Performance ratings by the person's supervisor are often used in research.

Previous TM and HRM scholars used 3 constructs such as TASK PERFORMANCE, CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE and COUNTER PRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR. (Koopman,2014) This value metrics embodied  all types of employees regardless their hierarchical positions in the organization. Whether it is prominent or not have to look again based on the nature of the organization....local or multinational, ....etc

As there are two ways to look at the question (through the lens of the employer and through the lens of the employee), it might be logical to consider blending them both into an appropriate set of viable metrics.  The employer would typically look to items such as Daryn mentioned; profit per employee, but that can in itself be tricky.  Does the organisation have processes and procedures (and infrastructure) that is supportive of an employees efforts?  Does the organisational management structure value the contributions of employees (in other ways that direct profit potential), such as recognitions for contributions, a growth plan, a positive team environment?  An employee would typically look to items such as WIIFM (what's in it for me), and do I understand how my day-to-day efforts fit into (and contribute) to the overall 'big' organisational picture?  

Hello James,

I agree,

I generally consider commitment, satisfaction, or 360 evaluations as starting points. The idea of putting a financial value on an individual is not something that I agree with, completely; when tied to a specific task is perhaps a better application of financial ratios, (profit is but one of many possible options). Metric's tied to job discriptions that support strategic objectives are good indicators that core tasks are being completed and will also support efficency and therein "value". Having said that, my perception of this particular question was "specivitivity" or the relationship between employee value & performance. In short, I may have misinterpreted the question.

Daryn

employee value metrics -

depends upon the type of Job?

Operator - responsible for production

Researcher- Research advisor ( Research project progress, Output (papers, Impact factors), outcomes (patents), Research productivity...

The list will be endless.

Anyway, should the 3600 measure for employee performance be employed (which is a worthy recommendation by Daryn), the system (re)alignment is a prerequisite.

Hello Priyavrat,

One short comment on employee evaluations (actually David's point), is that they must be well structured and administered with objectivity so as to offset pure human discretion and the possible bias. For instance, evaluations should include HR feedback, direct supervisor feedback and peer feedback. When the three or more evaluations are correlated, accuracy or bias can be more effectively determined. (note: Perceptions of fairness effect employee behaviour...)

Daryn

...and to carry on with what Daryn just wrote, not only is possible bias an issue, there is a relatively high risk that measuring employee performance can set up the dynamic of gaming the system.  Organisations that feel the need to proceed should not only ensure that any survey (evaluation) process is well structured and administered, but also identify how gaming could occur and ensure that the structure and administration will offset it.

Thank you Daryn and James,

evaluation has a two side perspective. we wish it it the more objective / +ve orientation.

(i) evaluation to fail ( find faults), to simply weigh on some scale;  to show up evaluator's superiority ( at times stupidity on real terms).

(ii) evaluation to improve, to learn, to assess (weigh on some scale) the things (may be subjectively) which need corrective and preventive action.

Thank you both for your respective inputs