5.2.1Performance appraisal objectives

Performance assessment is used in organizations for a wide variety of purposes [9, 10]. As an essential tool, performance appraisal in management has as its main objectives to improve employee productivity, motivation, and performance; assist in organizational decisions, such as salary increases, promotions, transfers, and training needs; and provide feedback to evaluatees on their performance and to help improve bad results [2, 4, 11–13].

McGregor (1957, quoted in [6]) postulates that organizations use performance appraisals to meet three needs, one at the organizational level and two at the individual level. With regard to organization, performance appraisal helps in administrative decision-making processes (such as transfers and remuneration). This tool allows individuals to know that their performance is appreciated, allowing, at the same time, the evaluator to offer guidance about their professional path.

Rocha [5] also adds that the information resulting from performance appraisal should contribute to several objectives: professional selection and orientation (through internal recruitment processes), vocational training (allowing an inventory of weaknesses and developing a training program tailored to specific needs), and promotion (support for career advancement policies). Along the same lines, Costa [1] advocates that any performance management system should serve the following purposes:

On the other hand, Fernandes and Caetano [6], in an analysis of the different objectives that performance appraisal fulfills, confirm that these can be integrated into three main classes: objectives that aim at the maintenance and development of the organization, objectives that aim at individual development, and objectives focused on rewards management. The first class, organizational objectives, includes determining training needs at the organizational level and organizational development needs, ascertaining the degree of achievement of objectives, and negotiating objectives for the next period. The second, individual objectives, refers to the recognition of individual performance, identification of performance gaps, and feedback on employee performance. Finally, the third class of objectives fulfilled by performance appraisal refers to decisions on the awarding of prizes, other benefits, or remuneration.

In summary, performance appraisal will align employees’ performance and their individual objectives with the organization’s strategy; provide management indicators that facilitate decision-making processes for remuneration, training, and development, and possible transfers; and provide feedback to employees on their individual performance [1, 4, 7, 12–14].

5.2.2Performance appraisal instruments

For a correct and strict classification of performance, an organization must first know and examine the functions in it in order to select the evaluation model that best fits its specificities. “Performance is evaluated based on criteria and measures that aim to differentiate high contributions from average or weak contributions to the organization” [7, p. 32]. In fact, performance measurement seems to be one of the most sensitive issues in the performance appraisal system. The evaluation can be conducted by adopting several methods that, in a simplified way, can be distributed along four large dimensions. Following Caetano [7], the instruments will vary according to their primary focus: (1) on people, (2) behaviors, (3) in comparison with others, or (4) on results.

5.2.2.1Approaches focused on people

The people-focused or personality-centered approach focuses on personality traits or attributes. The use of quantified scales, anchored in personality traits, places the evaluator in the role of observer of worker performance, evaluating the traits of his personality such as creativity, leadership, responsibility, or integrity. It is therefore up to the evaluator to position the worker on a scale where the traits are presented according to adjectives or figures. This type of instrument involves rapid construction and application and facilitates a comparison of the results obtained by each of the workers, showing their greatest strengths. However, its use has fallen into disuse given its scientific weaknesses. The measurement of performance through judgments regarding the personality traits of those being evaluated was gradually faded out in the 1970s, partly due to the subjectivity inherent in such judgments [7, 15].

5.2.2.2Approaches focused on behaviors

As an alternative to earlier systems, about thirty years after the emergence of personality-centered scales, several types of scales were developed that sought to ensure the validation of qualities missing in previous tools. The behavioral approach focuses its assessment on behaviors. Several instruments were proposed for the evaluation of behavioral performance. What follows are some of the notable tools that were developed.

5.2.2.3Approaches focused on comparisons with others

In this method, comparisons of workers to be evaluated are made. Thus, the starting point for this method is that it may be possible to obtain a measurement standard that results from a comparison of a set of individuals who perform complementary or concurrent work [7, 16].

