directed to correct the deficiencies. The employer does this to achieve prompt and full utilization of minorities and women at all levels and in all segments of the workforce where deficiencies may exist.
A formal affirmative action plan is implemented as follows:
1.The employer should validate worker specifications by division, department, location, or other organizational units and by job title, using job performance criteria.
2.All personnel involved in the recruitment, screening, selection, promotion, disciplinary, and related processes should be carefully selected and trained to ensure elimination of bias in all personnel actions.
3.The employer should ensure that minority and female employees are given equal opportunity for promotion. Suggestions for achieving this result include:
(a)Develop and implement formal performance appraisal programs.
(b)Establish valid requirements for promotion, directly related to the job. These should be used exclusively when deciding on promotions.
(c)Review the qualifications of all employees to ensure that minorities and women are given full opportunities for transfers and promotions.
(d)Establish formal career counseling programs, including attitude development, education aid, job rotation, a buddy system, and similar programs.
(e)Provide full opportunity for minority and female employees. Encourage them to participate in all company-sponsored educational, training, recreational, and social activities, and provide them with the same benefits as other employees. Apply all personnel programs uniformly to all employees without exception.
(f)Evaluate the work performance of supervisors on the basis of their equal employment opportunity efforts and results, as well as other criteria.
Summary
This section first defined the various terms connected with performance review. Next, the three major objectives of a program were described. Emphasis was placed on the fact that different approaches must be used for the different objectives.
Forms and procedures were then discussed with guidelines for selecting the right ones for a particular organization. The section on frequency of reviews described the considerations in deciding whether to do them annually or semiannually. Finally, guidelines for equal employment opportunity and affirmative action programs were presented.
Notes
1.Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull, The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong (New York: Bantam, 1970).
2.Karen R. Kobrosky, “Approach to Career Management.” Copyright © Karen R. Kobrosky. Published by Crocker National Bank, San Francisco, 1979. All rights reserved.
3.E. Kay, J. P. French, Jr., and H. H. Meyer, “A Study of the Performance Appraisal Interview” (Lynn, Mass.: Behavioral Research Service at General Electric, 1962).