We all go through some kind of evaluation process in our lines of work. Every company has its own unique way of evaluating the performance of employees. However, one of the most common techniques of gauging performance involves conducting a subjective performance review. This type of employee evaluation is normally conducted on employees whose positions have an immeasurable aspect to them.
For instance, if you're in sales, you could be closing a lot of deals with your numbers flying though the roof. But would your clients truly be loyal? Judging your performance solely by the numbers you bring in wouldn't be 100% accurate. Customer service is yet another sector whose performance can't quite be measured. There's no surefire way of determining how happy or satisfied customers are at a certain point in time.
The idiosyncratic rater effect
Imagine a scenario where a manager rates his/her employees based on their potential. This kind of rating criteria is clearly immeasurable and largely based on the rater's own perspective. So if I rate employees' performances judging by their 'potential' and other immeasurable traits, this rating would be subject to my individual idiosyncrasies. These include my own definition of "potential", how much potential an employee possesses, how unbiased a rater I consider myself to be and so on. Research conducted over the previous 15 years suggests that employers who attempt to rate the performances of their employees are shockingly unreliable. Ideally, if I was reviewing your performance at work, 61% of this review would be a mere reflection of myself. And despite the high-level training, you could be offering your managers, the idiosyncratic rater effect would remain unchanged.
An array of studies on this subject have been conducted. The first ever study was published in Personnel Psychology in the year 1998 followed by two more confirmatory analyses published in 2000 and 2010 respectively. Essentially, when somebody rates you based on anything, that review reveals much more about that person than it does about you. This shows how inconsistent subjective performance reviews usually are.
Subjective vs objective performance reviews
Objective reviews are purely based on numbers. When rating employees objectively, a manager considers tangible factors such as:
• How many times a worker was late
• Whether they achieved his set targets
• How many times they did (or didn't do) certain tasks
Objective metrics are often a surefire way to determine how you'll reward an individual's hard work and input in the company.
As mentioned before, subjective performance metrics come in handy when the job in question can't be measured easily. There are a plethora of occupations that could benefit from such a review: attorneys, data analysts, salesmen and dolphin trainers, just to mention a few. In this case, managers adjudge the value of an employee based on teamwork, level of customer service, professionalism and other non-numeric criteria. This performance rating is purely based on the rater's interpretation.
Asking the right questions
In truth, there's no perfect way to measure the performance of employees. Administrators and managers should, therefore, come up with an effective assessment strategy that's in sync with the relevant industry standards. One exquisite way to measure performances involves developing relevant questions and asking them at the appropriate time. Naturally, these questions will vary depending on your particular business. You could even decide to use a hybrid rating system that efficiently combines both objective and subjective performance ratings. This will guide you in asking the right questions and ultimately deciding what action to take.
How can WebAtlante Help?
WebAtlante is an amazing HR management software that contains an assortment of resources that help you maintain happy employees, elevated performance levels and a seamless flow of work. At WebAtlante, you’re assured of successfully conducting your subjective performance reviews right on time. We’ll help you ask the right questions.
