Digi-sign Performance Evaluation for Students Made Easy

Digi sign performance evaluation for students

so in this video we're going to talk about how to evaluate employees performance this is often a necessary thing to figure out who's doing well who maybe should get promoted or have extra benefits and who maybe need some more help in training so performance appraisals in general as any way that you measure a workers performance it's best to have some kind of standards that you're going to judge it by that way it's not totally subjective we'll talk more about that and for workers this is a good thing it might seem stressful to have your performance evaluated but if you're evaluated well it means you can get pay raises bonuses maybe extra vacation time or at least have your good work properly reinforced and appreciated it also means that you can get feedback on your job performance which means you can increase you know how well you're doing your job a lot of times workers are stressed because they don't know if they're doing a really good job I'm a yoga job or maybe they're making mistakes or not knowing it so it can alleviate stress stress actually to be able to get good feedback on how well you're doing it's for supervisors of course it's absolutely necessary because supervisors have to make decisions all the time about what to do with their employees do employees need to get reprimanded do they need to get promoted and maybe even fire if there's something really serious going on and then also it can give them feedback on their own success as a leader or manager you know how well they're doing is often reflected in how well their workers are doing for organizations this is probably you know the top reason why performance evaluations are done organizations need to know how productive and efficient they are in are there any ways to increase productivity or efficiency there's lots of ways in which performance evaluations can give that kind of data to them it also allows them to figure out what to do with their employees for example are there selection practices working well are they hiring the right people could they maybe improve on their training is there ways in which employees are sort of lacking in the training that they're receiving you can also look at especially for IR psychologists if you're doing any kind of interventions or training models reinforcement models are they working and then of course you can help or it can help you to assess whether your supervisors are being successful with their workers so are you implementing good leadership strategies are the group dynamics working well a lot of things we'll be talking about in future lectures for all of this you need some kind of performance criteria or some way of determining how well people are doing their job and oftentimes this is done with actual measurement tools like surveys and behavioral measures that have predetermined scoring systems or ways to figure out objectively beforehand whether or not someone's going to be doing a good job or a bad job depending on their scores so some common ones and some ones that we'll talk about is that you can have reviews from your supervisors you can actually put out surveys and interviews as HR IO psychologists you can do different behavioral measures we'll talk about a few different techniques and then also you can have customer reviews which have their pros and cons we'll get into that or and this is a more controversial one you can have electronic surveillance that's going on all the time usually this includes things like monitoring internet access and what emails are going through the servers but it can even be a bit more invasive than that nowadays now as far as sources of information go the most common is stuff that you get from supervisors and managers how well are their workers doing and for the most part this is actually pretty reliable and valid for one thing supervisors are you know on the floor they're working with the workers one on one and they usually have a good understanding of what it takes to do a good job so they know what kind of knowledge skills and abilities or KSA's are important for that role and if their workers are maybe lacking in that they also know that their own job depends on how well their workers are doing so usually they're motivated to be honest and objective when evaluating the workers performance because they want to get the best out of their workers just as much as the company does self appraisals or when the workers have praised themselves that tends to be the least predictive of actual job performance one obvious reason courses that people can overemphasize how well they're doing so usually when you have someone evaluate themselves they're not going to come up with a list of all their failings weaknesses or if they do it'll be things like oh I'm too organized or I work too hard so people tend to either be dishonest or just overly positive in their own self assessments also they often focus more on how much effort they're putting in rather than real-world results and sometimes people can put in a lot of effort but not get a lot out of it and that's good to know peer appraisals are having workers evaluate each other tend to be a little bit more reliable and accurate but they still have some faults for one thing you want to make sure that your peers are not being too competitive or cooperative for this to work they need to be neutral so it's a problem if peers or maybe competing over scarce resources like a new position that's over too opened up or higher salaries because that might make them review there appears more negatively in order to have sort of a step up an even more common problem is that coworkers are often friends outside of work so they're not going to want to throw their co-workers under the bus or blame them for things and nothing will happen it's so cover for their co-workers that aren't doing so well so again self appraisals and pure appraisals don't tend to be as reliable as supervisor appraisals now subordinate