 Evaluating an employee’s current and / or

past performance relative to his / her

performance standards.
 Procedure that involves

1.setting work standards

2.Assessing the employee’s actual performance
relative to those standards
3.Providing feedback to the employee
 Individual method
 Essay evaluation
 Checklist
 Graphic rating scale
 Critical incident
 Behaviorally anchored rating
scale
 Management by objective
 Field Review
 Multiple method
 Ranking
 Paired comparison
 Forced distribution
 360 degree appraisal
 Assessment Center
 Open ended qualitative appraisal of
employees performance
 Evaluator puts down his impression in

subjective form on important job factors

• They provide an opportunity for supervisors to
describe aspects of performance not thoroughly
covered by an appraisal questionnaire.
• Since it is descriptive in nature, likely to be biased
and judgmental errors may crop in.
 Simple
 Descriptive
 No specific format
x highly subjective
x scope for biasness
x writing skill
x time constraints
 Evaluator uses a list of behavioral descriptions
 checks off suitable behaviors
 Evaluated by an HR personnel

 Reduces bias as rater and scorer different

x Inefficient as checklist for each category
 Yes No

• Are the supervisor’s orders followed?

• Does the individual approach customer
promptly?
• Does the individual suggest additional
merchandise the customers?
• Does the individual lose temper in public
• Does the individual volunteer to help other
employees?
 A performance appraisal that rates the degree to
which the employee has achieved various
characteristics along a scale or continuum
 Measure the degree of characteristics required for

adequate performance of the job.

 Rates usually receives a score of 1 to 5, with 5

representing excellent.
 Used to assess factors such as quantity and quality

of work job knowledge, dependability, integrity,

attitudes etc.
 U F S G O
Quantity of work:
Volume of work under normal working conditions

Quality of work:          
Neatness, thoroughness and accuracy of work
Knowledge of Job          
A clear understanding of the factors connected with the job
Attitude:          
Exhibits enthusiasm and cooperativeness on the job
Dependability:          
Conscientious, thorough, reliable, accurate, with respect to
attendance, reliefs, lunch breaks, etc.
Cooperation: Willingness and ability to work with others to          
produce desired goals.

U – Unsatisfactory F-Fair S – Satisfactory G-Good O- Outstanding

 Any critical incidents or Outstanding examples of
success or failure of subordinates is recorded by
supervisor.
 Supervisor keeps a log of these critical incidents

 Looks at behaviors and the employee can be shown

the desirable and undesirable behavior.
x Regularly maintain log
x Critical incidents can not be quantified
 Combination of graphic rating scale and critical
incident method.
 Rates employee on a scale
 Points on the scale are actual behavior
 Specify definite, observable and measurable job

behavior
 Discourages the tendency to rate on the basis
of generalized assumptions about personality
traits (subjective) by focussing attention on
specific work behaviours.

 Tedious to Develop

 Open to Interpretation
 Rater has to choose between two or more statements –
may be positive or negative
 Right answer not known to the rater
 Score based on a key

 Reduces bias and distortion

x Difficult to differentiate between similar statements
x Try to second guess the key
 Converts organizational objectives to individual
objectives
 Four steps

-goal setting
-action planning
-self – control
-periodic reviews
 A person might do his job well but fail as a
colleague, partner, subordinate, supervisor.
 Quality will lose out to Quantity
 Leaves out the wish list of the “Individual”
 Heavy paper snowstorm
 Does not fit an entrepreneurial environment
 Line managers did not relish this

(administrative) piece of work

 A senior member of the HR department or a
training officer discusses and interviews the
supervisors to evaluate and rate the
subordinate employee’s performance
 The assessor does not belong to the ratee’s

department.
 Reduces superior personal bias
 Time consuming technique
 Generally used for lower level employees
• Employees are directly compared against one another
- Straight ranking: employees rated from best to worst
-alternate ranking: ranks the best employee and then
the worst employee
- paired comparison: employees are paired, from the
pair one is judged the better performer
 Employee is evaluated in certain order or merit
giving some numerical rank and then these ranks are
grouped to see which employee is rated “BEST”.
Subordinates A B C Mean Rank

Mohan 2 4 3 3.0

Kumar 1 2 1 1.3

Sunil 3 1 2 2.0

Bharat 5 3 4 4.0

Ravi 4 5 5 4.6
 The appraiser compares each employee with
every other employee
PROCESS
First: A and B are compared
Second: Then A is compared with C, D,E….
 The no. of comparisons may be calculated with the help
of a formula:
N (N-1)
2
where N is the no. of employees to be compared.
AS A B C D E
compared
to
A X - - - -
B X + - + -
C + - X - -
D + - + X -
E + + - + X
Highest Ranking 10.____________
Employee 11.____________
1. ___________ 12.____________
2. ___________ 13.____________
3. ___________ 14.____________
4. ___________ 15.____________
5. ___________ 16.____________
6. ___________ 17.____________
7. ___________ 18.____________
8. ___________ Lowest Ranking
9. ___________ Employee
 It is a method to evaluate employees
performance according to a pre-determined
distribution scale
◦ For E.g. rater is asked to distribute 5% of the total
employees on the top of the scale, indicating
their superior performance and promotability
 Predetermined percentages placed in each categories
◦ 10 % may be put immediately under this level,
indicating good performance and promotability
20% Top performers

70% Middle

10%Bottom
 Used to eliminate rating errors such as leniency and
central tendency

 It can cause rating errors because it forces

discriminations between employees even where job
performance is quite similar. For example, even if all
employees in a unit are doing a good job, the forced
distribution approach dictates that a certain number
be placed at the bottom of a graded continuum.

 Hence raters and ratees do not readily accept this

method, especially in small groups or when group
members are all of high ability.
 It is also known as 'multi-rater feedback', is
the most comprehensive appraisal where the
feedback about the employees’ performance
comes from all the sources that come in
contact with the employee on his job.
 It ensures total employee involvement and employee
empowerment
 objectivity
 Points out bias in the supervisor
 Ensures internal customer satisfaction
 Promotes culture
 Potential cost of survey
 Difficulty in implementation
 This method is to test candidates in a social
situation by the number of assessors, using a
variety of criteria
 The assessors or evaluators are drawn from

the experienced executives, working at

different levels of management