Answers to tricky HR questions: Grading performance
November 20, 2008 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Answers to tricky HR questions, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Management, Performance appraisals, policies
Our team of experts fields real-life everyday questions from HR managers and gives practical answers that can be applied by any HR pro in the same situation. Today’s question: What’s the better way to grade performance — on a numerical scale or the common “meets expectations” method?
Question:
Our performance-appraisal system is based on “doesn’t meet,” ”meets” or “exceeds” expectations criteria. We’re thinking of switching to a 1-10 scale that supervisors can use to rate employees.
Any thoughts on whether one system is better than the other?
Answer:
From the standpoint of being able to legally defend an appraisal, the doesn’t meet/meets/exceeds system is generally better. So says James Loots, a labor-relations attorney. But of course you have to have specific criteria on which to base the rating, meaning you have to define what productivity or quality criteria are used for each term.
The problem with a 1-10 scale is that one supervisor may give an employee a “5,” for instance, and another a “6″ but be unable to explain why or may be using shades of difference that depend on “feel” rather than measurable markers.
In that case, you could have a legal problem if the person with the lower score is a minority or pregnant or falls into some other bias-prone category.
Tags: appraisal, minority, performance, Supervisors
November 24th, 2008 at 10:18 am
The meets, exceeds, ratings are not clear enough for me. No matter what grading numbers you have, 1-5, 1-10, the majority of people will be middle of the road. I find the meets, exceeds, rating lacking. When you read each rating, they are the same except one or two words change. I like the following rating definitions. They are clearer and distinct. I would much rather be known as an effective performer than one that just meets expectations. My thoughts, Al ;>)
Unsatisfactory: Performance is inadequate and below minimum acceptable standards and expectations. Performance is causing problems or hardships for the department and/or co-workers and is having a negative impact on departmental effectiveness and/or productivity. This level of performance cannot be condoned or allowed to continue. This rating must be preceded by a Probationary Action Plan at least 30 days prior to review with a covered employee. This rating requires prior approval from management.
Marginal: Performance meets the minimum standards and expectations in some areas but not others. Improvement is needed and expected. Performance at this level may cause the department and/or co-workers some problems or tends to diminish the department’s effectiveness and/or productivity. Performance at this level is characterized as “needing improvement.” A Probationary Action Plan should be given simultaneously with this rating. Probationary employees are not eligible for a Marginal rating.
Effective: Performance fully meets standards and expectations and employee is performing in a fully acceptable manner. The employee performing at this level is considered a stable and skilled performer by co-workers and immediate supervision. Performance occasionally may be higher or lower – but averages to the Effective level.
Commendable: Performance is ABOVE standards and expectations. Performance at this level would generally be recognized by peers and immediate supervision. Performance is characterized by notable skill, initiative and superior job knowledge.
Outstanding: Performance is SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE standards and expectations. Performance at this level would generally be widely recognized by peers, immediate supervision, higher level management or others. This individual suggests and initiates improvements/changes and through his/her own performance has materially enhanced effectiveness of the department or work area. Performance is generally not equaled by others (current and/or former employees in the same or similar position). This rating requires prior approval from management.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Thanks Al – these are great.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
You really need both. The numbers should tie into the verbal. When designing the performance review it is very important that you establish questions that will explain the different performace. It is also very important that you have examples of the behaviors that are acceptable. You alo need to include a perfromace plan for improvement in the review. If they currently do not have the skills how they are going to get it. The real question you have to ask yourself is why are we doing performance reviews? I look at them as a tool to develop the skills of the workforce and engage them. Most of the performance reviews I see are a justification for wanting to pay someone more money or discipline. These reviews usually are not rich in content and are going to be tough to defend. By trying to improve performance and having situations including dates in the review it is easier to get employee buy in and improvement.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
We use the Exceeds expectations, Meets expectations, & Does not meet expectations but I’m thinking of changing them to Al’s suggestions. Thank you for sharing that information!
January 1st, 2009 at 2:56 am
What rights do an employee have if s/he received an performance review 8 months after the period being reviewed. And if the review it not a positive one. Can you ask the company/manager to rewrite for the correct period?