This approach is common to methods of comparison that produce evidence that ground some decisions at the level of HRM (e.g., promotions). However, the lack of evaluation based on concrete behaviors and the impossibility of giving adequate feedback to evaluatees are the main limitations of the method. In addition, the evaluator must face the difficulty of justifying or defending a certain position in the hierarchy of the evaluatees, such that the evaluator must clearly identify the level of the absolute performance achieved by the employee in order to reinforce the comparative evaluation [15].

Caetano [7] and Almeida [4] point out the following methods:

5.2.2.4Results-focused approaches

In these approaches, one starts from the performance results and evaluates the extent to which these results are in accordance with the performance standards or with the objectives previously established for a given period.

The following instruments are highlighted:

5.2.3Performance appraisal procedures

In what concerns the procedures governing the application of performance appraisal, there are a number of important issues that relate, first, to the source of performance appraisal and, second, to the training given to performance appraisal participants, and, finally, to the interview that is carried out to give feedback to employees about their performance [6].

5.2.3.1Appraisal sources

The main source of evaluation has traditionally been the immediate hierarchy of the evaluatee, with some intervention or validation of the following hierarchy [7, 16].

At present, most systems consider the evaluated of oneself as an important source (self-evaluation), such that the use of three sources is very generalized: the target of the evaluation (the assessed), that person’s immediate hierarchy, and the next hierarchy. In some organizational units that are structured in work teams, peer evaluation may be used. According to the analysis of Bretz Jr. and collaborators [19], self-assessments may prove to be an interesting development tool, promoting the improvement of performance through a commitment that workers establish with themselves. The same authors affirm that this tool better serves developmental rather than evaluative purposes, given its high tendency for bias.

We can now highlight the main appraisal sources:

5.2.3.2Training of evaluators and evaluatees

The introduction or deep reformulation of a performance appraisal system constitutes a change project that directly interferes with organizational dynamics. It is therefore essential that all members of the organization be duly informed, both at the design stage of the system and before its implementation, with its objectives, possible relationships with other systems and change projects, their overall characteristics, and what is expected from all involved being clearly outlined.

Training should focus on the following elements:

5.2.3.3Appraisal and planning interview

The interview or evaluation meeting is one of the most important moments in the evaluation system and should therefore be given special prominence. For a successful outcome, evaluators should create a neutral climate and friendly atmosphere, use clear and understandable speech, state the evaluatee’s strengths before moving to the most sensitive areas, create an environment conducive to dialogue, and use concrete data rather than abstractions or generalizations [4, 22].

With a view to systematizing information, we can adopt Caetano’s suggestion [7] and subdivide this stage into two important moments: preparing the interview and conducting the interview.

As for the first point, there are several aspects to consider. First, the evaluator should not surprise the evaluatee, so a bet must be placed on the effective performance management process. At the same time, the evaluator should be concerned with assessing the most relevant, positive, and negative aspects and not with evaluating overall performance. A third aspect corresponds to the content of the assessment: it should meet stipulated and duly substantiated criteria. Fourth, the evaluator should focus on the rigorous preparation of the objectives that will be established for each employee for the following period, scrupulously adopting the rules for defining well-designed objectives. Lastly, it should be stressed that the interview will be essential for obtaining the social validation of assessments and objectives.

Regarding the conduct of the interview, it is important to follow a script that includes (i) a description and review of the responsibilities and work objectives of the interviewee, (ii) a time to ask questions and listen to opinions, (iii) analysis and suggestions for enhancing the interviewee’s strengths, (iv) suggestions for improvement, (v) objectivity in comments, (vi) implementation of the evaluation through observed behavior, (vii) agreement of the objectives of evaluator and evaluatee, (viii) a plan concerning the manner and frequency of follow-up for the next period, and finally (ix) an evaluation form to be signed [7]. In the view of Meyer, Kay, and French [23], employee participation in the performance interview can lead to a more favorable position of the employee regarding the evaluation and contribute to the achievement and acceptance of the performance objectives. Roberts [24] adds that, from a motivational point of view, employee participation is a key element that facilitates worker growth and development.

