I've come across many organisations during my past service with a number of Nepali public enterprises and commercial banks that many of them let their employees first fill up their self performance appraisal before their supervisors really would evaluate their performance. Is it really necessary, or does it serve like any basis for the real performance appraisal?
It is the way I do the appraisals.
If you know ahead of time how an employee rates him/herself, it enables you to dispel misconceptions and work positively towards a resolution of related issues.
Hi Arhan. This is now a common practice in many Malaysian organizations, either private or public. Somehow with a condition that Performance Indicators and expected/targeted scores have been specified earlier. Another fundamental requirements is for every staff to understanding the integrity concept and principles of self-assessment exercise.
The evaluation can be used as a comparative tool to identify discrepancies in perception of performance. For example: if employee X thinks he/she is doing awesome but in reality is doing horribly, supervisor Y can compare and contrast findings from the evaluation. This can help strengthen performance and transparency.
Thanks a lot Benoit Deschamps, Noor Azman Ali and Aeron Zentner for wonderful comments and inputs. Thanks a lot.
An interesting concept of transparency shared by Aeron. Added to it is the performance evaluation feedback, where employee should be informed and preferably be allowed to discuss and review of past performance, and then negotiate for the coming expected performance indicators and target to be achieved by the employee, department and also company.
It is both a comparative tool and a tool that gives a more complete picture. The result of the self evaluation is used as an input to the dialog with the supervisors. It is common in Swedish organizations.
There really shouldn't be any surprises at a performance appraisal, for the employee or the manager. If there is a significant discrepancy between the employee and manager perception/assessment of performance, as Aeron describes, then that indicates there have been no performance discussions between the manager and the employee in preceding months. I prefer to focus on performance development over performance management, in which the manager recognizes that enabling high performance of employees is one of, if not the most, critical aspect of being a manager. The manager thus coaches for performance on an ongoing basis and the performance appraisal itself is simply a single event within that ongoing process, and a formalization of performance discussions that have happened over time. After all, if you are my manager, and you tell me at my performance appraisal that my performance hasn't been good for the past year or six months, it's a bit late for me to find that out, and I've lost enormous opportunity to change things that I had thought were good.
The opposite side of this is that of taking a strengths-based approach to performance development, in which performance coaching focuses as much or more on development and application of employee strengths as on fixing weaknesses. This changes the whole conversation around performance and performance growth, without losing sight of the need to address performance challenges, and focuses the performance appraisal itself on documenting employee growth and opportunities for growth. A very different prospect from the traditional performance appraisal that is all about fixing broken employees.
I echo the ideas already shared about the additional value that a performance appraisal can provide if it is conducted after employees have completed a performance appraisal. For a thorough and insightful analysis of this topic, I highly recommend Stone and Heen (2014) "Thanks for the Feedback" published by the Penguin Group. In this book, the authors offer the keen and counterinutuitive insight that the person receiving feedback has the greatest control over the quality of the feedback process and the value that it produces. Anything that integrates the receiver of feedback into the process and increases this person's participation will increase the value of feedback received.
Self appraisal helps in:
1. Objective evaluation
2. Giving fair chance
3. Reducing biasness
4. Helping supervisors' evaluation
5. Challenging the biased evaluation
6. Motivating employees performing well, etc.
Evaluation done by an employee himself is accepted as a good tool; other tools such as 360 degree evaluation or peer-evaluation or diary-method ---the supervisor keeps the record of day-to-day activities ( especially during crisis-period) of the employee and writes the final report at the end of the evaluation period. Diary-method gives the supervisor the opportunity to counsel the employee on his weaknesses whenever it is necessary. This provides win-win outcomes for both. Employee-development is an important function of a supervisor/ manager.
As a field manager I have tried a combination of methods, may be in an informal way, and it worked better for me to be more transparent and objective. HRM presumably is better realized here.
i consider it a great method for appraisal. if only he employees would be real and objective in rating themselves, then the job of the lead appraisers will be made easier because acceptability of appraisal outcomes will be high compared to when employees do not rate themselves first.
Yes, it is quite a standard approach. It helps employees to prepare for the appraisal by summarizing their view of the last evaluated period.
Justine and Zuzana, Thanks a lot for your contribution. Good luck!
This practice is common in many private Polish companies too. It helps to identify discrepancies and misunderstanding in perception of expectations, competencies and performance;
yes I believe it is important to ask employees to evaluate their performance first so they can think about their strengths, weaknesses and try to be true to themselves. People tend to exaggerate their achievements but this will be judged by their superiors at least you offered them the opportunity to express their feelings
for more information read http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/01409170410784356
Yes it is needed if we want to promote acceptance of the results of the performance evaluation. Differences between the results of the self-evaluation and the evaluarion by the supervisor are starting points for discussing and resolving issues regarding the criteria used for evaluation. The discussions should be conducted with the HR expert to promote awareness and understanding of the performance evaluation system.
I agree with all and add another point which is about learning and educational aspect of that issue. Self-evaluation could be considered as a self-learning procedure which is powered and supported by the real evaluation through supervisors. It could be useful for their direct managers if the manager is not the supervisor himself. Educational aspect is another front of the issue. self-evaluation creates an average knowledge level for the employee and that level could be increased during the real evaluation process. The supervisor's approach toward learning and educating is very important in this regard.
Absolutely. If you are going to undertake PA and wish to frame it as a conversation, rather than a potentially punitive assessment, then the employee should get a say. It is widely used in Australia in private and public sectors. I would however flag that for it to be of any value it does need to be a discussion about targets, future learning and development needs, career planning options etc. rather than a tick the box, likert scale type exercise around metrics, which can and will be easily manipulated.
Yes, I think is a very good practice giving voice to employees...
Yes, it is very valuable to have it. It makes you aware of the perception the employee has - not only about his own performance, but also about his understanding of the agreed targets, priorities, level of achievement, root causes, areas he/she wants to improve in, etc.
For key employees including middle managements or key specialists, I would even recommend a 360° feed-back as a solid foundation for development decisions.
You certainly have a consensus answer to this and all have made very helpful points.
Yes, Self Assessment Report (SAR) is very important for a person to judge himself or herself before the assessment by the superior. In this way, one can judge his/her strength and weakness. Through SAR, one can realize the true potential which thereby reduces biasness and the system becomes more transparent. SAR is a best practice for an employee before being rated through 360 degree feedback appraisal. Thanks.
Dear: Sthapit
I think you do, because it is represents the fundamental appraisals individuals make about their self-worth and capabilities.
*Hengky
A self assessment is necessary as it ensures personal involvement in one's job. One will do everything possible to ensure that he/she performs well because before anyone assesses you have to justify your rating. Self assessment facilitates ownership of the process.
Yes, this is a major reason of management by objective (MBO). This makes employees own and be accountable for their set targets along the lines of their job description and corporate expectations. The supervisor will then monitor, help review and evaluate these targets. It is believed that the approach brings about great PA results since employees will be motivated to work towards achieving their own targets, especially if supervisors guide them to set challenging ones.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Comment