Should the form provide for putting different weights on the various sections?

Some objectives are more important than others. And some sections of the form may be more important than others. For example, although most managers would feel that both competencies and objectives are important, it is more important to do a better job at producing results than it is to do a good job in demonstrating the competencies. Obviously, not all objectives are of equal importance to the organization. Should the form reflect the fact that some objectives are more critical than others?

Weighting is a matter best left up to the manager and the individual to discuss during the performance-planning discussion. Trying to provide for predetermined weights for various sections of the performance appraisal form that will apply to a broad range of jobs is probably not going to be useful.

Tell Me More

During the performance-planning discussion, the manager and subordinate should discuss the relative importance of the items to be accomplished in the upcoming year. Although developing a specific index of relative priority might help the worker make good decisions when faced with conflicting priorities, the ultimate accuracy of these weightings is questionable. Individual situations that require discretional judgment cannot be predicted in advance (and the likelihood of a change in priorities during the appraisal period is high).

The primary benefit to specifying the relative priority among different objectives may be in providing general guidance to the subordinate on where he should concentrate his efforts over the year, rather than providing a formal multiplier for use in assessing the overall performance rating and recommending the resultant salary change.

If an appraisal form is crammed with predetermined weights, managers will be reduced to making statements like "Let's see, Fosdick, on your first objective I rated you as superior but since that had only a relative weight of .3 it becomes ultimately less influential than the 'barely meets standard' I assigned you on the second objective with a priority value of. . . ." This is foolishness. No value is gained through this exercise in managerial numerology.

Hot Tip

It is best to keep the weighting process simple and, if possible, optional. Assigning different weights to different objectives can indicate clearly that some are more important than others. Providing predetermined weights can also perform the more important task of highlighting objectives whose importance changes during the course of an appraisal year, or indicating the relative importance of key job responsibilities versus competencies. The best approach is usually to encourage managers to discuss the relative importance of varying performance factors during the performance-planning meeting. Managers and subordinates, in the course of setting objectives and entering them on the form, might be asked to provide no more than A, B, C, or high, medium, low indications of relative priority.

Should the form provide a recommended distribution of performance appraisal ratings?

In most cases, it's a good idea.

One of the most common problems with performance appraisal is grade inflation, where performance appraisal ratings creep up until everyone is rated as exceeding expectations. One way to counteract this problem is by publishing a recommended distribution of appraisal ratings, or requiring managers to conform to a specific predetermined ratings allocation.

Tell Me More

To start, recognize that a standard bell-shaped curve distribution of performance appraisal ratings, with as many employees getting higher-than-middle ratings as lower-than-middle ratings, is probably not appropriate in most organizations. For a bell-shaped curve to be mathematically valid, there must be both a sufficiently large sample size and a random distribution of elements being distributed. Although there are enough people in most organizations for the sample size to be large enough, performance in organizations is far from randomly distributed. People are not hired at randomorganizations hire the best available talent. People are not promoted at randomcompanies promote their top performers. Organizations send people to training programs and arrange development opportunities to improve their performance. Why, then, would you expect a random distribution of performance appraisal ratings?

At the same time, we know that in every organization, some people do perform better than others and that performance overall distributes itself in a way that reasonably resembles a strict bell-curve pattern. The difference between a purely random distribution and the distribution of performance appraisal ratings in a well-managed organization is that in the latter there is an appropriate shift in the distribution of ratings in a higher direction.

If managers are applying tough-minded and demanding performance expectations to a talented and motivated group of employees, if these managers consistently provide coaching to help people improve their performance, and if they confront performance problems when they arise and quickly terminate those who are not willing to meet the organization's expectations, then it is reasonable to assume that more people will get a higher-than-average performance appraisal rating than a lower-than-average one. In this case, using a five-level ratings distribution procedure, a reasonable distribution might look like this:

Performance Rating

Percentage of People Who Typically Receive This Rating

Distinguished performance

Less than 5 percent

Superior performance

About 30 percent

Fully successful

About 50 percent or more

Needs improvement

About 15 percent


Less than 5 percent

In the distribution portrayed above, more than half of all employees are expected to get the middle performance appraisal rating.

In most organizations, this would be appropriate. But twice as many people are expected to be rated in the category directly above the middle as will be rated in the one directly below it. Finally, a very small number of individuals produce results over the course of the year that are so outstandingly good or bad that they receive the ratings at the extremes.

If this is the ratings distribution that the organization would like to see, why not publish it directly on the performance appraisal form? In this way, everyone knows the expectations. It's an even better idea to let people know what the actual ratings distribution for previous years has been, so that people can see the degree to which the actual distribution resembles the desired one.

But should the organization demand that every manager in every area of the company follow this scheme? In most cases, requiring that an exact percentage of performance appraisal ratings be distributed according to a predetermined scheme is not an effective approach. If the work unit is small, managers will be required to rate people higher or lower than their actual performance warrants in order to fit the demanded guideline, and managers who have assembled a particularly talented crew (or managers who have inherited a work group almost completely staffed by slackers) will be limited in their ability to use the performance appraisal process effectively.

< Prev   CONTENTS   Next >