Dear HR Fraternity,
I would like to discuss about the Performance Evaluation System.
We have some Attributes to measure like Job Knowlegde, Communication Skill, Initiative etc.
How can one measure their employees Job knowledge. Employee says I have very good job knowledge while employer says no you don't have. So how truly can we really measure Job Knowledge.
Communication skill- How it can be measured we can't really let the people sit and take a test for communication skill.
Initiative - Well again how can it be measured for anybody.
Can't be there particular tools or any way to measure these attributes.
Waiting for your Reply.
Sonia
From China, Shenzhen
I would like to discuss about the Performance Evaluation System.
We have some Attributes to measure like Job Knowlegde, Communication Skill, Initiative etc.
How can one measure their employees Job knowledge. Employee says I have very good job knowledge while employer says no you don't have. So how truly can we really measure Job Knowledge.
Communication skill- How it can be measured we can't really let the people sit and take a test for communication skill.
Initiative - Well again how can it be measured for anybody.
Can't be there particular tools or any way to measure these attributes.
Waiting for your Reply.
Sonia
From China, Shenzhen
Sonia,
Very interesting query. These are factors generally measured by observation and judgement. Hence chances of non-convergence of views are possible
In such cases, though its difficult to quantify such factors directly its possible to anchor the behaviour. I.e, create a defnition through a consultative process about the meaning of job knowledge , expressed in terms of observable factors. In short , anchor the scales properly.
Research has shown that rater training will minimise probles of judgemet (between rater differences) to a large extend.
Thanks.
Biju Varkkey
IIM A
Tel: 079 26324874.
From India, Ahmedabad
4Very interesting query. These are factors generally measured by observation and judgement. Hence chances of non-convergence of views are possible
In such cases, though its difficult to quantify such factors directly its possible to anchor the behaviour. I.e, create a defnition through a consultative process about the meaning of job knowledge , expressed in terms of observable factors. In short , anchor the scales properly.
Research has shown that rater training will minimise probles of judgemet (between rater differences) to a large extend.
Thanks.
Biju Varkkey
IIM A
Tel: 079 26324874.
From India, Ahmedabad
Hi!
I look at the attempt to measure competencies or skills thru Performance Evaluation as something extra-ordinary. To me, Performance Evaluation is essentially "the review and evaluation of performance and outputs" versus the planned targets and outcomes."
Communication Skills and other competencies must be measured either in Job Evaluation or in Competency Profiling.
In JE, its purpuse must be towards the creation of a profile that will lead to a more objective rationalization of a job's Job Grade or Job Class within the compensation hierarchy.
In CP, the intent should be more towards the creation of a standard job profile where individual qualifications can be matched against, usually helpful in recruitment activitities.
Best wishes.
Ed Llarena, Jr.
Managing Partner
Emilla Consulting
From Philippines, Parañaque
I look at the attempt to measure competencies or skills thru Performance Evaluation as something extra-ordinary. To me, Performance Evaluation is essentially "the review and evaluation of performance and outputs" versus the planned targets and outcomes."
Communication Skills and other competencies must be measured either in Job Evaluation or in Competency Profiling.
In JE, its purpuse must be towards the creation of a profile that will lead to a more objective rationalization of a job's Job Grade or Job Class within the compensation hierarchy.
In CP, the intent should be more towards the creation of a standard job profile where individual qualifications can be matched against, usually helpful in recruitment activitities.
Best wishes.
Ed Llarena, Jr.
Managing Partner
Emilla Consulting
From Philippines, Parañaque
Hello HR Leaders
Regards.
we learnt about performance apprisal and performance evalutaion, but theoretically. specific format of those may found in organigation carrying out those job.
So ! can any1 tell specifically on " performance evaluation system?"
u r cordially request to provide me with that.
Thanks.
Saif
From Bangladesh
Regards.
we learnt about performance apprisal and performance evalutaion, but theoretically. specific format of those may found in organigation carrying out those job.
So ! can any1 tell specifically on " performance evaluation system?"
u r cordially request to provide me with that.
