Mistakes Employers Make When Recruiting/Hiring

1. Not having a clear idea of what they are looking for - that everyone understands. Hiring authorities aren’t specific enough about the duties, skills, and competencies they need. They confuse amount of experience with competency: “8 to 10 years of experience” - does that mean that someone with six years of experience can’t do the job? Or what about the candidate who has had one year of experience 10 times? Putting any kind of numbers of years of experience limits them. What is important?

Employers would be better off defining the functions they want done very specifically, and then finding someone who can do it. This may mean someone who has done it well before or someone who has the potential to do it well. The specifics need to be written by the hiring authority who has the “pain,” i.e., the person who needs the help and is going to be responsible for the new employee.

Concocting “wish lists” of super-human attributes, combined with unrealistically low pay scales relative to expectations of the experience needed, will create havoc in a talent search. Hazy, ambiguous descriptions along with generalities like “good written and oral communication skills” don’t help either. Know your target.

 

2. Having an unrealistic idea of what kind of candidates might be available and the money it may take to hire them. Just because everyone would like to hire Superman or Wonder Woman, that doesn’t mean they are available or will go to work at your company. There is no perfect candidate, and waiting for one is as unrealistic as searching for one.

The only way to become realistic about what the market might bear is to interview enough candidates to know what is available and the commensurate earnings expected. It may take quite a few interviews. The number of quality candidates is drastically lower than it was even two years ago. Our clients are often shocked that the salaries they are locked into won’t allow them to hire the quality or experience they wish for.

And just because you believe that your company is wonderful, it doesn’t mean: (1) everyone wants to go to work there, (2) they will accept any amount you offer, and (3) there aren’t four or five other firms like yours trying to hire the same candidates.

 

3. Having too many people involved in the interviewing process . . . and the wrong ones. More than a number of studies have shown that hiring is just as successful when one person, the one with the “pain” (i.e., the direct manager), is the only person involved in the hiring process as opposed to more than one. In fact, other studies have shown that once the number of people in the interviewing and hiring process exceeds three, the probability of a bad hire is greater. The reason so many people are usually involved in the interviewing and hiring process is that people, naturally, want to spread the risk. So if it turns out to be a poor hire, people can justify their decision with “Well, you interviewed him too!” Few people have the courage to interview and hire alone and take the responsibility one way or the other, even though better hiring decisions would probably be made.

. . . and the wrong ones. Relying on people to screen, interview, or have a say in the hiring who have no personal, working benefit from the potential new hire’s performance (i.e., their position is in jeopardy if a poor hire is made) is a big mistake. Most managers will claim that hiring good people is the second or third most important function they have, right behind making a profit. We can never figure out why, if this is so, hiring authorities will delegate screening or interviewing of candidates to people, although wonderful people, who have no direct experience, knowledge, or “skin” in the position to be filled. “But I don’t have time to look at résumés and interview all those people,” is what we hear. Well, if hiring is one of a manager’s most important functions, he or she should take the time and make the effort to do the whole job from start to finish. How can they afford not to?

 

4. Process takes too long. The average manager thinks that it takes about 30 days to fill a vacant position. Try the truth: between 90 and 120! Why? Because folks drag things out that should be simple - not easy, but simple. When the hiring process takes too long, good candidates are lost to more decisive companies, managers look inept at hiring, and it gets harder and harder to fill the vacancy. Managers, again, don’t give this the priority status needed - shown by action, not lip service. Time kills! The “shelf life” of quality candidates is shorter and shorter.

 

5. Poor interviewing techniques. If hiring authorities would simply write out a simple (or complicated) list of questions and ask every candidate the same questions, record the answers, and compare the responses - quickly - hiring decisions would be easy to make.

“Tell me about yourself” is the first question down the wrong road. Most employers start with that, ask random questions to “get to know the candidate,” make notes on the résumés, and then three weeks later try to compare the candidates. They often spend hours with candidates and don’t remember the differences between them.

A structured, disciplined interview technique that is applied to every candidate in exactly the same manner is the only real way to compare candidates. It is so simple and yet so seldom practiced. (We have samples of structured interviews for the asking.)

 

6. Interviewing or not interviewing a candidate on the basis of a résumé! Forty percent of hiring a person is based on personality and chemistry! Then why do people rely on résumés instead of interviews? Because they don’t know how to use a résumé.

