Performance Appraisal and Feedback

Step 1. Determination of the Metrics

Step 1 requires determination of the metrics or criteria on which a person will be evaluated. An axiom in psychology is “that which gets measured gets done.” If people are unsure of what is expected of them, they are unlikely to meet those expectations. Performance criteria, the metrics that influence administrative decisions, may include bottom-line cost-related outcomes such as revenue generated, costs reduced, or voluntary employee turnover within one's team. The advantage of bottom-line measures is the relevance to the organization as well as their interobserver reliability; that is, two or more appraisers are highly likely to make the same appraisal, independently, regarding an employee's performance when bottom-line measures are used. The disadvantages of these measures are fivefold. First, they are often excessive in that they are affected by situational factors beyond a person's control (e.g., the economy). Second, they are usually deficient in that they do not take into account factors for which a person should be held accountable (e.g., team playing skills). Third, they can encourage a “results at all costs” mind-set, which in turn can lead to ethical, if not legal, issues. Fourth, outcome measures may be available for a team, but often they are nonexistent for assessing an individual's performance. Fifth, even when such measures do exist, they only yield information on the “score” and do not provide information on what an employee should start doing, stop doing, or be doing differently. Information on the latter is critical for coaching others as well as oneself for inculcating a desire for continuous improvement.

A second performance criterion that can be used for making performance appraisals is an assessment of a person's traits such as creativity and initiative. The advantage of trait measures is that they are usually applicable to all employees in all jobs. Both the CEO and the hourly employee must be “conscientious.” A downside of using traits as a performance criterion is that they are ill defined. Consequently, they invite acrimony between the person who receives the appraisal and the person who conducts it. Moreover, the likelihood that two or more appraisers will make the same appraisal decision independently is low. Hence the courts too take a dim view of trait appraisals. The solution is to define these traits behaviorally. This is accomplished through a job analysis.

To attain an organization's goals requires a strategy. To implement the strategy requires employee knowledge of the behaviors necessary to implement the strategy. This is accomplished through a job analysis. A metaphor for a job analysis is a “recipe” for success. The job analysis specifies in writing what the person must do (behaviors) to implement the strategy effectively. People who are aware of the aims and objectives of a job (e.g., program coordinator), who frequently observe incumbents performing the job, and who can discern competent from incompetent behavior are asked to identify behaviors that are critical to the implementation of the organization's strategy. Behavioral observation scales (BOS) and behavioral expectation scales are both based on a job analysis called the critical incident technique. Studies have shown that how one is appraised on BOS correlates significantly with bottom-line measures. Moreover, BOS have been shown to be content valid in that they contain a representative sample of the behaviors critical for an employee to demonstrate on the job in order to be seen as effective. Finally, these behavioral criteria facilitate performance feedback, identification of training needs, and the setting of specific high goals. In short, behavioral criteria developed from a job analysis ensure that people are coaching others as well as themselves on “the right things.”

...