Thanks.
Saif
From Bangladesh
Sonia, you have hit on a major reason that performance appraisals are so hated, by managers and employees alike. In many cases, the attributes are not “measured”, but reliant on the manager’s subjective judgment at the time of the appraisal.
Other posters have come up with some important points and suggestions, e.g., creating behavioral anchors and agreeing the meaning of the attributes beforehand.
Another poster mentioned relying on the measurement of “outputs” instead of attributes. These are all good suggestions. Another suggestion is to get appraisers and appraisees to take notes during the year on how the employee satisfies and did not satisfy a particular wanted attribute. Notes would be compared at appraisal time and discrepancies discussed.
Another key point is that managers and employees need to meet regularly (e.g. weekly/monthly) to discuss performance and give/receive feedback. Any potential misunderstandings are then quickly cleared up before they get major. Also, if you do decide to keep attribute ratings, I would strongly suggest that you couple this with the setting of goals at the beginning of the appraisal period and the measurement of their attainment.
Vicki Heath
Human Resources Software and Resources
http://www.businessperform.com
From Australia, Melbourne
Other posters have come up with some important points and suggestions, e.g., creating behavioral anchors and agreeing the meaning of the attributes beforehand.
Another poster mentioned relying on the measurement of “outputs” instead of attributes. These are all good suggestions. Another suggestion is to get appraisers and appraisees to take notes during the year on how the employee satisfies and did not satisfy a particular wanted attribute. Notes would be compared at appraisal time and discrepancies discussed.
Another key point is that managers and employees need to meet regularly (e.g. weekly/monthly) to discuss performance and give/receive feedback. Any potential misunderstandings are then quickly cleared up before they get major. Also, if you do decide to keep attribute ratings, I would strongly suggest that you couple this with the setting of goals at the beginning of the appraisal period and the measurement of their attainment.
Vicki Heath
Human Resources Software and Resources
http://www.businessperform.com
From Australia, Melbourne
Hello Friends,
To me, performance evaluation should only focus on the output required by the organization versus what was actually achieved by the employee. The job description and standard operating procedures can serve as guidelines for evaluating performance. Other subjective observations may have a negative impact as different individuals may have varying opinions. It is best to rely on tangible variables for measurement.
Thank you
From Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur
To me, performance evaluation should only focus on the output required by the organization versus what was actually achieved by the employee. The job description and standard operating procedures can serve as guidelines for evaluating performance. Other subjective observations may have a negative impact as different individuals may have varying opinions. It is best to rely on tangible variables for measurement.
Thank you
From Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur
Dear Sonia,
As mentioned by Biju, you can incorporate Behavior Anchored Ratings (BARs) into your Performance Evaluation to achieve a holistic approach to the program – evaluating performance on both hard goals (planned targets and outcomes) and soft goals (how the company needs you to behave as an employee, conducting its business).
Taking your example of Communication, below is how a BAR descriptor for communication may look (customized to your own context):
COMMUNICATION
Listening to others and communicating in an effective manner that fosters open communication.
Level 1: Listens & clearly presents information
• Makes self available and clearly encourages others to initiate communication.
• Listens actively and objectively without interrupting.
• Checks own understanding of others’ communication (e.g., repeats or paraphrases, asks additional questions).
• Presents appropriate information clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.
Level 2: Fosters two-way communication
• Elicits comments or feedback on what has been said.
• Maintains continuous open and consistent communication with others.
• Openly and constructively discusses diverse perspectives that could lead to misunderstandings.
• Communicates decisions or recommendations that could be perceived negatively, with sensitivity and tact.
• Supports messages with relevant data, information, examples, and demonstrations.
Level 3: Adapts communication to others
• Adapts content, style, tone, and medium of communication to suit the target audience’s language, cultural background, and level of understanding.
• Takes others’ perspectives into account when communicating, negotiating, or presenting arguments (e.g., presents benefits from all perspectives).