I can’t tell you how many phenomenal candidates get eliminated because of a résumé and how many poor performers get interviewed because of a well-written résumé. “But I can’t interview every résumé I get!” OK, right. But if a candidate even looks like a possibility of being a good one, at least pick up the phone and spend 15 or 20 minutes with him or her. Or, better yet, spend 30 minutes face to face with them. Get a quick take on who they are and what they can do. Do this with a number of candidates. You can then thoroughly interview the ones that are the best for your situation. This method is quick and efficient, but it takes discipline - no more than 30 minutes on the first one!

Hiring authorities and screeners put way too much emphasis on what is on a résumé. They try to judge the total quality of a candidate by a résumé. A résumé is a “go by.” It should simply define a candidate as a “possibility”- and a broad possibility at that. The interviews have to be the qualifiers.

People who “qualify” a candidate and decide how he or she is going to perform should read Tony Romo’s résumé a nobody; or Kurt Warner’s - a bagger at a grocery store; or Abe Lincoln’s - many failures. Don’t rely on résumés!

This is how you go over a candidate's resume

 

7. Not interviewing enough candidates - or interviewing way too many. Most hiring managers err on the “too few” end of the spectrum. “I want to talk to the three best candidates!” “I don’t have time to talk to everybody!” No one person other than a hiring authority can tell who is “best.” Three or four is usually too few. The “bell curve” for most professional hires is about 9 or 10 candidates. This, of course, depends on the level of job and the availability of certain types of candidates. The key is to know what kind of availability there is in the marketplace for the kind of person being sought. Our banking division, for instance, may be lucky to find three or four qualified VPs at any one time. A mid-level sales position may require 10 or 12 candidates. Even recruiting a number of quality candidates for administrative positions, which traditionally would bear many quality candidates, isn’t as easy to do in this market.

The key is to interview a range of quality candidates and know what is available. If you want to wait for superman or superwoman, I guess it’s OK. It just depends on how badly you need to hire someone. Just be sure you know, firsthand, the quality of candidates on the market. The only way to do that is to do your own interviewing of the numbers necessary and available.

The other end of the spectrum is the hiring authority who wants to interview forever, thinking unrealistically that the quality of candidates will get better the more that are interviewed and the longer it takes. All too often, we hear from hiring authorities, “We have interviewed 20, 25, or 30 candidates.” There is something wrong here. They exhaust themselves in a “process,” forgetting the result, and then complain about it. It doesn’t get a good employee. They confuse activity with productivity.

Interview the number of candidates necessary. Don’t make the mistake on either end of the spectrum.

 

8. Not communicating with candidates after interviews and not giving honest feedback. For some reason, hiring authorities don’t seem to mind being rude - even to candidates they are interested in hiring. Everyone is busy. The truth is that, to a candidate looking for a job, whether presently employed or not, finding a job is a very high priority. To a hiring authority, in spite of the lip service about how important hiring is, it is simply one of their functions. Hiring is a risk. Most employers don’t really like doing it. So the process often gets postponed, sloppy, and rather unprofessional.

As the market tightens, quality candidates will have many suitors. A good candidate will simply lose interest in a possibly good opportunity if they are treated rudely. We have had many candidates elect to pursue opportunities simply because they were treated with respect and courtesy.

Also, if the candidate isn’t going to be considered, he or she should be told as soon as possible. We are amazed at the number of hiring authorities who won’t return a candidate’s call, or multiple calls, just to say that they have found a more suitable candidate. We never know when that kind of lack of courtesy will come back to us. Years ago, I had a candidate who was rudely ignored by a hiring authority. A few years later, the roles were reversed. The candidate was now a hiring authority, and when I tried to get him to see my candidate, the hiring authority of a few years ago, my client laughed and said no with vengeful glee. He remembered how he had been treated. What goes around often comes around.

This is what you should do after the interview

 

9. Not selling the job and the company. Although this isn’t the biggest mistake hiring authorities make, it is certainly the most prevalent one. We can never figure out why, in trying to find the best talent available, hiring authorities act as if they are doing someone a favor by granting them the privilege of an interview. They act as though they have the only job on the planet, and candidates are begging to work there. Wrong! Good candidates will have many choices. The days of the early 2000s, when there were endless numbers of candidates, are gone. The company and the hiring authorities that sell their job the best will hire the best talent. It is a candidate-driven market. We can also forget lowball offers, poor benefits, or a “take it or leave it” attitude when making an offer.

