There are a few problems with how they do the engineer’s performance review. We

can draw the conclusion by the information given that the manufacturing plant has a small human resources department and the managers are responsible for the employee performance reviews. Although this in many businesses it is common practice for managers to give these evaluations, they are not trained and many of the items on the evaluations are not relevant. Some examples of non-­‐relevant items in this case are cleanliness, attitude, and friendliness. These categories may seem to fit the situation but they are subjective and can be considered individual traits. Categories that are commonly used and can be gauged are individual, behaviors, task outcomes, and traits. For this case, the categories that would be a better evaluation method are number of issues fixed, technical knowledge and ability, or devices repaired.

The measurements used in the evaluation should be weighted for the circumstances to

have an effective evaluation method. Individual task outcomes, like production, duties, or skills, should be weighted heavier and the outcome should be dependent on the employee. Some criteria could be number of cars sold by a car salesman or number of products built over a set period of time on a production line.

The behavior of an employee is another category used in the evaluation. Individual task outcomes should be weighted heavier then behavior but there is cases where the individual task outcome can be difficult to assess. These cases would include “advisory or support positions or employees whose work assignments are part of a group effort” (Judge & Robbins, 2012, p. 556). When a task is given to a group of employees, it can be hard to assess an individual employee’s effort and the behaviors evaluation can be a great method to use. The

employee can be evaluated on items like teamwork on the project, being a leader in the group, or improving on the plan to avoid issues or problems that may arise. Traits, such as cleanliness, dependability, or attitude, are the final piece for commonly

used evaluation criteria. Traits are considered to be “the weakest criteria, because they’re furthest removed from actual job performance, are individual traits” (Judge & Robbins, 2012, p. 556). Having the desired traits will not normally assist in the job needs, but these traits may help in a job interview. After hearing about the 360-­‐degree evaluation method, the manager in this case is

thinking this might be a good method for his organization. Though there are several benefits to this method, it is not a good fit for all situations or organizations. The 360-­‐degree evaluation method asks the employees peers to evaluate each other on given criteria. This can overcome a problem where the manager does not have the skills their employees have and instead the employees who have the skills can more accurately assess the skills involved. The manager might not see their employees on a regular basis and this method gives many different views and perspectives of the employee from their peers. There are some disadvantages of this evaluation method which can include dishonest

feedback, an understanding amongst peers to give high evaluations, or inconsistent understanding of the terms or rating scale. A peer may give someone a lower performance rating because of situations not relevant to the workplace. This is common in organizations and the manager must know if there is some personal feud between the two employees. There can be problems where the peers evaluating the employee give incorrect scores or feedback due to

misinterpreting the rating system. Peers giving the evaluation must be trained ahead of time if the 360-­‐degree evaluation method is going to be used. Also, the employee being evaluated should not select the peers evaluating them because they will choose friends and other peers that will give them a higher rating. Due to how many methods can be used for performance evaluations, some may be a

better fit for certain situation than others. Some of the more commons methods are individual ranking, written essays, and a graphical rating scale. Individual ranking is a very common method and it compares peers against each other and then ranked from highest to lowest performer. This can be considered an unfair evaluation method because even if all the employees are good employees there will be a best employee and a worst employee. Written essays don’t require much training, if at all, and are a simple evaluation method. The problem is the employee’s rating maybe based on the writing skills of the evaluator instead of the employee’s performance. Graphic rating scales are another popular method. This method a matrix is used to evaluate the employee’s performance. An example of this would be a 5 question method with a score from 1 to 5. Once all the questions are answered the score is added up then averaged giving the final score for the employee. A problem with this method is very high scores in a few areas can cover up low scores in other areas. Accurate performance evaluations are very important. There can be many biases and

errors that can have a negative effect on the accuracy of the evaluation and they need to be discovered be the evaluation is made final. Self-­‐evaluation is one of the most common biases. Managers should question certain areas of the job and responsibility as most employees see their production to be at a higher level than it actually is at. It’s been proven that self-­‐

evaluators are more objective when asked about certain areas of their job or responsibilities. The 360-­‐degree evaluation method has a chance for a similar issue to arise. “If allowed to do so, people might be tempted to ask their friends in the company to be the ones who receive feedback instruments” (Gravett, L., 2002, para. 11). This could sway the evaluation process in favor of the employee being evaluated. As stated earlier, a way to fight this problem is to not allow the employee to select their evaluators. The halo effect is another form of evaluation biases. This happens when an employee is rated high because of a positive outlook of the employee. To combat this, a manager should see each rated item as independent. In the engineer case, the manager should change their evaluation method to be based

on individual task outcomes, skills, and behaviors instead of personal traits. This will produce a more accurate evaluation and is not based on immeasurable attributes of their employees. The manager should also continue with the 360-­‐degree evaluation method as this will lead to well-­‐ rounded reports from many views of his employees. This method will likely provide the move towards better and more accurate evaluations and also lead to probably avoiding another confrontation.

Judge, Stephen P., & Robbins, Timothy A.(2012) Organizational Behavior, 15/e VitalSource for Western Governors University. Pearson Learning Solutions Gravett, Linda (2002) The Advantages and Disadvantages of a "360" Feedback Process. Paragraph 11. Retreived from http://www.e-­‐hresources.com/Articles/Nov2002.htm