• Responds to and discusses issues/questions in an understandable manner without being defensive and while maintaining the dignity of others.
• Anticipates reactions to messages and adapts communications accordingly.
Level 4: Communicates complex messages
• Handles complex on-the-spot questions (e.g., from senior public officials, special interest groups, or the media).
• Communicates complex issues clearly and credibly with widely varied audiences.
• Uses varied communication systems, methodologies, and strategies to promote dialogue and shared understanding.
• Delivers difficult or unpopular messages with clarity, tact, and diplomacy.
Level 5: Communicates strategically
• Communicates strategically to achieve specific objectives (e.g., considering aspects such as the optimal message to present, timing, and forum of communication).
• Identifies and interprets departmental policies and procedures for superiors, subordinates, and peers.
• Acknowledges success and the need for improvement.
Step 1:
The steps to set soft goals are the same as setting hard goals and take place at the same time – during the goal-setting phase of performance evaluation. Both stakeholders need to assess and agree on the current level of the jobholder for communication by reviewing the descriptors in the BARs dictionary and coming to an agreement. To achieve this agreement, specific observed examples (preferably documented) over the last 6 to 12 months may need to be produced by both stakeholders to support and achieve an agreement.
Step 2:
Once the current level is established, the manager must then clearly explain his improvement expectations to the staff for the next 6 to 12 months. The manager is expected to mentor, coach, or send the staff for training to close this gap. The staff is expected to demonstrate this new level of competency at work.
Step 3:
Regular reviews throughout the year are necessary to ensure that the staff is on target. Remember, when the staff fails to achieve, it is because the manager has not provided the necessary platform or tools for success.
Step 4:
During the performance evaluation, both stakeholders will come together again to determine whether the set level has been achieved or not and rate accordingly.
The whole cycle repeats annually (as performance evaluation is usually once a year in most companies) with staff progressing from level 1 through to level 5. Imagine if all staff were to go through this whole improvement process for all the identified attributes – the outcome would be performance improvements on a company-wide basis. This is what we call a Performance Management System.
Hope the above information is useful.
Regards,
Autumn Jane
From Singapore, Singapore
As mentioned by Biju, you can incorporate Behavior Anchored Ratings (BARs) into your Performance Evaluation to achieve a holistic approach to the program – evaluating performance on both hard goals (planned targets and outcomes) and soft goals (how the company needs you to behave as an employee, conducting its business).
Taking your example of Communication, below is how a BAR descriptor for communication may look (customized to your own context):
COMMUNICATION
Listening to others and communicating in an effective manner that fosters open communication.
Level 1: Listens & clearly presents information
• Makes self available and clearly encourages others to initiate communication.
• Listens actively and objectively without interrupting.
• Checks own understanding of others’ communication (e.g., repeats or paraphrases, asks additional questions).
• Presents appropriate information clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.
Level 2: Fosters two-way communication
• Elicits comments or feedback on what has been said.
• Maintains continuous open and consistent communication with others.
• Openly and constructively discusses diverse perspectives that could lead to misunderstandings.
• Communicates decisions or recommendations that could be perceived negatively, with sensitivity and tact.
• Supports messages with relevant data, information, examples, and demonstrations.
Level 3: Adapts communication to others
• Adapts content, style, tone, and medium of communication to suit the target audience’s language, cultural background, and level of understanding.
• Takes others’ perspectives into account when communicating, negotiating, or presenting arguments (e.g., presents benefits from all perspectives).
• Responds to and discusses issues/questions in an understandable manner without being defensive and while maintaining the dignity of others.
• Anticipates reactions to messages and adapts communications accordingly.
Level 4: Communicates complex messages
• Handles complex on-the-spot questions (e.g., from senior public officials, special interest groups, or the media).
• Communicates complex issues clearly and credibly with widely varied audiences.
• Uses varied communication systems, methodologies, and strategies to promote dialogue and shared understanding.
• Delivers difficult or unpopular messages with clarity, tact, and diplomacy.