5.3.1Knowledge of strategy and functions

Determining the success of a performance appraisal system hinges on the alignment of this process with the organization’s mission and strategy [16]. Caetano [7, p. 90] argues that “the first question to be answered is whether the organization really needs a performance appraisal system or whether performance management can be performed with other people management alternatives.” According to the author, regarding the need to implement a performance appraisal system, its relation with the overall strategy of the organization should be clarified.

In the same vein, Aguinis [26] and Cunha and collaborators [16] affirm that there are two important and necessary prerequisites for the implementation of a performance appraisal system: knowledge of the organization’s strategy and objectives and knowledge of the function in question.

Aguinis [26] argues that if there is any lack of clarity between the organization’s mission and strategies, as well as in defining the goal that the organization intends to achieve, it will not be clear to all employees what they need to do to achieve their goals. Thus, once the organization’s goals are set, similar goals will be “cascaded” across departments and hierarchies until each employee has a set of goals compatible with those designed for his or her department and organization. Regarding this point, Caetano [7, p. 93] states that “the evaluation system does not exist for the human resources department; it exists to facilitate the coordination and development of people throughout the organization.” Performance appraisal therefore becomes a strategic tool guided by a philosophy that is expected across all organizational processes: continuous improvement.

At the same time, it is important to understand the function in question. This is achieved through an analysis of functions, which consists in determining the key components of a given function, including activities, tasks, products, services, and processes. According to Aguinis [26], the analysis of functions is a fundamental requirement for a performance evaluation system. Without it, it will be difficult to understand what should be done in a given function, what needs to be assessed, and how to do it.

5.3.2Performance appraisal planning

This second stage of the implementation process of the performance appraisal system essentially aims to give employees a deep knowledge of the evaluation system. According to Cunha and collaborators [16],managers and collaborators discuss (i) the results to be achieved, (ii) the behaviors to be adopted, and (iii) the action plan to be followed.

5.3.2.1Results to be achieved

According to Aguinis [26], objectives are the affirmations that contemplate the important and measurable results to be achieved. For the author, the result refers to what needs to be done or what should be produced, including also the specific objectives the employees will achieve in fulfilling their responsibilities and the performance standards (used to evaluate how well employees reached each of the objectives). The performance pattern produces information on acceptable and unacceptable performance (e.g., quality, quantity, cost, time).

Aguinis and Cascio [27] argue that while it is important to measure results, emphasizing them exclusively can provide an incomplete picture of employee performance. For some functions, it may become difficult to set precise goals and standards. For other functions, employees may have greater control over how to perform their functions but not about the results of their behavior. Behaviors, or how a job is done, are a key component of the planning phase. Considering behaviors includes discussing competencies that are measurable clusters of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that determine how outcomes will be achieved.

5.3.2.3Action plan

For Reyna and Sims [28], one of the important steps in the performance appraisal implementation process is the supervisor-employee agreement on the action plan. According to the authors, this plan (which should encompass the results and behaviors to be adopted) should include areas that need improvement and also goals to be achieved in each area. Fulfillment of the objectives established in the action plan allows employees to maintain openness to change in their profession. In summary, individual development plans allow employees to answer a number of questions, such as: (i) How can I learn continuously and grow next year? or (ii) How can I do better in the future? [26].

In a study by Boswell and Boudreau [29] on how perceptions of the use of performance appraisal relate to employee satisfaction, with both assessment and evaluator, the authors suggest that the inclusion of action plans that identify employee strengths and weaknesses, as part of the performance appraisal system, has beneficial effects on satisfaction with the system.

A tool that has become valuable to employees, especially those who play supervisory roles, is the 360 degree feedback system for collecting information from different groups [30]. These systems are called 360 degree systems because information is gathered from individuals who “surround” the developer (e.g., supervisors, peers, clients, and subordinates) [26]. As a rule, this information is anonymous to minimize the inflation of the results, and the employees themselves also self-evaluate in several dimensions of their performance. Subsequently, it is possible to compare the self-perceptions with the information provided by others, and this information is used in the development plan.

5.3.3Performance appraisal development

According to Cunha and collaborators [16] and Aguinis [26], in this phase, the employee has the responsibility to act in accordance with the previously planned by the organization in what concerns its performance. The employee then begins to produce results and engage in the previously agreed upon behaviors, as well as to work on developmental needs.

