#1: Generic evaluations vs. individualized
Organizations know they must evaluate their employees. Well-meaning attempts are made to create an evaluation form that applies to everyone in the company. Often these evaluations are "bubble forms" that can be scanned electronically so that the results can be tabulated and used to compare individual rankings. Invariably some of the elements do not apply to specific individuals and often the entire process is viewed cynically as a waste of time that produces no real behavioral change.
Individualized evaluations seem to be impractical. Too messy, involving too much narrative and not enough quantifiable data - they promote variability within organizations looking for repeatability and standardization.
There is a wonderful balance - an individualized scorecard that allows the organization to identify areas to be evaluated uniformly while encouraging (even requiring) individuals to participate in setting their goals and objectives for the year with input from their managers who can add or edit items that appear on the scorecards. I'd love to show you how this would work within your organization.
#2: Annual evaluations vs. quarterly
Annual evaluations are often postmortems. "Remember back in February when you screwed up that mailing to our clients, well that is unacceptable and must be avoided." This issue is long ago dead and doing an autopsy isn't likely to produce real change.
"Quarterly evaluations are too time consuming and repetitive. Besides, I manage by walking around and provide immediate feedback to my team members on a regular basis."
The goal of the quarterly evaluation is to discuss progress on the scorecard, noting items that have been completed as well as items that should be added or deleted (they may be no longer relevant). This is more of a coaching session and allows you to address specific behaviors while they are relatively fresh and still remembered. Done correctly they don't need to take a lot of time and produce sufficient behavioral change throughout the year to more than compensate for any additional effort. Let's talk about how quarterly evaluations can work for you.
#3: Bottom-line evaluations vs. comprehensive
Some evaluations focus only on behaviors that directly contribute to the bottom line. "Did you sell X widgets?" "Were you at your desk from 8-5 each day?" "Did you learn to operate the new equipment we installed?"
One of my clients evaluates team members in two areas: results and attributes. Neither alone is sufficient - both are required. Results are the bottom-line data points. Attributes are the people skills, the interpersonal communication, the teamwork, and the emotional intelligence (EQ).
The danger of only focusing only on results is protection of the highly competent saboteur.
Protecting the highly competent saboteur
The highly competent saboteur is the person that the organization cannot do without, while being the person who is poisoning your team from within.
"We could never make it without Mary, she's just so good at her job. I can't imagine what we would do if she ever left."
"But Mary is eating you alive from the inside."
"Trust me, she's so good at what she does."
"But she's destroying you."
Generic evaluation forms protect the highly competent saboteur by focusing on generalized bottom-line behaviors at which this person excels.
Annual evaluations protect the highly competent saboteur by minimizing interpersonal conflicts that have long ago faded and are accepted as part of the cost of having this person on board. You only have to have one evaluative conversation per year and it's easy enough to focus on the great results this person brings.
Bottom-line evaluations protect the highly competent saboteur in a parade of "exceeds expectations" based on bottom-line behaviors with no regard for the attribute side of the equation. IQ trumps EQ and productivity drowns out personal accountability.