appraisals that's when workers evaluate their managers or leaders those actually tend to be pretty good for the most part what you can often get is just more information about what your leaders and managers are doing often your subordinates have sort of the best most close-up view of how managers are leading and so if you really want sort of all the information you get you know ask the people who are being led or supervise also they tend to be more accurate if you get a lot of appraisals and collect them anonymously so people aren't afraid of maybe getting retribution from their supervisors if they give them a negative rating and the reason why you want to get a lot of people and maybe just average them together instead of looking at any one appraisal is with any manager supervisor you're going to get people who really probably dislike them you'll also get some people who really like and so by averaging them together you get rid of these biases and you can sort of see on average how well are people working with them and that tends to be pretty reliable and it kind of reduces any kind of selection effects like people who are the most upset or the most loving of their supervisors sort of get averaged out customer appraisals like I said that's kind of a controversial one you definitely if you're dealing with customers in your business want to know how they feel about how things are working with your business and the people they're dealing with the biggest problem is that if you have customers that are having single or just a few interactions with your business they can give pretty unreliable feedback the biggest problem is they tend to over report any extreme example so you know Oh common one that I'm sure everybody uses are things like Amazon reviews so if you buy something from Amazon and the product works just as you expect you probably aren't going to think to go back on the website and provide a review but if the product is faulty or doesn't live up to expectations then you're much more likely to actually bother going online and leaving a negative review so often people on Amazon sort of struggle with the fact that only people who are having a negative experience tend to leave reviews it's often also the case that customers don't have a good idea of what constitutes good performance so if you're a customer representative at a call line you might get a customer who gets really frustrated with you not being able to serve them but it could be that their demands aren't something you can serve or even something that company can do for them it might be that what's restricting you is more the company infrastructure how things are done at your company much more so than your personal service so in a lot of ways customer appraisals tend to be unreliable the one exception is if you have long term customers who are pretty understanding of the way your business is run so for example if you are someone who works in a certain industry that relies on customers and long term customer satisfaction so for example let's say you rent out equipment to construction companies it's likely that you're going to be working with your customers on a regular basis making orders trying to satisfy them with their equipment and that they're gonna get to know you you and your job and so after a while maybe after a few months they'd be able to provide some pretty constructive feedback especially if they're knowledgeable about the field but that's a pretty rare instance in which customer appraisals actually yield reliable information now a lot of companies are turning to electronic surveillance of their workers meeting sort of unobtrusive ways to figure out what workers are doing usually online now a lot of companies of course monitor what phone calls or voicemails are going through their companies I think most people who work at a company realize that in fact if you call most customer service lines they have a little message at the beginning saying this call may be monitored for you know customer service our services but a lot of other companies are also monitoring any web activity so for example for anyone who's at a college most often anything that you do on the internet that's going through school servers can be actively monitored and this is of course done especially check for illegal behavior as more and more companies are turning to monitor an email even actively often scanning emails for certain keywords now they have programs that are even scanning emails holistically to figure out if things like illegal activity or private information is being shared and many more companies will store emails on private servers just in case they happen to be subpoenaed by courts in case there's a court trial or in case there's you know like a discrimination or sexual harassment claim they can go and check your people's email to see if there's any evidence for that in fact one of my friends who works for a data processing company actually makes programs that actively look for any language that could be interpreted as sexual harassment so they can quickly scan all the emails of an entire company literally millions of emails for any evidence of sexual harassment so you got to be really careful what you put forward in emails these days 30% of companies surveyed said they've actually fired workers based on their emails and 40% said they had to turn over their emails to courts for court trials so it's actually fairly common that email ends up being evidence used against workers now this is a more new thing or now monitoring social media posts and that's pretty controversial because a lot of employees say well my social media is private you know that's for my friends and family not for the company but there aren't any laws barring companies from doing this at this point so this might become more common now only two states Delaware and Connecticut actually have laws requiring companies to report exactly how they're monitoring employees so unless you live in those two states you really don't have much of a clue