Level 5: Communicates strategically
• Communicates strategically to achieve specific objectives (e.g., considering aspects such as the optimal message to present, timing, and forum of communication).
• Identifies and interprets departmental policies and procedures for superiors, subordinates, and peers.
• Acknowledges success and the need for improvement.
Step 1:
The steps to set soft goals are the same as setting hard goals and take place at the same time – during the goal-setting phase of performance evaluation. Both stakeholders need to assess and agree on the current level of the jobholder for communication by reviewing the descriptors in the BARs dictionary and coming to an agreement. To achieve this agreement, specific observed examples (preferably documented) over the last 6 to 12 months may need to be produced by both stakeholders to support and achieve an agreement.
Step 2:
Once the current level is established, the manager must then clearly explain his improvement expectations to the staff for the next 6 to 12 months. The manager is expected to mentor, coach, or send the staff for training to close this gap. The staff is expected to demonstrate this new level of competency at work.
Step 3:
Regular reviews throughout the year are necessary to ensure that the staff is on target. Remember, when the staff fails to achieve, it is because the manager has not provided the necessary platform or tools for success.
Step 4:
During the performance evaluation, both stakeholders will come together again to determine whether the set level has been achieved or not and rate accordingly.
The whole cycle repeats annually (as performance evaluation is usually once a year in most companies) with staff progressing from level 1 through to level 5. Imagine if all staff were to go through this whole improvement process for all the identified attributes – the outcome would be performance improvements on a company-wide basis. This is what we call a Performance Management System.
Hope the above information is useful.
Regards,
Autumn Jane
From Singapore, Singapore
Dear Colleagues,
You have raised a very interesting query about communication skills, job knowledge, and initiative as competencies. I have come across an article that introduces a well-known method for evaluating competence, known as the Gap Analysis method. This method allows for the use of both negative and positive indicators to assess competencies. By utilizing this approach, you can critically evaluate the level of your employees' competencies and identify where the gaps exist. This analysis can help you determine the appropriate training methods to close these gaps.
For example:
Communication
Description: Capacity to adjust behavior, language (written/spoken) as appropriate to the needs of different situations. Actively and clearly engages patients and colleagues in equal and open dialogue.
Positive Indicators:
- Establishes relationships of equal respect with others.
- Adjusts style of questioning/response as appropriate.
- Able to express ideas clearly (written/spoken).
- Maintains effective eye contact, nods, etc.
- Uses inventive language (humor/analogy).
Negative Indicators:
- Appears patronizing/domineering in dialogue.
- Unable to adapt language/behavior as needed.
- Often unclear when contributing ideas/questions.
- Fails to engage patients/colleagues directly.
- Uses language that is too functional/narrow/ inflexible.
I hope this information is helpful for your evaluation processes. Let me know if you have any questions or need further clarification.
From Oman, Muscat
You have raised a very interesting query about communication skills, job knowledge, and initiative as competencies. I have come across an article that introduces a well-known method for evaluating competence, known as the Gap Analysis method. This method allows for the use of both negative and positive indicators to assess competencies. By utilizing this approach, you can critically evaluate the level of your employees' competencies and identify where the gaps exist. This analysis can help you determine the appropriate training methods to close these gaps.
For example:
Communication
Description: Capacity to adjust behavior, language (written/spoken) as appropriate to the needs of different situations. Actively and clearly engages patients and colleagues in equal and open dialogue.
Positive Indicators:
- Establishes relationships of equal respect with others.
- Adjusts style of questioning/response as appropriate.
- Able to express ideas clearly (written/spoken).
- Maintains effective eye contact, nods, etc.
- Uses inventive language (humor/analogy).
Negative Indicators:
- Appears patronizing/domineering in dialogue.
- Unable to adapt language/behavior as needed.
- Often unclear when contributing ideas/questions.
- Fails to engage patients/colleagues directly.
- Uses language that is too functional/narrow/ inflexible.
I hope this information is helpful for your evaluation processes. Let me know if you have any questions or need further clarification.
From Oman, Muscat
Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.