Management: Performance Appraisals
Introduction
Performance appraisal is a tricky process that demands the Rater to be objective and tactful in judgment. The Performance Appraisal Process in Coca-Cola gives the employees a chance to grow their careers and the company as well. The senior management is meticulous in how they handle the process. The report in this paper summarizes the process in four strategies that include, improving appraisal formats, selecting the right Raters, understanding how raters process information and training raters to rate more accurately.
The performance appraisal policy of Coca-Cola Company, the company I would like to work for after graduation, provides support to the performance evaluation scheme. The core principles guiding the Appraisal Policy include bringing up a motivated workforce, continuity throughout the year, two-way communication, Personal Development Plan. The set guidelines assist in the Performance Appraisal Implementation. A senior manager, preferably the Chief Human Resource Manager, discusses with the employee privately. The policy is adequate as it guides the management to objectivity.
Coca-Cola Company employs the Goal-Oriented Format in the Appraisal Process. The success of the multinational company is target-driven thus it requires the employees to show that they understand the market. Therefore, the management team has developed key pointers, Management by Objectives, as a technique that supervisors and staff can utilize to determine achievement of goals in any undertaken task. During the rating period, the team already knows how well, or poorly they have performed in regards to achieving the goals.
The Goal-Oriented Systems allows the supervisor to use the five dimensions that measure good performance, Employee Development, Administrative Ease, Personnel Research Potential, Cost, and validity. In leaving the member of staff with the free will to perform according to the set, objectives gives the employee a chance to undertake career development authoritatively. Also, the Coca-Cola format allows the administration ease in supervisory roles as the structure of the system is self-driven. Consequently, the cost and the validity of the Performance Appraisal emerge and give the supervisor a chance to conduct Personnel Research for necessary for motivating employees and improving overall performance.
However, it is imperative for the management to consider improving the aspect of competition among the employees and keenly look into the personal development of individuals. Although, the GOS fails to provide the opportunity for the supervisor to create competing scores among staff, a little creativity that modifies the structure could help. Also, using a reward system, where the best-performing individual gets a pricey commodity in an annual event, senior managers would achieve the motivated workforce threshold.
Strategy Two: Selecting the Right Raters
The Raters scale in the Appraisal Form A4 (see Appendix) are 1-3 =poor, 4-6=satisfactory, 7-9=good, 10 =excellent. The individual rates his capability and knowledge in the listed areas regarding the current position and new role requirements (A5). The range of the scores provides room for flexibility and a chance to discuss why they may have chosen a score. The Range Technique is better compared to other discrete methods that limit the employee to stick to one score even where they feel they stand at a midpoint of two whole scores.
Useful Raters in the Appraisal Process exhibit fairness and room for discussion. The placed scores should neither seem condemning nor over-rating. When an individual looks at the scale, they need to relate their performance in the fields with the given pointers. Also, the questions or the attached guidelines must be realistic in that the individual understands the relationship between the appended score and actual performance at work. However, the supervisor needs to look out for possible errors in the whole process.
Strategy Three: Understanding How Raters Process Information
The most common errors during the Appraisal Process include the Halo Effect, where the supervisor’s overall judgment of the individual clouds his reasoning. The distortion is as a result of the manager liking or disliking an employee thus allowing personal feelings to overrule logical performance ratings. The second error, the Leniency Error, occurs when the Rater tends to rate all the staff on a real scale. The Error is common among leaders who over-emphasize either constructive or undesirable behaviors. The third error is the Central Tendency Error where the Rater avoids making extreme conclusions of the staff performance. Consequently, all the employees fall in the middle part, close to the average, of the scale. Finally, the Recency Error takes place when the Rater allows the most recent happenings to influence the performance appraisal process.
Among the four errors the Central Tendency Error and the Leniency Error are likely to take place during the assessment process at Coca-Cola. The two forms of Errors are common with multi-national organizations because the supervisor would be conducting the operation within a short span of time among hundreds of employees. The tendency to develop bias due to pattern formation during the same period is high. Central Tendency Error and Leniency Error thrive under consistent old models.
In my experience, the most common errors are the Halo Effect and Recency Errors. The two forms not only happen within the Appraisal Process but also in daily interactions. The Rater tends to judge the employee by how they feel about them or how they perceive them as either fine, graceful, intelligent or hardworking. The tendency comes from the first impressions that the rate gives during initial interactions. Also, the employer may assess an individual using a biased memory. For example, during the Appraisal Process, the boss may have spotted the employee in a nightclub the previous weekend. Unless the Rater has undergone thorough train, he will most likely provide a score by that nightclub experience.
Strategy Four: Training Raters to Rate More Accurately
The first category of Rater Training Program is Rater Error Training that presupposes that the Rater possesses biases that reduce the accuracy of rating. For example, RET happens immediately before the Appraisal period begins to help managers achieve objectivity attitude during the Appraisal Process. The second grouping is the Frame-of-Reference Training that is an outcome of the fact that traditional rater training programs have been unsuccessful. The premise behind FOR is that the raters acquire actual skills that help to maintain precise degrees of performance across job positions at the corresponding levels. For an instant, the Managing Director releases specific standards that all members of staff must achieve before the Appraisal Period. The supervisors use the standards to compare team performance. The third classification is the Rater Variability Training that banks on the hope to increase the accuracy of ratings of aspects of performance appraisals. The Training Program is a combination of RER and FOR concepts thus proving to fit administration goals. As an example, combining the positive attributes of RER and FOR during training provides the Rater with adequate knowledge and objectivity.
Rater training in Coca-cola occurs yearly, one month before the Appraisal Process begins. The aim is to rub off all subjectivity thinking that leads to the biased rating. The trainers have devised teaching methodologies that help managers see objectivity. For instance, the fact that a manager hates a particular employee means that there is something undesirable in them. However, there is something undesirable about the manager too. Therefore, it is vital not to be a judge of opinions but help the company to develop the motivated workforce.
References
Caruth, D. L., & Humphreys, J. H. (2008). Performance appraisal: essential characteristics for strategic control. Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 12 Iss: 3, 24 - 32.
Jr, P. W., & McNall, L. (2010). Justice perceptions of performance appraisal practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 Iss: 3, 201 - 228.
Martocchio, J. J. (2016). Strategic Compensation: A Human Resource Management Approach. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, United States: Pearson Education.
Prowse, P., & Prowse, J. (2009). The dilemma of performance appraisal. Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 13 Iss: 4, 69 - 77.
Appendix
Part An Appraisee to complete before the interview and return to the appraiser by (date)
A2 Discussion points:
Part B Tobe completed during the appraisal by the appraiser - where appropriate and safe to do validated or amended in discussion with the appraisee during the appraisal.
