If your organization does not have one, now is the perfect period to introduce a Program Evaluation system.
Why is this the opportune time for your organization to implement an outcomes management, (Program Evaluation) System?
Performance evaluation systems may be classified along a number of dimensions that capture variations within their structure, content, and board effectiveness survey process characteristics. Among the most important dimensions are the following:
Who/what is evaluated? Do we evaluate the individual, the workgroup, the division?
Who performs (and has input into) the evaluation? Is it completed by each individual's immediate supervisor? Peers, subordinates, or customers? Simply how much input does the person being evaluated has into the evaluation as well as in appealing the results?
Time-frame: short to long. What will be the time period over which data are collected (either formally and objectively or informally) before evaluations are rendered?
Objective/formulaic versus subjective/impressionistic evaluations. In certain cases, performance is measured very objectively, using unambiguous measures of distinct aspects of performance. For example, a salesperson could possibly be scored on Euros sales, new customers developed, and increases in orders by old customers, and every one of these being put on some standard scale (e.g., standard deviations from the mean performance of salesmen in the organization) and then weighted 40%, 40%, and 20%, respectively. However, employees in a facility may be evaluated and rated according to the subjective overall impressions of their immediate superiors.
When objective or formulaic evaluations are used, there is the further issue of how closely tailored the formula must be to the situation of each individual. At one extreme, every similarly situated individual in the firm (say, every salesperson) is evaluated using the same rigid formula. The middle ground includes cases through which individuals are evaluated against their own previous performance; improvements are noted, however the same categories are utilized for each individual. At another extreme are systems through which each individual in each period has a specially tailored set of goals and objectives. A prime example of this is management by objectives schemes, through which each individual takes part in designing his or her set of objectives.
Relative versus absolute performance. In certain instances, employees are evaluated upon an absolute scale-for example, sales volume, units produced a week, touchdowns scored, or dollar value of hours billed to clients. In other instances, performance is evaluated on some sort of relative basis, or performance is measured on a mix of absolute and relative performance. Routinely, the benchmark that is used will be the performance of other individuals, either within the organization or outside, who are presumed to face the exact same productive environment and constraints and to possess similar capability levels. In other cases, performance is measured relative to the individual's own previous performance.
Forced distribution versus unspecified percentages. When summary categories are used, a forced distribution (numerous percent in category 1, a lot of in category 2, etc.) might be employed, or even the percentages may go unspecified. Note that where forced distributions are used, there must be some sort of relative performance evaluation going on, even if only implicitly.
Multi-source versus single-source evaluation. In some systems, data are gathered entirely or largely from a single source, such as the individual's supervisor. Other evaluation systems gather performance appraisals from many sources-customers, peers, supervisors, and so on-where each source is asked to appraise those facets of performance that the source can reasonably be expected to know about.
Multi-criterion versus single summary statistic. In perhaps the majority of performance evaluation systems, all of the data are ultimately massaged into a single summary rating statistic of overall performance. Many dimensions of performance may enter into this statistic, though the final outcome is one dimensional. In some other systems, there is absolutely no attempt to formulate just one statistic. Within the middle are systems where there's a summary statistic that is very coarse (just about everyone is within the same category), grading many dimensions.
Why is this the opportune time for your organization to implement an outcomes management, (Program Evaluation) System?
Performance evaluation systems may be classified along a number of dimensions that capture variations within their structure, content, and board effectiveness survey process characteristics. Among the most important dimensions are the following:
Who/what is evaluated? Do we evaluate the individual, the workgroup, the division?
Who performs (and has input into) the evaluation? Is it completed by each individual's immediate supervisor? Peers, subordinates, or customers? Simply how much input does the person being evaluated has into the evaluation as well as in appealing the results?
Time-frame: short to long. What will be the time period over which data are collected (either formally and objectively or informally) before evaluations are rendered?
Objective/formulaic versus subjective/impressionistic evaluations. In certain cases, performance is measured very objectively, using unambiguous measures of distinct aspects of performance. For example, a salesperson could possibly be scored on Euros sales, new customers developed, and increases in orders by old customers, and every one of these being put on some standard scale (e.g., standard deviations from the mean performance of salesmen in the organization) and then weighted 40%, 40%, and 20%, respectively. However, employees in a facility may be evaluated and rated according to the subjective overall impressions of their immediate superiors.
When objective or formulaic evaluations are used, there is the further issue of how closely tailored the formula must be to the situation of each individual. At one extreme, every similarly situated individual in the firm (say, every salesperson) is evaluated using the same rigid formula. The middle ground includes cases through which individuals are evaluated against their own previous performance; improvements are noted, however the same categories are utilized for each individual. At another extreme are systems through which each individual in each period has a specially tailored set of goals and objectives. A prime example of this is management by objectives schemes, through which each individual takes part in designing his or her set of objectives.
Relative versus absolute performance. In certain instances, employees are evaluated upon an absolute scale-for example, sales volume, units produced a week, touchdowns scored, or dollar value of hours billed to clients. In other instances, performance is evaluated on some sort of relative basis, or performance is measured on a mix of absolute and relative performance. Routinely, the benchmark that is used will be the performance of other individuals, either within the organization or outside, who are presumed to face the exact same productive environment and constraints and to possess similar capability levels. In other cases, performance is measured relative to the individual's own previous performance.
Forced distribution versus unspecified percentages. When summary categories are used, a forced distribution (numerous percent in category 1, a lot of in category 2, etc.) might be employed, or even the percentages may go unspecified. Note that where forced distributions are used, there must be some sort of relative performance evaluation going on, even if only implicitly.
Multi-source versus single-source evaluation. In some systems, data are gathered entirely or largely from a single source, such as the individual's supervisor. Other evaluation systems gather performance appraisals from many sources-customers, peers, supervisors, and so on-where each source is asked to appraise those facets of performance that the source can reasonably be expected to know about.
Multi-criterion versus single summary statistic. In perhaps the majority of performance evaluation systems, all of the data are ultimately massaged into a single summary rating statistic of overall performance. Many dimensions of performance may enter into this statistic, though the final outcome is one dimensional. In some other systems, there is absolutely no attempt to formulate just one statistic. Within the middle are systems where there's a summary statistic that is very coarse (just about everyone is within the same category), grading many dimensions.