of how your company could be monitoring you and that of course includes maybe the school that you're at - so this is something we're plugging to hear more about in the news especially when it comes to maybe breaches of privacy things like that now there are some pros to electronic surveillance of course for what is cheap it's easy to do and it's objective so for people who are just monitoring for illegal activity for instance it could be a great way to sort of tip people off if for example company secrets are being shared or there could be a case for sexual harassment so these didn't to be pretty effective tools for doing certain things it also helps to prevent inappropriate and illegal behavior because if people know that they're being monitored they're going to be much less likely to actually initiate such behavior it also of course helps companies protect themselves from lawsuits so that if a company is sued they can perfect or perhaps provide evidence that nothing illegal is going on it also helps to detect any kind of time waste or non work-related activities although this actually tends to be the least common approach to electronic surveillance this is kind of the hardest to prove unless you're finding out that your workers are spending hours on you know online shopping networks instead of doing their job you know for the most part this is sort of just a tertiary benefit of electronic surveillance at this point at least now the biggest con of course is that a lot of workers assume that some of their interactions at least even online or private like emails you know especially things like social media accounts and so it's one of those things where the company often isn't very forward about how they're monitoring employees and so it can sort of be a breach of assumed privacy so there are some studies that show that when workers know that they're being monitored they tend to be less risk-taking less creative and innovative so if a company wants their employees to sort of be on the cutting edge of what's possible and to take risks and be creative they probably don't want to have a culture where people think that they're being monitored all the time one good example that's been in the news lately of electronic surveillance really taken to the extreme is with FedEx FedEx in the last few years have adorned their trucks and even their employees with all these monitoring tools so if you see a FedEx driver with their little electronic clipboard that is storing signatures and order reports but it's also taking information on the truck drivers GPS locations how much time they're doing you know outside of the truck on each delivery and in the trucks themselves they record a lot of data on how much time it takes them to get from each destination their speed to make sure they're not speeding or breaking the law even assesses how many left turns they make because left turns are seen as less efficient than the right turns they're more prone to accidents and they take longer and all this information has been able to save FedEx millions of dollars this is one of the ways in which FedEx has really been able to survive and even thrive in an era when mail is becoming less common so it's definitely cutting off time in terms of deliveries it's cutting down accidents especially driver accidents which tend to be very costly and if you think about it with literally millions of deliveries being made each year if you can save even one second off of the average delivery time you're saving your company millions of dollars but as having a big drawback to a lot of workers are being really dissatisfied with this micromanagement for example if a worker starts to back up their truck for too long because backing up a truck can be seen as risky it'll start to beep at them and they can even be reprimanded for making too many left turns so having every single behavior micromanage like that can be really stressful if fedex employees are starting to get the idea that they might want to unionize in order to fight this kind of micromanagement and excessive monitoring now a lot of these measures sort of divide themselves on whether their objective versus subjective objective of course means that you're getting basically numbers or numerical data that's based on real-world observations so things that don't rely on someone's subjective views of worker performance so for example if you're in sales then you can look at well how much are you selling or how much time you're spending with each customer you can look at if you're producing something how much are you producing or what time it takes to produce each object so these tend to be good assessments in getting just basic worker performance data you can sort of take that as the opposite of subjective measures in which it takes an actual person to figure out usually how much quality a worker is producing so this is that more sort of hard to pin down kind of thing like how do you determine if a worker is dedicated to their work or is a good team player or has good communication and social skills often there weren't objective measures of these so these have to be sort of figured out on an individual basis usually by supervisors usually these come with more open-ended responses so if you have for example someone asking so how dedicated is this employee you're not going to just go yes they are dedicated no they are not dedicated that'd be a closed and in response but you'd want to maybe talk about it specific examples of how dedicated they are maybe talk about different ways in which they show dedication so usually this is sort of richer data but there's also more room for bias with objective measures a big Pro is that it really removes a lot of personal biases so of course in this course we've been talking a lot about how things like discrimination and protected workers can often sort of have negative views or stereotypes thrown at them with objective measures that gets around a lot of that because it's not people making decisions it's purely data-driven it's