Despite the employee’s greater role at this stage, supervisors have a responsibility to observe and document their evaluation, update the plan in case of changes, provide feedback, furnish the resources needed for good performance, and praise or draw attention to particular behaviors [2, 16].

5.3.4Performance appraisal

At this stage, both the supervisor and the employee are responsible for assessing the extent to which the intended behaviors have been demonstrated and the desired results have been achieved. Although many sources of evaluation can be used to collect information (e.g., peers and subordinates), in many cases the direct supervisor provides this information. In sum, the degree to which the objectives were or were not achieved is detailed at this stage of the evaluation [16]. The involvement of the supervisor and the employee in the evaluation enhances the quality of the information that can be used in the review phase. When the employee and the supervisor are active participants in the evaluation process, the information is more likely to be used productively in the future [10, 24].

5.3.5Performance appraisal review

This stage concerns the meeting between the supervisor and the employee at which the evaluations will be reviewed. The evaluation meeting is very important because it provides a formal environment in which the employee receives feedback on her performance. Despite its importance, this moment is often the “Achilles heel” of the whole process [26]. According to Aguinis [26], this is due to the discomfort that supervisors feel in the role of evaluators and in the moment of feedback, especially when performance is deficient. High levels of discomfort often result in anxiety and aversion to the interview. Effectively assigning feedback is extremely important because this leads not only to performance improvement but also to employee satisfaction with the system.

Overall, Grossman and Parkinson (2002, quoted in [26, p. 25]) make six recommendations for conducting effective evaluation interviews:

Let’s see a concrete situation.

5.4.1Methodological approach and procedures in information gathering

In the field of management, the most frequent information-gathering techniques are questionnaires, interviews, documentary collections, and observations. In the case of the documentary collection, we can carry out a survey of the information available in the organization that is considered of interest for the work to be developed. Once this survey is completed, it is possible to deepen one’s knowledge about the organization and improve the methodology to be adopted.

The implementation of a performance appraisal system, based on the resulting information, has, in our practical example, exclusively entailed the use a action research methodology.

Action research can be described as a research methodology based on postpositivist foundations that envisages in action an intention to change and in research a process of understanding.

Action research refers to the generic term that designates any process that seeks to improve practice by the systematic oscillation between action in the context of study and research on it. Thus, a change is planned, implemented, described, and evaluated to improve the practice, gathering knowledge about the practice itself and the research that results from it.

The process of action research alternates cyclically between action and critical reflection, which in a continuous way investigates its methods, in the collection of information and in the interpretation that develops in light of the understanding of the situation in question. It is, therefore, an emerging process that takes shape in a progressive understanding of the problem and that, being iterable, converges to a better understanding of what happens.

In a simplified way, we can affirm that action research is a research methodology oriented toward the improvement of practice in the various fields of action, aiming at the improvement of practices through change and learning from the consequences of these changes and allowing the participation of all those involved.

Thus, to materialize an action research process, it is necessary to diagnose or discover the “problem” to construct a plan of action, to act and observe the effects of the action, and, finally, to reflect on, interpret, and integrate the results obtained.

It is therefore a systematic process of practice-oriented learning, requiring that it be tested and justified on the basis of actual real-world practice, through an argument developed, proven, and scientifically examined.

Action research, owing to the characteristics it brings together and the imprecision of its instruments and limits, can be viewed both as great exigency, rigor, and difficulty, as can be a path of facilities, superficialities, and illusions. Given its characteristics and the imprecision of its instruments and limits, action research can be understood with great exigency, rigor and difficulty, as well as easy, superficial and illusory According to Almeida [4, p. 176], there are great advantages in the practice of this research methodology: “It implies the abandonment of non-reflexive practice, favouring inter professional collaboration and multidisciplinary practice – when not interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary – and undoubtedly promotes the improvement of the interventions in which it is used.”

Since in the action research methodology adopted here researchers not only observe but also participate in the phenomena they study, participation is an objective necessity in action research, where in the evaluation process it can be counted with the collaboration of all participants.

