|
Peer
Performance Appraisal
Selected Design Issues
by Effective Compensation, Incorporated
The use of raters other than the employee's supervisor
is growing in popularity for several reasons, including:
- flatter
organizations result in supervisors who have less
knowledge about some of their subordinates,
- organizations
who have diverse geographic locations often have
employees who don't work near their supervisor,
- many
employees desire to have raters other than their
"boss",
- many
supervisors desire to have input from other perspectives
as they conduct the appraisals for their subordinates,
- organizations
that are sensitive to responding to (internal and
external) customers often want to obtain their input
into the employee=s
appraisal, and
- organizations
that are either empowering or listening to their
employees often desire
"bottom-up"
appraisals.
The key issues faced by organizations using 360o
appraisals typically include how to:
- use
the appraisals, e.g., only for development purposes or
for compensation,
- determine
who should be an appraiser for each employee,
- determine
what weight each rater should have in the process,
- assure
the confidentiality of the appraisers,
- control
for rater bias,
- provide
for a consistency of rating definitions,
- make
the rating relevant to the specific position, and
- base
the ratings, e.g., rating employees against a scale or
against their peers.
Many organizations have found that the best answers
for their situation can be developed by a task force that
assumes ownership in the process. The most successful groups
are composed of employees and managers who understand the
benefits and pitfalls of various appraisal approaches and yet
who see the value of having multiple raters.
These groups find that the experience of other
organizations provides valuable insights. Some of the more
common reactions of the task force members include:
- raters
must have at least periodic contact with the individual
being rated,
- having
the ratee have input on the selection of the rater adds
to the credibility of the results,
- by
having scored responses and at least five raters for
each ratee, the process assumes some credibility and
statistical validity,
- ratings
need to be done at the same time of the year to minimize
the administrative burden and allow comparison with
peers,
- the
process requires a computer to handle the large amount
of comparisons once the ratings will be used for more
than 10 or 20 employees,
- if
peer appraisals are to be used for compensation, it is
generally appropriate to use the ratings of the raters
as input to the supervisor rather than requiring them to
be weighted equally,
- the
peer appraisals cannot be used in lieu of a thoughtful
discussion with the supervisor,
- employees
often find the ratings done by supervisors to be more
credible when they are supported by input from other
employees, and
- the
peer appraisal process requires care and attention
(training and support) while it becomes part of the
organization=s
culture.
A key realization that most groups have is that the
form, while important, is significantly less important than
the process. Furthermore, the process can only succeed if
raters and ratees both have confidence in the approach and
agree with the way that the appraisals are to be used.
Effective Compensation, Incorporated is an
independent consulting firm, providing a full range of
compensation-related services on a cost-effective basis. We
assist organizations in becoming more effective through
improving their employee cultures. If you are interested in
learning more about how ECI can assist you with
performance-oriented pay or other compensation-related issues,
please contact:
|