also a lot easier to compare workers because every worker can be compared along the exact same types of objectives and numbers so it's really a one-to-one comparison often also this is pretty predictive about actual job success because it's directly tied with how successful the organization is so it's usually tied with how many units sold or produced how much time it takes to complete a job so in this way it's it's a real-world representation of how well someone's doing at their job of course it comes with its disadvantages - for example there's a lot of KSA's or knowledge skills and abilities that are difficult to measure objectively so for example how can you put a number on how could someone is as a leader or how well they're doing if customers or their level of team spirit in this case these are sort of subjective views but those are very important to determine how well someone's going to be working with their company or how well they're going to be turning up in terms of quality of work so objective measures tend to measure work quantity very well but not necessarily work quality which is of course a really important thing to know it also if you especially using closed-ended questions like in a survey measure you might be excluding a lot of important information if you're just neglecting to ask about it so if you're only asking about let's say 10k SAS or knowledge skills and abilities that you think are important you might be neglecting a lot more that are actually important that you haven't even thought to measure now subjective measures can often make up for these pitfalls for example if you can put things into words instead of data then you can be a lot more versatile and flexible in how you describe workers so that's good because if you have a good supervisor or someone's you're recording data well they're not going to be in any danger of missing information simply because the right question or the right survey tool hasn't been included on the form they can describe it and however they wish and sort of pick on the behaviors the KSA's that I think they think are the most important also you don't have to spend all this time developing expensive and time-consuming measurement tools or spending a lot of money on ones that have already been developed you can simply tell people just observe workers or talk with them interview them and then come away with a report and you can put this in your own words of course the biggest disadvantage is this can be really affected by personal biases and they also tend to only capture extreme or the most memorable examples or behavior so just like we talked about with customer reviews you can have the problem of only negative reviews sort of standing out enough to be reported the same thing can happen with subjective measures if you're a supervisor you probably aren't going to notice when your workers are doing a sort of baseline average job even if that job is pretty good you'll probably notice when workers do exceptionally well but you'll also notice when workers fall short and that's probably what's going to end up in your reports more than the average day-to-day performance it also doesn't necessarily cover all important KSA's especially the supervisor you know isn't that great at assessing all the important ones so it really depends on who's doing the reporting for how well the reports going to be it can also be exceptionally difficult to compare workers especially if they're being reviewed by different supervisors so if you have one supervisor who tends to review people mostly positively and the other ones interview people mostly negatively just due to personal biases then you're gonna have really unfair comparisons because what workers you compare their evaluations are really going to depend on who did their evaluations a good example of a very subjective measurement model as opposed to the FedEx model are Yelp reviews this is something probably most of you guys have used at some point so a big Pro of Yelp which is a service where people can go on and provide any review they want if any public business usually like restaurants is that the customers can really easily evaluate any kind of service experience that they have they can do this anywhere they please and they can do it as much as they want so you can get a lot of rich data from this people can also describe it in a which way they please to so you don't have to worry about missing important information so customer ratings tend to be accurate in these networks as long as you have a lot of ratings and then you can sort of average them or aggregate them across so for example if you have a restaurant that has over a hundred ratings and it has pretty positive reviews you can say okay that's probably a pretty good restaurant even if there are a few reviewers who had negative experiences but compare that to a restaurant who maybe only has three reviews maybe one positive and two negative you might assume that that's not a great restaurant but also could be biased and that only the negative reviews are being left on average and that's the biggest con is that usually you just get this sense by customers for leaving the most reviews restaurants can try to encourage positive reviews by maybe holding signs up or hanging them up in their store restaurant saying please leave this review or even offering some kind of benefit if you leave a yelp review like a coupon but in any case usually what you get are people who have the extreme examples both positive and negative who are the most likely to leave reviews which again doesn't give you a good view of the average day to day performance at that place so one thing you need for all of these methods is some kind of criterion relevance or way to figure out is whatever criteria you're using whether it's objective or subjective is it actually predicting job success you can think of this as the validity or the accuracy of what you're using as an evaluation tool and often different tools have what's called criterion contamination or the