In what follows, we will explore in detail the actions developed and the reflections carried out throughout the implementation process of the performance appraisal system at Company X. Following Aguinis’s proposal [26], we must first investigate the company’s strategy and the functions of the staff that make up its organizational structure. What follows is a description of the performance appraisal planning, performance appraisal per se, and the performance appraisal review.

5.4.2Company X strategy

We now turn to the question that Caetano [7] raises about the effective need for a performance appraisal system in an organization, in this particular case, at Company X.

Over the years, Company X has bet on an increasingly professional and qualified structure to ensure the services and commitments assumed. Given the current context, a labor market that aims to achieve excellence becomes a priority for improving the efficiency of the organization and, consequently, the integration of existing HRM practices. The evolution of the company impels its leaders to strategically think about HRM, considering this step as an important contribution to the achievement of the mission that the organization proposes. The importance of HRM largely stems from the company’s recognition that the competitive advantage of an organization derives from the best possible use of its human resources in order to add value; those resources are unique, difficult to imitate, and irreplaceable.

As Cardoso [31, p. 53] suggests, “The first step in formulating the strategy is the identification of the mission and objectives. The mission involves the definition of what the organization is, what it proposes to do, in what business it operates; the objectives relate to what a person want to achieve through their activities, in certain period(s) and in selected variables.”

Defining the mission and objectives of Company X, and assuming the position of Mahoney and Pandian [32], that different strategies require workers with different skills and that a competitive advantage will be easier to establish when human resources are oriented toward strategy, it will be necessary to study the functions that make up the structure of the company that allows it to determine the tasks, transversal competencies, and specific competencies required for each one.

In the context of the performance appraisal, a function analysis allows for the identification of the duties/ responsibilities assigned to each function that make it possible to determine the standards to be achieved and the specific activities to be developed by workers [16]. Aiming at this objective for each organic unit/ function performed in each of the organic units of the company, a table was prepared that gathers information regarding the following elements:

For example, see Table 5.1 below concerning the case of the Human Resource Technician role:

Functional analysis is considered by many the “dorsal spinal” of HRM [16]. The reason for this analogy is that the analysis of functions is based on practices such as recruitment, selection, and performance appraisal itself. However, it should be noted that the idea that the position has a rigid and fixed a priori functional content is now outdated.

5.4.3Performance appraisal planning

After analyzing and describing all the existing functions in the company, the need arises to develop and plan the performance appraisal system to be implemented.

In the proposed model, all the professional workers who assume functions in the company will be evaluated. It was also agreed that the performance evaluation tools to be used should focus on the results achieved in terms of the objectives outlined and the competencies (transversal and specific).

Tab. 5.1: Description of functions developed in HR Office: Human Resource Technician.

At this level, it should be noted that the following general competencies, common to all employees, have been defined by the company management:

As a central objective of performance appraisal systems, when aligning employees’ activities with the organization’s strategic objectives [7], it is important at this stage to determine the objectives that should be pursued by the company’s employees and to validate the specific competencies that contribute to the success of a given function in light of the defined strategy.

For the definition and validation of the individual objectives of the various professionals in the company we can use “key informants,” that is, people with insider and relevant information to the process in question.

In parallel with the identification of the results to be achieved by company employees, the sources of evaluation that would be in a better position to evaluate the fulfillment of these same objectives were also identified. Given the functional structure and specificity of the organization, it was understood that employee performance should therefore be commented on by multiple sources of evaluation. In general, the evaluatee, the hierarchical superior (managers), suppliers, clients, peers, and some strategic partners of the company will serve as sources of evaluation. The election of each of the evaluators was discussed among the several key informants, and it was concluded that for each objective, we will use an evaluator who interacts with the employee with respect to a given matter in a privileged way. The figure of a “global evaluator” was also established; this is a person who is simultaneously the hierarchical superior (leader) and who compiles all the information obtained from the multiple evaluators, develops and follows the evaluation, and triggers and conducts the performance appraisal interview. Then the “global appraiser” responsible for these tasks is also identified for each employee.

