Judgmental and Mechanical Performance Appraisal Methods
Performance appraisal is a process of measuring, evaluating and documenting employee’s productivity and adherence to company goals and standards. Several methods of PA are available. Aguinis (2013) outlines two methods – judgmental and mechanical (p.140). The first one requires all aspects of the employee’s work to be considered and evaluated, usually by a designated person, called a rate. Such method presumably introduces the possibility of bias to the judgment, including leniency errors (the person’s tendency to underestimate others when compared to self) and errors resulting from the halo effect (the tendency to evaluate overall performance based on exceptional characteristics in a specific field) (Muchinsky, 2009). Other reasons for biased result include the raster’s reluctance to induce a negative reaction from a rate and compliance with company’s requirements for the volume of positive ratings. The quality of the evaluation may be avoided by rate’s training. However, such training is usually expensive and time-consuming (Sudarsan, 2009, p. 60).
Aunis points out the superiority of mechanical evaluation in this regard. For mechanical evaluation, weight is assigned to each aspect of employee’s performance according to company’s priorities and the relative importance of each performance dimension (Aquinas, 2013, p. 142). After this, each aspect is assigned a certain number of points. Points are assigned according to a set of rigid directives, which minimizes the possibility of biased evaluation. These directives should offer the clearest definitions possible and exclude all possible misinterpretations. Mechanical evaluation thus presents a more cost-effective solution, allows standardization, minimizes the required training, and makes the results effortlessly adaptable to various presentation formats, like Graphic Rating Scales. It should be noted, however, that the rigidity of the system may hamper the evaluation when certain subjective factors are present, not accounted for in the guidelines. Nevertheless, the mechanical method is preferable.
Examples of Activities Corresponding to the Balanced Scorecard Components
A Balanced Scorecard, or BSC, is a strategy performance management tool used for monitoring the performance of all or part of an organization, towards strategic or operational goals (2GC Active Management, 2014). Some specialists indicate the tendency of incorporating it into their compensation systems instead of financially-based performance measurement (Ittner, Larcker, & Meyer, 1997). The BSC is not universally standardized, but is most often seen as featuring four main components: the financial perspective (considerations of sustainability in funding and budgeting), the internal process perspective (the specifics of organization’s functioning and evaluation of its effectiveness), the learning and growth perspective (considerations of further improvement, adaptation and innovation), and the customer perspective (strategies and activities aimed at satisfying customers) (Kaplan & Norton, 2005).
These components and activities related to them may vary depending on the company’s profile and strategies. I will provide the examples of such activities based on my knowledge of the company I actively cooperate with. They include: timely measures of return on investment to evaluate its efficiency, and return on capital employed to make sure the company is generating shareholder value (financial); assessing and possibly reducing the number of activities for each function; identifying “process bottlenecks” and subsequently adjusting the processes (internal business processes); monitoring the level of expertise and job satisfaction of the employees and providing them with training and learning opportunities (learning and growth); using monitoring tools to assess if the customers are satisfied with the provided services and how the issues can be addressed, and measuring the fulfillment of customers’ demands to the wish dates, known as delivery performance (customer perspective).
References
2GC Active Management (2014). Web.
Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management. Boston: Pearson.
Ittner, C., Larcker, D. F., & Meyer, M. (1997). Performance, compensation, and the Balanced Scorecard. Web.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2005). The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard business review, 83(7), 77–80.
Muchinsky, P. (2009). Psychology applied to work. Summerfield, NC: Hypergraphic Press.
Sudarsan, A. (2009). Performance appraisal systems: A survey of organizational views. The Icfai University Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 54-69.