degree to which something a certain measure is biased by factors that are unrelated to job success first for example we talked about job interviews that's a sort of assessment tool often those are biased by how attractive an applicant is so unattractive applicants to be viewed more negatively than they would based purely on any job-related KSA's and people's level of perceived confidence or how relaxed they seem and a lot of times things like confidence and attractiveness have nothing to do with how well someone's going to do in their job so both of those would be seen as criterion contaminating factors or or areas of criterion contamination there are ways in which KSA's that are unrelated to job success or biasing how well someone seems to be doing in an evaluation there's also something called criterion deficiency which isn't so much a bias it's just some way in which some important KSA is not being measured so for example if you're looking at how good leaders are and you're just looking at how productive workers are you might be missing important factors like how well leaders communicate with their workers or how well they get along with their workers how satisfied their workers are so some you know assessment tools can be too focused on productivity and not focused enough on maybe more soft interpersonal skills like communication and sociability so that be seen as a deficit because you're lacking assessment of important aspects of a job so when it comes to like objective versus subjective measures objective measures typically have pretty high criterion relevance so since you're measuring real-world results it can be pretty predictive of actual job performance so if you're looking at someone sales records that's obviously a good indicator of how good they are at sales because they're just it's the hard data you know how much have they been selling this month they also tend to have low criterion contamination again because they tend to be unbiased they're more objective or just reduced to the data so in this case the reviewer that's reviewing you probably won't have too much of an influence on your view because all they can do is report objective data points they can't sort of put in their own personal views but there is a potential for criterion deficiency so if a measure isn't made well and it's lacking questions or ways to analyze important KSA's then in that case you're going to have the problem of if you don't ask the right question you're not going to get the right data so in that case you want to make sure that your measures are very well validated and usually this these are measures that are sort of developed by IO psychologists or experienced HR professionals and have been used in many cases and so their validity can sort of be tested over time you know how well does this really capture all of the KSA's that are important to this job now let's compare that to subjective measures which tend to vary greatly in how relevant they are to actual job performance on the one hand if you have really well trained supervisors or evaluators that are good at being objective and good at figuring out what kind of KSA's are actually important for a job you can have really high criterion relevance a really high predictiveness of job performance but of course your evaluations are only as good in this case as those people who are doing the so if you have a reviewer who's not so up on how a job should be done or how to measure quality of a job or who's just personally bias in their job reviews then in that case you're gonna have pretty poor criterion relevance you also tend to have high criterion contamination as we've talked about these can easily be biased by subjective views by different biases and how much people recognize negative versus positive behaviors stereotyping just all the things that kind of come in when you're asking for subjective measure performance there's also likewise a potential for criterion deficiency but this again relies more on how good your evaluator is so if your evaluator really recognizes all the important KSA's that are needed in terms of how well to perform a job they should do a great job of making sure that they're capturing all those important criteria but if maybe they're not as knowledgeable they might leave important stuff out so it really depends on the evaluator in this case so the best results people have found is from mixing these methods from perhaps having some objective measures of ksas but also allowing for more of a free-form evaluation from supervisors peers and customers in other words get information from as many sources as possible it realized on the one hand objective measures are going to be free or from bias but they might be deficient in important KSA's that aren't coded in initially in these measures we're on the other hand while freeform subjective evaluations might be better if capturing the more more the quality aspects of people's work they might also have some personal biases throwing it too so if you can recognize both of those weaknesses from each method then you can kind of figure out you know what is each method really good at for example you can use objective measures to look at a two driven evaluation so how much people are selling or how much people are producing and then supplementing that with measures of more the quality of their performance so just how well they're interacting with customers how well they're working with teams by using more subjective measures so a good example of this is with uber drivers now there's been of course a lot of complaints with uber drivers on many things but one things they didn't do well is how well they're evaluating their drivers especially in terms of their customer service and their efficiency so of course their app collects a lot of data on their drivers such as how long it takes them to do a particular trip how quickly they can pick up and drop off customers how many hours and how much money they're making so they kind of have a good estimate of how well drivers are doing