This is how you sell your company to the candidate

 

10. Not having “backup” candidates. This means continuing to interview even though a great candidate may have been found. In fact, we recommend having three great candidates in the queue.

As happens too often, a hiring authority zeroes in on one candidate, and as the interviewing process drags on (see #4), the hiring authority quits interviewing because it is a pain. They get to the end of the process, make an offer, and it isn’t accepted. The frustration of having to start all over is astounding. So the solution is to keep interviewing until someone is hired - and has started the job. We simply expect that a good candidate is going to get multiple offers.

 

10 (a) Not firing a new hire when the hiring is obviously a mistake. This is a tough mistake to make. Everyone wants to see a new employee make it. But too often, cutting new hires too much slack because they are new is a mistake. The numbers of failed new hires we have seen that were let go or quit six or seven months after their hiring, with the hiring authority complaining, “I saw it in the first week!” would make us all cry. It becomes disruptive to the business, it destroys the chemistry of the employees working with the new hire, and worst of all, everyone can detect it, but the hiring authority chooses to overlook it. Respect for the hiring authority diminishes, and eventually the new employee leaves or is fired.

The solution that better hiring authorities adopt is to keep new employees in line in the very beginning, even “over manage” a bit. If disregard for company policies, or poor work habits, like showing up late, missing work, having numerous “personal” problems, emerge in the first few weeks of employment, it isn’t going to get any better. Besides, the “honeymoon” isn’t even over.

There is a big difference between “rookie” mistakes and poor work habits, low integrity, bad manners, or serious personal problems that impinge on work. Even the most rigorous interviewing process and extensive reference, background, and credit checking can’t prevent this from happening.

One of the most successful hiring authorities we worked with years ago had a great philosophy. He was the most successful general manager of a nationwide insurance company. And he was that for 15 years in a row. He managed 110 people, directly and indirectly. He told me one time that he wasn’t successful because he hired better people than the other GMs around the country. The difference was that he fired people “when he first got the inkling.” He simply didn’t waste his time on people he knew weren’t going to make it.

The sense of when to fire a new employee is personal. Good managers know when to do it. Hire carefully, but fire quickly! If a bad hire is made, eliminate it quickly. The hiring authority will look like a true manager, and everyone is better off.

 

11. Not treating candidate visiting company for interview, as a guest. Most of the companies overlook the need of treating visitors for interviews as important guests. They are held up at the gate, where the security people are not always informed about them and need to treat them with respect. There is hardly any reception or waiting area where these candidates can be attended properly while they wait for their turn to be interviewed, with lot of anxiety. The wait can extend from minutes to 6 hrs at times. Better hospitality during this will definitely score a plus on candidates mind, about the organization.

It is these defining moments before and after the interview, when the impression about organization’s people orientation is formed. These impressions are usually communicated far and wide to cause potential damage of drying up of future Grade A applicants.

 

12. Not having a pre-screening process over phone. Employers need to understand that it is always difficult for a candidate to take leaves for attending interviews. This becomes even more difficult for candidates who are traveling from long distances (different cities/states). A pre-screening initiative by the employer (respective HOD) where he/she invests 10/15 min is assessing the suitability of candidate for the job/organization and clearing his doubts about role/job profile, can save time and money for both candidates & employers. This will also help the short-listed candidates who are called for interview to be well prepared as per the discussion ensuring better results for everyone.

 

13. Not communicating the recruitment process to candidates, well in advance. Every organization has some unique process before hiring. The process may or may not include written tests, group discussion, functional tests (letter drafting/ engineering design etc), multiple interviews, need for multiple visits etc. This information if clearly defined and communicated can help the candidate be mentally prepared for the process and deliver to the best of his/her ability.

 

Following Mistakes which should be avoided while retrenching the employee

In this bad time of economic recession when as a HR person we have to remove employees under pressure as a measure of cost cutting. We commit following mistakes which should be avoided:-

· Underestimating the significance of retrenchment on the employee psyche. Treat them as humanly as you can.

· Retrenching wrong employees. Make sure that right people are picked up for retrenchment and there should be no sign of favouritism. Your decision in this respect should be apparently rationale.