For example, the objectives defined for the HR Technician, the specific and transversal competencies inherent in the function being performed that are critical to success, and the sources of evaluation for each of the objectives outlined will be presented. The particular case presented is extendable to other company employees (see Table 5.2 below).

Owing to the complexity of the 360 degree evaluation, which was chosen in this example, this methodology lacks strong planning and organization to be implemented, so it must be used in a judicious way [15, 33–35]. However, given the nature of the functions performed by the company’s employees, it is of extreme interest for the employee to receive feedback on various dimensions of their performance from different perspectives. This methodology allows respondents to have more rigorous knowledge about the impact of their work on different interlocutors, contributing in a more concrete way to the delineation of the performance improvement plan [7].

A self-evaluation was also included as a source of evaluation. With this procedure, the employee evaluates his or her own performance through self-analysis, identifying strengths and weaknesses, thereby enhancing the perception of impartiality in the evaluation process [15].

For an analysis of the performance by all the sources of evaluation involved in the system, the measurement that focused on results was adopted by means of the objectives established for the period of time that was the object of evaluation and, simultaneously, the measurement that focused on behaviors, namely, the scales of behavioral observation. The scales were designed to measure the level of execution of the defined objectives and the level of performance for each of the competencies required for the function. Since the scales were divided into three components – results, general skills, and specific competencies – it was decided to assign different weights to each of these dimensions in the final classification, as follows: results: 60%; general skills: 20%; specific competencies: 20%. It is also important to clarify that the final evaluations will be obtained using a “global evaluator” as a result of the evaluations of multiple evaluators, and each of the evaluators (e.g., peers, suppliers, clients) will analyze the objective(s) that are directly associated with themselves as well as all the competencies (transversal and specific) of the position that the employee occupies.

Tab. 5.2: Description of competencies and objectives for HR Technician with indication of evaluator(s) for each objective.

In view of all the separate units of the organization and the performance appraisal system presented here, different forms were designed for each employee, each evaluator, and each global evaluator. Recall the previous example. For the function of HR Technician, the following approach was designed:

–1 self-assessment form

–1 form for clients

–1 form for managers

–1 form for entities

–1 form for the quality manager

–1 form for the global evaluator

Each of the forms was duly identified with the “category” of the evaluator to facilitate the compilation of information by the global evaluator. Completion of the forms was anonymous for all evaluators, except the employee and the global evaluator.

Each employee’s own performance analysis (on the self-assessment form) will be included at the time of review of the performance appraisal, which will be discussed in what follows. The following forms are then presented, in the same order, referring to the evaluation of the HR Technician.

Form 1 - Self-assessment form

Framework

The organization mission is: ……………….

a. GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF ORGANIZATION

b. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF ORGANIZATION

1.Parameters of evaluation

1.1.RESULTS

At what level would you put your performance in terms of achieving the objectives set out for you? (Mark with X)

Comments

1.2.COMPETENCIES

Note: The description of each competency and the behaviors associated with it in the attached table (see appendices) refers to the average required performance standard (demonstrated competency).

1.2.1.GENERAL

For each competence, at what level do you think your performance was assessed over the evaluation period? (Mark with X)

Comments

1.2.2.SPECIFICS

For each competence, at what level do you think your performance was assessed over the evaluation period? (Mark with X)

Comments

2.BALANCE

Brief overview of global performance level on:

a. Achievement of objectives

b. Strong points

c. Weaknesses

1.Parameters of evaluation

1.1.RESULTS

At what level do you put the performance of the evaluatee in terms of meeting the objectives set out? (Mark with X)

Comments

1.4.COMPETENCIES

Note: The description of each competency and the behaviors associated with it in the accompanying table (see appendices) refers to the average required performance standard (demonstrated competency).