in terms of purely objective eina driven efficiency measures they can also get to know more subjective types of ratings from customer reviews one thing that's kind of nice about customer reviews in this case is oftentimes from customers take an uber they're prompted to give review so they tend to collect a lot of reviews and so they're more reliable you don't get just the extreme reviews being submitted also there are some reviewers or customers who tend to be more problematic or just give negative reviews but the fact that drivers can review their customers and then if the customer it's a lot of different uber trips they get evaluated by a lot of different drivers these sort of problem customers can be evaluated or sort of picked out and so their evaluations maybe won't carry as much weight so if a customer is giving nothing but negative evaluations to Oberer drivers who are normally receiving good reviews people who are overseeing them kind of figure out okay that's more the customer than maybe the driver that's the problem and all this data can even allow them to do things like have their drivers be paid more during their busiest hours so in this way drivers can benefit too it's not purely just penalizing bad drivers but it's also rewarding good drivers who are maybe working at times when they're gonna be at their busiest now some different measurement methods a lot of these sort of fit with different things we've talked about like customer reviews supervisor reviews or objective reviews one that's much more in the customer or supervisor review camp are called narratives so this is when you just have someone describe how well someone's working or their quality of performance usually this is done with interviews or worker observations now these are the most commonly you because they're cheap they're easy to do you don't have to have any measurement tool you can just tell a supervisor or a customer please write a review or a written description of how well someone's doing at their job this also allows reviewers a lot of freedom because it's the subjective measure to use whatever kind of descriptions or talk about whatever KSA's they think are the most important so again this is sort of has all the benefits of a subjective measurement model it has all the disadvantages as well so it has the problems of being able to compare workers so if you have different reviewers giving very different accounts of the same worker you kind of don't know which one to rely on and of course like we've been keep mitching it has a lot of extreme subjectivity in KSA's or sometimes it's turned KSA OS knowledge skills abilities or other attributes that are important it also makes it hard to interpret whether or not a supervisor or a customer's review is fair especially because a lot of times these reviews are very subjective so if someone puts in you know worker does a fair job what does that mean does that mean the worker is doing a good job or just an adequate job or maybe even a barely passable job you kind of don't know so it's just subject to many biases that was we've been talking about throughout this lecture some other cognitive biases we haven't mentioned yet but can definitely play a role especially in subjective measures are things like anchoring effects so if someone comes in with some preconceived notion of how well a worker is doing or how well a worker should do this can really bias how well they see their work performance so a common type of error you see are called leniency errors or severity errors some supervisors who are especially lenient and want to give their workers all positive reviews will be biased in how positive they make their abuse so they tend to ignore any problem areas and just focus on the positive of course the reverse of that or severity errors when supervisors or customers come in and they just focus on all the negative stuff without reporting anything positive so in this way this anchoring effect of being sort of focused on either problems or good points of workers can really make a supervisor customer views less reliable you also have the issue of what's called halo effects or horns effects in which if a supervisor customer thinks positively in general about a worker then they're gonna focus more on their positive characteristics than their more negative characteristics so this is especially a problem if supervisors become friends with their workers or if they just sort of think well if this person has some positive traits like for example maybe the worker is attractive or seemingly confident then they'll just assume that they have a lot of other positive traits they may or may not and the opposite had happened with the horns effect so someone has some some kind of negative aspect that really sticks out to the supervisor or customer they can then have that bias them to see other negative effects this has been seen a lot with discrimination against employees who are perhaps overweight or not attractive people just assume that they have under other sort of unattractive qualities about them even if there's no evidence for that so people can start to be really unfair and how they evaluate people if they have an initial negative expectation or perception of them in the fact is that we humans you know we're pretty quick to make judgments and then once we make an initial judgement we usually just spend the rest of the time sort of supporting that initial judgment with any evidence we collect afterward so our first impression of people can have a huge effect on how we evaluate them afterward so you know if we tend to view people positively that we're probably gonna be biased by a leniency and halo effects or if we tend to view people negatively or if someone just rubs us the wrong way initially we'll tend to be biased with a severity bias or a horns effect and the thing is from that point on we'll usually just use that initial judgment to kind of comb through any other evidence and find supporting evidence more than inconsistent or on supporting evidence