· Treating retrenchment as a mechanical task instead of human process . When people are retrenched from the organisation their impact is felt for a long time. Take it as difficult human process and not as mechanical event.

· Forgetting to rebuild trust after retrenchment. Never initiate reducing head count process without a long term plan for rebuilding trust among employees and reenergizing the organisation. You should be effective enough to reengage remaining people in critical activities as early as possible.

· Ignoring the remaining employees. It is equally important to address the needs of remaining employees who are not retrenched because in this process they also equally experience every emotion of mistrust and anger. Talk to them, understand their concerns and allow them time to resettle.

· Failing to equip HODs with adequate information. Normally HODs are kept away from this decision making process. Always provide them all information and clarification before hand. Help them understand and communicate the reasons. Why the tough decisions were made.

· Failing to monitor and eliminate rumours. Never keep aside as rubbish what employees say and react . To find out what is on their mind, ask them every moment your get to interact. Adjust your communication plan to match their frequency.

· Failing to become a role model. It is for leaders to prove their nerve in bad times. Do not pass the buck. Lead by example. What you expect from your subordinate to behave, first apply on yourself. Take some visible action that communicate empathy with your employees.

Retaining best brains seems effortless for IT firms...

Though cash strapped, IT firms are now finding it almost easy to retain their best performers without shelling out big pay packets as job-hopping has lost its sheen in the current economic scenario.

At several firms, employees are not even thinking about a hike because many think they will not get it and hopping is out of question. Nikhil Mehta (name changed), one of the employees at Infosys Technologies says, "The credit crunch is pulling down attrition rate at Infosys, dissuading the company management from bringing in any retention measures. Now, employees` concern is safety and we are enjoying that to a great extend here. If we jumped to another firm, we might not find this security comfort, though this approach has a dark economic side. One can also look up to this as a long term policy of a company to offset any probable backlash from employees."

When contacted, some employees were scared of speaking up about the issue as they thought this might adversely affect their career. Moreover, if they are fired, it would not be that much easy for them to find another job in this circumstance. However, some said that they received emails from the top managements explaining about the financial crunch their companies are facing. The emails are also said to have a message for employees saying that they should not expect a usual kind of appraisal this time.

Raghuram (name changed on request), an employee from Oracle Financial Services, says, "Those employees who are asking for a hike are not always entertained. And if any hike is given, that would be only meager amount, well below the usual standards. Since hopping job does not make any sense during this situation, one has to be content with whatever is available."

An employee who recently joined Unisys, Rahav Takur (name changed) said, "I was laid off from a startup firm along with many others. Now I got a job with Unisys with 30 percent hike in the pay. I am sure that I would have got a 50 percent hike, if there was no slowdown in the market. But I need to accept, whatever is available given the time."

The situation prevails not only in India. A news report cites the case of Walter Scott, a 20 year experienced IT professional based in U.S., whose bosses have had a severe fight with the company management to secure him a hike, though as meager as 1.78 percent.

Scott, a solutions architect at Verizon Business in East Meadow, New York, says he has helped land a few prominent deals since joining Verizon two years ago, including a $30 million contract with a health care customer in 2007. Though he could get only a tiny hike despite his big contributions, he does not think of quitting. "I am satisfied with my wost-of-living, exemplifies the contemporary life of many other IT professionals all over the world as employers are pulling in the reins on salaries.

The 22nd annual Salary Survey conducted by Computer World, based on responses from 6,801 U.S. IT workers, total compensation (salary plus bonus) rose an average of just 3.5 percent this past year, reflecting little change over the 3.7 percent average increase reported in 2007. Meanwhile, bonuses for IT professionals rose by an average of only 0.2 percent in 2008, compared with 3.4 percent in 2007.

"I think IT professionals have reluctantly accepted that the days of special treatment for IT - which did endure for nearly a decade - are gone," the report quoted David Van De Voort, an IT workforce specialist, as said.

Source: http://hrlink.in/news/retaining-best-brains-seems-effortless-for-it-firms

Types of Organizational Structures

Organizational structure refers to the way in which an organization’s activities are divided, grouped, and coordinated into relationships between managers and employees, managers and managers and employees and employees. An organization’s departments can be formally structured in three major ways: by function, byproduct/ market or in matrix form.

