If your organization isn't going to have one, now will be the perfect time for you to introduce a Program Evaluation system.
Why is this the opportune time for your organization to apply an outcomes management, (Program Evaluation) System?
Performance evaluation systems may be classified along a range of dimensions that capture variations in their structure, content, and process characteristics. Among the most important dimensions will be the following:
Who/what is evaluated? Do we evaluate the person, 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? The amount input does the individual being evaluated has in to the evaluation and in appealing the outcome?
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 some cases, performance is measured very objectively, using unambiguous measures of distinct aspects of performance. One example is a salesperson may very well be scored on Euros sales, new customers developed, and increases in orders by old customers, and each one of these being put on some standard scale (e.g., standard deviations from the mean performance of salesmen in the organization) and after that weighted 40%, 40%, and 20%, respectively. Alternatively, employees in a facility could be evaluated and rated depending on the subjective overall impressions of their immediate superiors.
When objective or formulaic evaluations are used, there will be the further issue of how closely tailored the formula should be to the situation of each individual. At one extreme, every similarly situated individual within the firm (say, every salesperson) is evaluated using the same rigid formula. The middle ground includes cases in which people are evaluated against their own previous performance; improvements are noted, although the same categories are utilized for each individual. At the other extreme are systems in which each individual in each period has a specially tailored group 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 group of objectives.
Relative versus absolute performance. In certain instances, employees are evaluated on an absolute scale-for example, sales volume, units produced weekly, 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. Ordinarily, the benchmark that's 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.) may be employed, or perhaps the percentages may go unspecified. Observe that where forced distributions are used, there must be some sort of relative performance evaluation going on, even when only implicitly.
Multi-source versus single-source evaluation. In certain systems, data are gathered entirely or largely from just one source, for example the individual's supervisor. Other evaluation software 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 learn about.
Multi-criterion versus single summary statistic. In probably the majority of performance evaluation systems, all of the data are ultimately massaged in to a single summary rating statistic of overall performance. Many dimensions of performance may enter into this statistic, although the final outcome is one-dimensional. In some other systems, there is absolutely no attempt to formulate an individual statistic. Within the middle are systems where there is a summary statistic which is very coarse (almost everyone is within the same category), grading many dimensions.
Why is this the opportune time for your organization to apply an outcomes management, (Program Evaluation) System?
Performance evaluation systems may be classified along a range of dimensions that capture variations in their structure, content, and process characteristics. Among the most important dimensions will be the following:
Who/what is evaluated? Do we evaluate the person, 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? The amount input does the individual being evaluated has in to the evaluation and in appealing the outcome?
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 some cases, performance is measured very objectively, using unambiguous measures of distinct aspects of performance. One example is a salesperson may very well be scored on Euros sales, new customers developed, and increases in orders by old customers, and each one of these being put on some standard scale (e.g., standard deviations from the mean performance of salesmen in the organization) and after that weighted 40%, 40%, and 20%, respectively. Alternatively, employees in a facility could be evaluated and rated depending on the subjective overall impressions of their immediate superiors.
When objective or formulaic evaluations are used, there will be the further issue of how closely tailored the formula should be to the situation of each individual. At one extreme, every similarly situated individual within the firm (say, every salesperson) is evaluated using the same rigid formula. The middle ground includes cases in which people are evaluated against their own previous performance; improvements are noted, although the same categories are utilized for each individual. At the other extreme are systems in which each individual in each period has a specially tailored group 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 group of objectives.
Relative versus absolute performance. In certain instances, employees are evaluated on an absolute scale-for example, sales volume, units produced weekly, 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. Ordinarily, the benchmark that's 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.) may be employed, or perhaps the percentages may go unspecified. Observe that where forced distributions are used, there must be some sort of relative performance evaluation going on, even when only implicitly.
Multi-source versus single-source evaluation. In certain systems, data are gathered entirely or largely from just one source, for example the individual's supervisor. Other evaluation software 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 learn about.
Multi-criterion versus single summary statistic. In probably the majority of performance evaluation systems, all of the data are ultimately massaged in to a single summary rating statistic of overall performance. Many dimensions of performance may enter into this statistic, although the final outcome is one-dimensional. In some other systems, there is absolutely no attempt to formulate an individual statistic. Within the middle are systems where there is a summary statistic which is very coarse (almost everyone is within the same category), grading many dimensions.