Workplace productivity versus employee evaluation
An employee evaluation also measures different aspects of an employee’s work that includes quality of work, quantity of work, characteristics and overall conduct of an employee at work. Performance evaluation is a vital component of company tools since it helps align employees with the organization’s overall growth strategy. Moreover, this allows management to meet sets of employee goals and objectives because this drives employees to succeed, thereby raising motivation and job satisfaction.
Nevertheless, the primary goal of an employee appraisal is to improve performance, morale, and reward employee performance (Employee Evaluation Basics). Appraisal systems utilized by the early companies were simple methods of income justifications that was used to rate whether the employee was due for a pay hike based on his performance. If the management finds an employee’s performance commendable a pay hike is in order. On the contrary, if the supervisor finds an employee to be undeserving; then a reduction in fees takes effect.
Minute consideration is given to the developmental capacity of an employee and many feel that the increase or reduction in pay hike is the only factor that motivates workers to perform well. In remote cases this system worked, but in majority of situations it failed (Archer
Need essay sample on "Workplace productivity versus employee evaluation"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $13.90/page
Identify the area that needs employee training most. Document the criteria used to allocate organizational rewards – pay hike, bonuses and incentives. This forms as the basis for personnel decisions on salary increases, promotions and disciplinary actions. This increases the opportunity for organizational review and development. Speeds-up channel communication between employee and management Show transparency in the use of the selection system and human resource policies to satisfy federal equal employment opportunity procedures.
The most common method adapted to review employee evaluation was the numerical or scalar-rating system that urged managers or supervisors to rate an employee against a number of objectives and attributes prepared by management. The system also gives the employees the chance to rate their supervisors as well (a rating system called the 360 degree appraisal), in order for management to gauge their performance and contribution to company growth (Wikipedia Contributors, 2007a).
Companies try to avoid issues on performance appraisals because of the controversies these would most likely generate. We have trusted sources – researchers, management commentators, psychometricians, who have shown concern on the effectiveness and accuracy of the performance appraisal process. In fact some of these processes are so flawed that it becomes impossible to find a perfect appraisal system. Several appraisal systems advocates though find a well-defined system as the most crucial phase of an organization’s life and development (Archer North and Associates, 2006a).
There is a variation in the appraisal system – the negotiated appraisal method. Some companies likewise conduct appraisal interviews, the second most dreaded management activity following employee discipline. In a traditional appraisal system, the supervisor is in a position as judge and executioner, being the person responsible for rating employee performance and the harbinger of bad news should an employee fail in the process. This is not possible in a negotiated appraisal method, because the employee is made to rate his own performance.
In the actual appraisal interview, the employee is given three areas that he can rate himself together with his immediate supervisor who would also provide his personal assessment of the employee’s performance. Following the rating process, they are encouraged to talk and dissect the areas that define the employee’s finer side and areas that he failed to show improvement or lacked proper disposition. This gives time for the employee to adjust and mend his ways before the ax falls or that management might send him for retraining if he has developmental potential.
After almost a century, no clear-cut policy has emerged to answer the question, is workplace productivity a direct response to a fair and accurate system of employee evaluation? Or is a structured employee evaluation sufficient enough to raise workplace productivity? Several lines of thought appear to dispute the merits of one to favor another but never in the history of human resource management has anybody else developed a system that can provide concrete evidence, to erase once and for all the doubts and uncertainty evident in the workplace and adapt a solution that can satisfy both management and labor.
For now we can only speculate and draw our conclusions based on the different studies that so far have played havoc on the thin line that separates labor and management. Let us first dissect the efforts management has undertaken to elevate workplace productivity. Get more productive, a typical line often thrown by management with sector managers and supervisors to encourage workplace productivity. And just how is this managed?