Before we begin to develop our performance review process, it is important to note some of the errors that can occur during this process. First, halo effects can occur when the source or the rater feels one aspect of the performance is high and therefore rates all areas high. A mistake in rating can also occur when we compare one employee to another, as opposed to the job description’s standards. Sometimes halo effects will occur because the rater is uncomfortable rating someone low on a performance assessment item. Of course, when this occurs, it makes the performance evaluation less valuable for employee development. Proper training on how to manage a performance appraisal interview is a good way to avoid this. We discuss this in Performance Appraisal Interviews.
Validity issues are the extent to which the tool measures the relevant aspects of performance. The aspects of performance should be based on the key skills and responsibilities of the job, and these should be reviewed often to make sure they are still applicable to the job analysis and description.
Reliability refers to how consistent the same measuring tool works throughout the organization (or job title). When we look at reliability in performance appraisals, we ask ourselves if two raters were to rate an employee, how close would the ratings be? If the ratings would be far apart from one another, the method may have reliability issues. To prevent this kind of issue, we can make sure that performance standards are written in a way that will make them measurable. For example, instead of “increase sales” as a performance standard, we may want to say, “increase sales by 10 percent from last year.” This performance standard is easily measured and allows us to ensure the accuracy of our performance methods.
Acceptability refers to how well members of the organization, manager and employees, accept the performance evaluation tool as a valid measure of performance. For example, let’s assume the current measurement tools of Blewett Gravel, Inc. are in place and show validity for each job function. However, managers don’t think the tool is useful because they take too much time. As a result, they spend minimal time on the evaluation. This could mean the current process is flawed because of acceptability error.
Another consideration is the specificity, which tells employees the job expectations and how they can be met. If they are not specific enough, the tool is not useful to the employee for development or to the manager to ensure the employee is meeting expectations. Finally, after we have developed our process, we need to create a time line and educate managers and employees on the process. This can be done through formal training and communicated through company blogs or e-mails. According to Robert Kent, 1 teaching people how to receive benefit from the feedback they receive can be an important part of the process as well.