Performance Reviews: Avoiding Bias, Subjectivity, and Unfairness
30 March 2011
Read by 2196 persons
The mistake is often to evaluate an employee instead of their work. For it to be effective, an evaluation system must evolve. A relevant system is one whose criteria are accepted by all.
As at the beginning of each year, companies with a well-defined compensation strategy review the compensation terms of their employees in order to increase motivation or to rouse underperformers. To do this, they go through the evaluation stage, without which any decision to reward or sanction can be considered arbitrary. This search for equity is far from easy because the approach must be understood by everyone, evaluator - often the hierarchy - and the evaluated, that is to say, the employee. The problem is, companies implement a method without taking into account the internal context. This means that evaluators find themselves confined to a framework, hence mechanical scores that cause some incomprehension, whereas evaluation is not just a balance of objectives/achievements; it helps to identify problems, both on the part of the employees and from the management's point of view, to establish a development plan. In short, for a relevant and effective system, it is important that the criteria are understood and shared by all and that the evaluators are well trained for the task. This last point is necessary, if not essential, and goes against the assumption that a manager always knows how to evaluate their teams.
However, the training of evaluators should not be limited to tools; they must understand the real objectives of the process. "Today, there are many seminars on performance evaluation tools. However, the question remains focused on the purpose of these tools, and they are often taken as an end in themselves rather than as tools for implementing a human resources policy, for achieving a company culture or a management approach," warns Asmaa Charraf, HR manager at IB Maroc.
Other specialists in the field point out that the annual review is doomed to failure when it is seen as an administrative constraint. A recurring attitude. It also fails when it is postponed several times. Another common cause: poor quality dialogue between the manager and their employee. Discussing personal matters, avoiding disagreements, focusing on value judgments or prejudices, means these evaluations do not take place under good conditions.
Another subject of discord is scoring. Most of the time, it is done on a subjective scale: three, four or five-level evaluation grids including a series of multiple-choice questions ("Do you consider your autonomy to be very satisfactory, satisfactory, average, insufficient?") or open-ended questionnaires asking the employee to describe how they conducted their projects or how they see their professional development. Other forms focus on technical considerations, others focus on elements that are difficult to measure: transparency, loyalty, initiative, adaptability...
These tools, based on scale or scoring systems, are still used in some public and even private institutions. The fact is that they no longer meet the current requirements of companies. Very often, we forget that we are evaluating a person's work, not the person themselves. To avoid misunderstandings, some companies do not limit themselves to evaluating junior staff or middle management. They have adopted the 360° approach, which allows managers and other senior executives to be evaluated by their subordinates. They then compare the results with their own evaluation and, by analyzing the discrepancies, learn from them to establish a development plan.
In all approaches, the goal is to reach a consensus. However, the negative effects can be numerous. "We evaluate better because we don't want conflict, we want to please," explains an HR director. However, overly generous or complacent evaluations can be very costly, especially in terms of management credibility and internal equity, and therefore motivation.
An evaluation system depends on two points: a clear and precise formulation of objectives and an action plan
So how can an evaluation system be made more relevant? Asmaa Charraf says: "Every year, we organize focus groups with the participation of employees and we study all the sections of the grids. For a tool to work and be credible with employees, it needs the support of all staff. Some sections can be created, others reformulated, and others can be removed. The important thing is that the tool is evolving and adapted to the company's context. The philosophy of the annual review presupposes a dynamic and a principle of evolution."
Fouad Najeddine, HR director of Centrelec, confirms that "the relevance of an evaluation system depends on two factors: the clear and precise formulation of objectives and the action plan. When the rules of the game are clarified from the outset, you already know what to expect. An evaluation system must be dynamic." In short, it is not so much the method used that matters as its acceptance by all those concerned.
Published on March 30, 2011
Posted online on March 30, 2011
Lavieeco.com
As at the beginning of each year, companies with a well-defined compensation strategy review the compensation terms of their employees in order to increase motivation or to rouse underperformers. To do this, they go through the evaluation stage, without which any decision to reward or sanction can be considered arbitrary. This search for equity is far from easy because the approach must be understood by everyone, evaluator - often the hierarchy - and the evaluated, that is to say, the employee. The problem is, companies implement a method without taking into account the internal context. This means that evaluators find themselves confined to a framework, hence mechanical scores that cause some incomprehension, whereas evaluation is not just a balance of objectives/achievements; it helps to identify problems, both on the part of the employees and from the management's point of view, to establish a development plan. In short, for a relevant and effective system, it is important that the criteria are understood and shared by all and that the evaluators are well trained for the task. This last point is necessary, if not essential, and goes against the assumption that a manager always knows how to evaluate their teams.
However, the training of evaluators should not be limited to tools; they must understand the real objectives of the process. "Today, there are many seminars on performance evaluation tools. However, the question remains focused on the purpose of these tools, and they are often taken as an end in themselves rather than as tools for implementing a human resources policy, for achieving a company culture or a management approach," warns Asmaa Charraf, HR manager at IB Maroc.
Other specialists in the field point out that the annual review is doomed to failure when it is seen as an administrative constraint. A recurring attitude. It also fails when it is postponed several times. Another common cause: poor quality dialogue between the manager and their employee. Discussing personal matters, avoiding disagreements, focusing on value judgments or prejudices, means these evaluations do not take place under good conditions.
Another subject of discord is scoring. Most of the time, it is done on a subjective scale: three, four or five-level evaluation grids including a series of multiple-choice questions ("Do you consider your autonomy to be very satisfactory, satisfactory, average, insufficient?") or open-ended questionnaires asking the employee to describe how they conducted their projects or how they see their professional development. Other forms focus on technical considerations, others focus on elements that are difficult to measure: transparency, loyalty, initiative, adaptability...
These tools, based on scale or scoring systems, are still used in some public and even private institutions. The fact is that they no longer meet the current requirements of companies. Very often, we forget that we are evaluating a person's work, not the person themselves. To avoid misunderstandings, some companies do not limit themselves to evaluating junior staff or middle management. They have adopted the 360° approach, which allows managers and other senior executives to be evaluated by their subordinates. They then compare the results with their own evaluation and, by analyzing the discrepancies, learn from them to establish a development plan.
In all approaches, the goal is to reach a consensus. However, the negative effects can be numerous. "We evaluate better because we don't want conflict, we want to please," explains an HR director. However, overly generous or complacent evaluations can be very costly, especially in terms of management credibility and internal equity, and therefore motivation.
An evaluation system depends on two points: a clear and precise formulation of objectives and an action plan
So how can an evaluation system be made more relevant? Asmaa Charraf says: "Every year, we organize focus groups with the participation of employees and we study all the sections of the grids. For a tool to work and be credible with employees, it needs the support of all staff. Some sections can be created, others reformulated, and others can be removed. The important thing is that the tool is evolving and adapted to the company's context. The philosophy of the annual review presupposes a dynamic and a principle of evolution."
Fouad Najeddine, HR director of Centrelec, confirms that "the relevance of an evaluation system depends on two factors: the clear and precise formulation of objectives and the action plan. When the rules of the game are clarified from the outset, you already know what to expect. An evaluation system must be dynamic." In short, it is not so much the method used that matters as its acceptance by all those concerned.
Published on March 30, 2011
Posted online on March 30, 2011
Lavieeco.com