1.4.1.GENERAL

For each competency at what level do you put the performance of the employee being assessed over the assessment period? (Mark with X)

Comments

1.4.2.SPECIFIC

For each competency, at what level do you put the performance of the employee being assessed over the assessment period? (Mark with X)

Comments

2. Final comment

In ___/___/________

Form 3 - Form for managers

Company X	Employee performance appraisal
	Evaluation form
	(to be completed by manager)

Evaluatee
Organic unit	HR Office
Function	HR Technician

Period in evaluation

From____/____/_____ to ____/____/______

Framework

The organization mission is: ……………

a. GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF ORGANIZATION

b. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF ORGANIZATION

1.Parameters of evaluation

1.1.RESULTS

At what level do you put the performance of the evaluatee in terms of meeting the objectives set out? (Mark with X)

Comments

1.2.COMPETENCIES

Note: The description of each competency and the behaviors associated with it in the attached table (see appendices) refers to the average required performance standard (demonstrated competency).

1.2.1.GENERAL

For each competency, at which level do you consider the performance of the employee over the assessment period? (Mark with X)

Comments

1.2.2.SPECIFIC

For each competency at what level do you put the performance of the employee over the assessment period? (Mark with X)

Comments

2. FINAL COMMENT

In ___/___/________

Form 4 - Form for entities

Company X	EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
	EVALUATION FORM
	(to be completed by organization)

Evaluatee
Organic unit	HR Office
Function	HR Technician

PERIOD IN EVALUATION

From____/____/_____ to ____/____/______

FRAMEWORK

The organization mission is: …………

a. GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF ORGANIZATION

b. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF ORGANIZATION

1.PARAMETERS OF EVALUATION

1.1.RESULTS

At what level do you put the performance of the employee in terms of meeting the objectives set out? (Mark with X)

Comments

1.2.COMPETENCIES

Note: The description of each competency and the behaviors associated with it in the attached table (see appendices) refers to the average required performance standard (demonstrated competency).

1.2.1.GENERAL

For each competency at what level do you put the performance of the employee over the assessment period? (Mark with X)

Comments

1.2.2.SPECIFIC

For each competence at what level do you put the employee performance over the evaluation period? (Mark with X)

Comments

2. Final Comment

In ___/___/________

Form 5 - Form for Quality Manager

Company X	EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
	EVALUATION FORM
	(to be completed by quality manager)

Evaluatee
Organic unit	HR Office
Function	HR Technician

PERIOD IN EVALUATION

From____/____/_____ to ____/____/______

FRAMEWORK

The organization mission is: ……..

a. GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF ORGANIZATION

b. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF ORGANIZATION

1.PARAMETERS OF EVALUATION

1.1.RESULTS

At what level do you put the performance of the employee in terms of meeting the objectives set out? (Mark with X)

Comments

1.2.COMPETENCIES

Note: The description of each competency and the behaviors associated with it in the attached table (see appendices) refers to the average required performance standard (demonstrated competency).

1.2.1.GENERAL

For each competency at what level do you put the performance of the employee over the assessment period? (Mark with X)

Comments

1.2.2.SPECIFIC

For each competence at what level do you put the employee performance over the evaluation period? (Mark with X)

Comments

2. FINAL COMMENT

In ___/___/________

Form 6 - Form for global evaluator/appraiser

Company X	Employee performance appraisal
	Evaluation form
	(to be completed by global appraiser)

Evaluatee
Organic unit	HR Office
Function	HR Technician

Appraiser
Organic unit	President
Function	Treasurer

PERIOD IN EVALUATION

From____/____/_____ to ____/____/______

FRAMEWORK

The organization mission is: ……….

a. GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF ORGANIZATION

b. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF ORGANIZATION

1.Parameters of evaluation

1.1.RESULTS

At what level do you put the performance of the employee in terms of meeting the objectives set out? (Mark with X)

Comments

1.2.COMPETENCIES

Note: The description of each competency and the behaviors associated with it in the attached table (see appendices) refers to the average required performance standard (demonstrated competency).