so if you think someone's a good employee you're more likely when they do screw up to kind of give them a benefit of the doubt and go well they tried their hardest or you know oh that's a typical of their performance they usually do better whereas if you have a more negative view about them to start with you're more likely to focus on those neg behaviors and then maybe ignore or not even remember positive behaviors so the fact that is you know our memories and our perceptions aren't perfect and so any of those biases can sort of leak into any narrative assessments now a way to get around that is to use objective measures like we've been talking about one such measure is called a graphic rating scale or a Likert scale and this usually has some kind of predetermined rating system so for example you could say well how well do you rate the fairness of your supervisor and you give them some kind of scale in this case it's a one to five scale from extremely unfair to extremely fair now this can help people to sort of be more objective in their ratings there's still some subjectivity because it depends on what you perceive as fair or not but at least everybody can sort of be compared along the same page so the advantages here is that the measures are more clear they're unambiguous you can put them into numbers so you can run statistics on them or compare people directly and also you can sort of run hypothesis checks with them see if certain training protocols lead to better reviews one of the disadvantages though is that they lack flexibility so these tend to be closed and in responses so someone could say that someone's extremely fair or extremely unfair you kind of don't know what they mean by that oftentimes it can miss important KSA teas or knowledge skills abilities and traits so especially if you're not asking the right questions you're not going to get the right data also there's no opportunity for clarification so again if someone gives a certain response like that someone's being really unfair or not being a good worker you can't go well what do you mean by that or how could they improve so oftentimes you also have to develop specific measures for specific jobs too so this is can be time-consuming and expensive because if you have a company that has you know 25 different job positions well then you need to come up with 25 totally different grip graphic rating scales also the same response so if you say you know how often is someone treating their customers well and they put in quite often you know that could mean a lot of different things to different people it could mean that they to someone it might mean that they almost always are generous and nice to customers others it could mean well they're just nice to customers maybe 51 percent of the time or a slight majority of the time so again you kind of don't know unless you can ask people in more open-ended formats another rating scale that tends to be objective and maybe a better measure of specific behaviors is called the behaviorally anchored rating scale or bars and what this usually does is it gives you anchor z' for each response so it's kind of like a graphic scale in which you have different responses you can give but then it also gives behavioral examples for people to figure out what might be the best response so for example if one of the questions is when handling disagreements between subordinates the manager performs very well moderately well or poorly you can put anchors or behavioral anchors on it by saying what do you mean by very well moderately important so very well could be that the person is very fair they hear all sides of the argument before making any decisions whereas the poor could be they make decisions flat out unilaterally without discussing with anyone and moderately meek can mean something in the middle so this just gives someone a clear understanding that if they say someone's doing very well moderately or poorly or whatever the scale is you kind of know a little bit better about what they mean by that another good measurement is a behavioral checklist and this is purely just checking to see if workers are doing certain performances this is usually really advantageous and work that it's more performance driven such as a stocks clerk or sales clerk where you can really just count off you know are they talking to customers about warranty policies yes or no are they stocking all the items in order or taking inventory properly yes no so usually this is literally just a checklist so for example if you can observe a cashier serving customers you can just check off is that cashier patient and polite are they talking and friendly are they counting the change back to customers are they asking the customers if they need stamps if they're at a grocery store so in that way it can be very clear-cut that if there are certain behaviors that workers should be doing that they're doing it and the last version of this called the behavior servation scale again another objective sort of measure this indicates whether a worker is performing certain behaviors more or less often so this would be for example in the last month how often have you seen the sales representative do the following and then you'd actually just say how often maybe 1 to 20 times or however many times they did it so how often they show interest in customers or sort of interest customers and more expensive products how often do they try to sell customers warranties or insurance maybe if you're working at a store that offers those kind of services so in this way you can sort of count off you know aren't they doing it most of the time maybe just 70 percent of the time 10 percent of the time and that can really give you a good measure of maybe ways that you could better train employees or monitor their behavior going forward so the advantages of all these more objective types of measures especially the behavioral measures like bars checklists and observation scales is obviously their their objective they tend to be good at sort of figuring