Functional Organization is perhaps the most logical and basic form of departmentalization. It is used mainly by smaller firms that offer a limited line of products because it makes efficient use of specialized resources. Another major advantage of a functional structure is that it makes supervision easier, since each manager must be expert in only a narrow range of skills. In addition, a functional structure makes it easier to mobilize specialized skills and bring them to bear where they are most needed.

As an organization grows, either by expanding geographically or by broadening its product line, some of the disadvantages of the functional structure begin to surface. Because functional managers have to report to central headquarters it can be difficult to get quick decisions. It is often harder to determine accountability and judge performance in a functional structure. If a new product fails, who is to blame research and development, production or marketing? Finally coordination the functions of members of the entire organizations may become a problem for top managers. Because members of each department may feel isolated from or superior to those in other departments, they may have difficulty working with others in a unified way to achieve the organization’s goals. For example, the manufacturing department may concentrate on meeting cost standards and delivery dates and neglect quality. As a result, the service department may be flooded with complaints. In short, a functional structure can be a difficult setting in which managers must coordinate employees’ activities.

Product / Market organization:

Product or market organization, often referred to as organization by division, brings together in one work unit all those involved in the production and marketing of a product or a related group of products, all those in a certain geographic area, or all those dealing with a certain type of customer. In the 1990 Hewlett-Packard reorganization, John Young replaced one kind of product organization with another kind of product organization.

Most large, multi-product companies such as General Motors have a product or market organization structure. At some point in an organization’s existence, sheer size and diversity of products make functional departments too unwieldy. When a company’s departments becomes too complex or coordinating the functional structure, top management will generally create semi-autonomous divisions. In each division, managers and employees design, produce and market their own products.

Organization by division has several advantages. Because all the activities, skills and expertise are required to produce and market particular products are grouped in one place under a single head, a whole job can more easily be coordinated and high work performance maintained. In addition both the quality and the speed of decision making are enhanced because decisions made at the divisional level are closer to the scene of action. At the same time, the burden on central management is eased because divisional managers have greater latitude to act. Perhaps most important, accountability is clear. The performance of divisional management can be measured in terms of the division’s profit or loss.

Matrix Organization:

The matrix structure sometimes referred to as ‘multiple command system’ is a hybrid that attempts to combine the benefits of both types of designs while avoiding their drawbacks. An organization with a matrix structure has two types of structure existing simultaneously. Employees have in effect two bosses that is, they work in two chains of command. One chain of command is functional or divisional. The second is a horizontal overlay that combines people from various divisions or functional departments into a project or business team led by a project or group manager who is an expert in the team’s assigned area of specialization.

Source: http://www.citeman.com/4747-types-of-organizational-structures

Oil officers' strike called off

Govt flexes muscles, refuses to accede to demands.

Within hours of the government cracking down on them, ordering arrests and calling in the Army, the oil PSU executives gave in this evening and called off their three-day-old strike, which had crippled fuel supplies and affected power generation in the country.

“Everything will be normal by tomorrow,” Petroleum Minister Murli Deora said, giving relief to millions of commuters, who were starved of fuel due to a majority of petrol pumps and CNG fuelling stations going dry because of the agitation.

Some 55,000 executives from 13 government-owned oil companies — under the umbrella of the Oil Sector Officers’ Association (OSOA) — began an indefinite strike on Wednesday demanding higher wages.

Army was called in to manage loading and dispatches to petrol pumps as the government ordered arrests and dismissals of officers keeping off work. The move cracked OSOA, with Bharat Petroleum, the second largest retailer, walking out of the agitation instantly.

With 67 executives of the ONGC and Indian Oil already terminated and more lists being drawn, the other constituents of OSOA in bits and pieces withdrew from the agitation that had also delayed domestic and international flights.

OSOA was unhappy with the hike in salaries approved by the government and brought key refineries and oil and gas fields to a grinding halt.

OSOA President Amit Kumar, who had been in hiding since the strike began on January 7, stated that OSOA withdrew the strike late this evening on assurances given by Deora for considering their demands at a meeting with him last night.

But Deora countered this, saying no assurance had been given and OSOA demands would be considered by a committee of ministers headed by Home Minister P Chidambaram.

“We have not yet worked out the loss estimates of the strike,” Petroleum Secretary RS Pandey said.