1.2.1.General

For each competency at what level do you put the performance of the employee over the assessment period? (Mark with X)

Comments

1.2.2.Specific

For each competence, at what level do you put the employee performance over the evaluation period? (Mark with X)

Comments

6.Global performance assessment

TOTAL SCORE	QUALITATIVE SCALE	FINAL (MARK CLASSIFICATION WITH X)
Between 1 and 1.4	INSUFFICIENT
1.5 to 2.4	NEEDS DEVELOPMENT
2.5 to 3.4	GOOD
3.5 to 4.4	VERY GOOD
4.5 to 5	EXCELLENT

5.4.4Review of performance evaluation

The interview between the global evaluator and the employee is designed to guarantee a space that privileges a frank and open discussion between both about the performance of the evaluatee in the observation period and enable them to discuss together the evaluatee’s limitations and potential for professional growth.

The result of the discussion obtained in the interview is documented in the global evaluator’s form, which is subsequently signed by both parties.

5.4.5Conceptualization of a company’s performance appraisal system

Performance management is a fundamental tool in promoting a culture of merit, in the development of employees, and in improving the quality of services provided to the community. From the demanding design of a company’s performance appraisal system, especially with regard to its conceptualization, and based on the pilot study developed, the following conclusions may be drawn.

5.4.5.1Goals

Develop a results-oriented and continuous-improvement management culture, assuming clear objectives aligned with the organization’s strategy. In this sense, the performance appraisal system should essentially facilitate the following aspects of a company:

5.4.5.2Tools

Measuring performance is one of the most sensitive issues in a performance appraisal system. Regardless of the method adopted, criteria and measures should be able to discriminate between high performances and low and medium performances. According to the model proposed in this practical case, the approaches adopted are based on behaviors and results.

The designed performance appraisal forms, which directly support the evaluation of the performance of the company’s employees and are the vehicle for reaching the objectives outlined, are made up of dimensions that describe behaviors. Specifically, the forms presented suggest the evaluation of the general and specific competences of all professional company employees, supported by a list of skills descriptions attached to all distributed forms. For each of the competencies indicated on the forms, the description appearing in the accompanying list must correspond to score level 3 (“demonstrated competency”). When the employee or the evaluator understands that the behavior has gone beyond the description presented, then a score of 5 (“demonstrated competence at a higher level”) should be highlighted, or, if the opposite is true, the score of 1 (“skills not shown”) is highlighted. Thus, to each competence corresponds a horizontal scale that describes the various levels of performance.

The same format was adopted for the evaluation of results, taking into account the objectives previously defined. In each form, for each goal outlined, a horizontal scale was also made that makes it possible to underscore the performance achieved, namely: score 5 – “objective exceeded”; score 3 – “goal achieved”; score 1 – “objective not achieved”.

The global evaluators should, on their form, underscore each of the assessment parameters (results and specific and general competencies) by determining the arithmetic mean of the scores obtained in the various identified objectives/ competencies. At the end of the form, the evaluations of each parameter will be requested, and, in light of the weights assigned to each one, the evaluator obtains the overall and final scores of the evaluatee’s performance. Assuming this result, the evaluator should also position the final evaluation of the employee on a qualitative scale duly constructed for this purpose.

5.4.5.3Procedures

Regarding the procedures that govern the application of the performance appraisal, it is important to highlight three vectors: the evaluators, the training of employees (evaluated) and evaluators, and the evaluation interview. Given the particularities of the company, it is proposed to use multiple evaluators (each one will evaluate the aspects that it observes the best), that is, a diversity of actors that affect and are affected by the performance of the collaborator in the organization. Specifically, from the 360 degree evaluation we propose here, the evaluators are as follows:

The rationale for this method of evaluation is that it is possible for evaluatees (employees) to receive feedback on the various dimensions of their performance based on different perspectives, which may enhance their behavioral change in a more remarkable way.

With regard to the training of evaluatees (employees) and evaluators, meetings are held for both stakeholders, particularly aimed at:

Regarding the evaluation and planning interviews of the next performance appraisal period, the global evaluators (who are responsible for carrying out this stage of the process) first prepare the interview, focusing on the most relevant aspects of performance and considering carefully and attentively multiple evaluations, resulting from multiple evaluators’ perspectives. At the time of the evaluation interview, the following agenda is followed:

True/false statements

See answers at end of chapter.