What exactly should performance evaluations assess? I have a case to share with you:
Jingxingda Electronics is one of my clients. Six months ago, they decided to implement a performance evaluation system along with a floating salary structure, where the amount of floating salary would be determined by the results of the performance evaluations. The entire company was divided into three major categories based on different positions: "management personnel," "technical personnel," and "business personnel." Each category had its own performance evaluation form, which included three aspects: work attitude, work ability, and work performance, evaluated monthly. During the first performance evaluation, because the indicators couldn't be objectively measured, many people didn't know how to score, resulting in laughable outcomes. With the effort of the human resources department, the evaluations continued for five months, but were essentially just going through the motions. Later, the company decided to cancel the performance evaluations. After several months, the performance evaluations ended hastily and unpleasantly, causing a storm. Both Mr. Zhang, the company's general manager, and Yang Fan, the HR manager, reflected and knew there were issues with the evaluations, but they didn't know where the problems lay.
So, where exactly did the problem lie? The problem lies in the evaluation indicators! Imagine, with so many different positions across the entire company, could it really work to use only three sets of evaluation indicators to assess "management personnel," "technical personnel," and "business personnel"? Take "management personnel" as an example. Ask yourselves, what exactly are "management personnel"? Are all the seniors in the company management personnel? Does a department supervisor count as management personnel? In fact, each manager has different job responsibilities and tasks. Since their jobs are different, how can we possibly use the same indicators to evaluate them?
Moreover, "work attitude" and "work ability" are not part of their job content, so why evaluate them? Such evaluations often lead to "two separate layers between work and evaluation." Imagine if the things that need to be done aren't evaluated, why would employees bother doing them seriously? And the content being evaluated isn't even what the employees are actually doing or supposed to do. What's the point of such evaluations?
In other words, the so-called performance evaluations mentioned in the above case don't actually evaluate performance. This situation exists in many companies, just manifested differently. For example, some companies apply the same evaluation form to everyone in the entire company, with identical evaluation items focusing on "morality, diligence, competence, and performance." Why evaluate these things in performance evaluations? Performance evaluations should focus on performance; why include "morality, diligence, and competence"? We're not saying that "morality, diligence, competence," "work attitude, work ability" aren't important—they are very important. However, they shouldn't be evaluated together. Instead, they should be considered in evaluations related to "employee recruitment/promotion/appointment/job adjustment," etc. Don't put everything into the performance evaluation basket! The capacity of this basket is limited, and it's designed for "performance," making it unsuitable for other things.
So, what is performance? Performance refers to how well the responsibilities of the position are fulfilled, how well the duties are accomplished, and how well the assigned tasks are completed. That's what performance is. Everything else isn't performance and shouldn't be included in performance evaluations. Therefore, employees should be evaluated on what they do, and anything they haven't done shouldn't be evaluated at all!
From this, we can draw a conclusion: before conducting evaluations, it's necessary to clarify the responsibilities and duties of each position. If the responsibilities and duties of various positions aren't clear, and we don't know what each position is supposed to do, then how can we judge how well they're performing?
Also, some contents shouldn't be evaluated at all. For instance, "work attitude." You say my "attitude is bad," but yours might be worse! Why? It leads to arguments.
There's another scenario where everyone gets the same score. Of course, "work attitude" isn't absolutely un-evaluable. It depends on the situation. If it's a service industry, like restaurants, hotels, or travel agencies, then "work attitude" becomes an important component of the service provided to customers. Employees' "work attitude" will affect the quality of service in such businesses. In this case, "work attitude" becomes part of the employees' job content. As we've said, "evaluate what they do!" In this situation, "work attitude" should indeed be evaluated!
However, in this case, we should break down "work attitude" into specific behavioral standards. Different positions should have different breakdowns. For example, the work attitude of a receptionist at a restaurant should be: "1. Smile, 2. Lips slightly open, showing teeth, 3. Look at the guest while leaning forward slightly, 4. Extend the right hand, pointing the guest to the restaurant at a 45-degree angle, 5. Say simultaneously: Welcome to our restaurant, may I help you...?" This is the "work attitude" of a receptionist! In the evaluation criteria, there's no abstract mention of "work attitude"; instead, there are objective behavioral standards.
Also, why do we often talk about "KPI—Key Performance Indicators" when doing performance evaluations? Because our energy and resources are limited. If we pile up a bunch of evaluation indicators, with twenty or more messy items, the evaluations become impractical. So we don't evaluate everything; we focus on the most important ones and set them as KPIs. From the perspective of those being evaluated, they prioritize whatever is included in the evaluation criteria. Therefore, we can't evaluate everything an individual does; otherwise, we won't highlight the key points, leading to a complex evaluation process. The evaluation criteria must reflect what the company values.
"You emphasize what you evaluate, and employees will perform well in what you evaluate—not necessarily what you hope for in your heart." The way to make employees do what you want is to incorporate what you want to improve into the evaluation criteria.
To summarize, here are three sentences: First, evaluate what they do. Second, evaluate what the company values. Third, don't include "morality, diligence, competence," "work attitude, work ability" in performance evaluations; these things are not "performance."
This article comes from:
Investment Strong, Export Reduced