out what kind of specific behaviors that are being done or perhaps not done and it really is clear what's being evaluated much more so than perhaps with subjective evaluations or even just a graphic reading scales that don't have those behavioral anchors often these are more predictive of job performance - even then subjective or other types of objective scales because it's very clear what's being evaluated and everything that's being evaluated it's really specific to the job being done some of the disadvantages though they're still close into questions so obviously they have that disadvantage of laxing and flexibility so if you're not asking the right questions you're not going to get the right data and also it can be difficult to use the same measurements for different jobs or have the same measure generalize to different jobs so often it requires love time and energy to create different types of measures for different specific jobs now with all these appraisals and evaluation techniques they're really kind of worthless unless they provide helpful feedback for workers so last thing we'll discuss here is how to provide helpful feedback after you've done evaluations so usually you know feedback that's given can be especially if it's too vague or where to negatively pretty unhelpful and so you see a lot of this kind of feedback being given by people who aren't properly trained and how to give good feedback so for example if someone says you know your problem is you're just unmotivated you know what's the problem with that well for one thing it's really vague so what do you mean by unmotivated it's also not constructive it doesn't tell people how they can get better so if you highlight just the negative and you don't tell people how they can improve that's not very helpful same kind of problems with things like you need to work harder or when serving customers you can be so rude at them so in these cases again they're very negative they're not constructive and in cases where you say someone so rude that can also be sort of a superlative saying especially that someone's always rude or never helpful these statements tend to be just untrue but also they're just overly negative and not helpful so with all these you want to avoid being too vague and especially it's great if you can provide specific examples of when they're not doing are not working at their best and then constructively advise them how they can do better so for example a good feedback focuses on specific behaviors not character and give specific information recommendations rather than just sort of general ideas like work harder be more motivated being nicer but you can say things like I liked it for you to spend extra few minutes doing this activity every day or I want you to work on this specific skill and I want to see improvement in that in this measurable way so you want to be really specific about what your expectations and recommendations are you also want to be proactive you don't want to just sit there and blame people for what they've done in the past you want to say okay this is some way in which we can improve upon your work in which you can become a better manager or a sales person or whatever kind of job they're doing and it's great if you can be Co active and collaborative in other words suggest how other workers can help contribute to changes and work together you know you can also be collaborative with them and say I'm going to put in this extra effort to to make you better at your job so we're going to work together on this so just this example of some better feedback in fact that's more positive and allows for specific constructive ideas one example could be let's say someone's not doing a great job maybe filing reports that are error free you could say you know start with a positive like you've been great at filing reports you filed a lot of reports with us you shouldn't be very fast and efficient at that before you get to the negative and be specific and you could say but you seem to have some difficulty checking for typos in your reports so there's a specific kind of problem and then you suggest a solution you can say you know I suggest you spend an extra five minutes proofreading each report before filing it so make it really specific what the expectation is and then you can say something reassuring like it's fine if you file a fewer reports each day as long as they contain fewer errors so you can set up your expectations to be really clear that's a lot better feedback than just saying all of your reports seem to have these typos and you know can you do a better job you know proofreading your courts this way people know exactly what's expected of them and they know what to do going forward just one more example if someone's not doing such a great job with customer relations you can again start with a positive so you've been on the sales floor all week and your sales numbers look good so focus on a positive thing first and then get into the problem however we've gotten a few comments from customers that you seem stressed or hurried and this might seem a little like a soft blow you could be getting like really bad customer reviews do you want to put that in a way so that you're not putting the worker on the defensive so just saying that you know you know sees you see the little stressed tired hurried that shows that you have some sympathy toward your worker and lastly the constructive feedback you know please take some minor short breaks throughout the day maybe some five-minute breaks every you know couple hours or so so that you can be as polite and relaxed with customers as you can be and in that way people kind of get the hint so that you know they're not maybe they're being a little rude to customers but it gives them a way to maybe get around that and de-stress so in that way the whole package is you know you want good evaluations not just so that you can see how well workers are doing but also so you can make workers better and that's really goes into how to provide good feedback