“As many as 138 CNG stations would be fully functional by tonight,” he added.

Two-thirds of the petrol pumps across the country ran dry as refineries were shut down. Gas-based power generation was hit, fertiliser production was down and flights were delayed as the oil executives stayed away from work despite invocation of the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA) by many states.

After negotiations, which went on till late Thursday, the government decided that there was no scope for any further negotiation.

The officers said that their demands — chiefly one of wage hike — should be acceded to immediately rather than within the 30 days that the Group of Ministers (headed by the home minister) promised. OSOA says that the real average wage hike has just been 17 per cent rather than the 55-149 per cent claimed by the government.

“Our demand is that we should be given a hike of 32.5 per cent,” said a senior ONGC employee from Gujarat. The other demands include pay revision every five years instead of 10 years.

“We have no scope for any discussion. There is no demand to negotiate. This is absolute unreasonable obstinacy,” said Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) Chairman Sarthak Behuria earlier in the day.

The company runs about half of the 37,000 fuel retail pumps in the country as well as some of the key refineries like Mathura and Panipat. It has estimated the loss from the strike at about Rs 30 crore per day.

The oil companies have declared Saturday and Sunday as full working days to compensate for the crores of rupees of losses that the strike has caused.

The oil officers are getting a gross salary of Rs 1-3 lakh each after the pay revision, in addition to various special allowances and are among the “privileged sections of society. Such a behaviour is unacceptable,” said a statement from the oil ministry.

Mahanagar Gas (MGL) resumed supply to a few of its compressed natural gas (CNG) stations with additional supply of gas from ONGC. The company was able to start around 43 CNG outlets by Friday evening. There are about 132 CNG stations in Mumbai.

Providing Performance feedback

For many mangers, few activities are more unpleasant than providing performance feedback to employees. In fact, unless pressured by organizational policies and controls, managers are likely to ignore this responsibility.

Why the reluctance to give performance feedback? There seem to be at least three reasons. First, managers are often uncomfortable discussing performance weakness directly with employers. Even though almost every employee could stand to improve in some areas, managers fear a confrontation when presenting negative feedback. This apprehension apparently applies even when people give negative feedback to a computer. Bill Gates reports that Microsoft conducted a project requiring users to rate their experience with a computer. When we had the computer the users had worked with ask for an evaluation of its performance, the responses tended to be positive. But when we had second computer ask the same people to evaluate their encounters with the first machine, the people were significantly more critical. Their reluctance to criticize the first computer to its face, suggested that they didn’t want to hurt its feeling even though they knew it was only a machine.

Second, many employees tend to become defensive when their weaknesses are pointed out. Instead of accepting the feedback as constructive and a basis for improving performance some employees challenge the evaluation by criticizing the manager or redirecting blame to someone else. A survey of 151 area managers in Philadelphia, for instance, found that 98 percent encountered some type of aggression after giving employees negative appraisals.

Finally, employees tend to have an inflated assessment of their own performance. Statistically speaking half of all employees must be below average performers. But the evidence indicates that the average employee’s estimate of his or her own performance level generally falls around the 75th percentile. So even managers are providing good news, employees are likely to perceive it as not good enough.

The solution to the performance feedback problem is not to ignore it, but to train managers to conduct constructive feedback sessions. An effective review – one in which the employee perceives the appraisal as fair, the manager as sincere, and the climate as constructive can result in the employee’s leaving the interview in an upbeat mood, informed about the performance areas needing improvement and determined to correct the deficiencies. In addition, the performance review should be designed more as a counseling activity than a judgment process. This can best be accomplished by allowing the review to evolve out of the employee’s own self evaluation.

Have you ever had to give colleagues or classmates feedback on their performance? Did you try to stay positive or did you find you took a negative approach? Maybe you would handle the situations differently next time. If you are curious about how good you are at giving performance feedback, see the Self assessment feature.

A superior or a manager can be more effective at providing feedback if he uses the following suggestions:

Focus on specific behaviors:

Feedback should be specific rather than general. Avoid such statements as “You have a bad attitude” or “I’m really impressed with the good job you did”. They’re vague and although they provide information, they don’t tell the recipient enough to correct the “bad attitude” or on what basis his boss concluded that a “good job” had been done so the person knows what behaviors to repeat or to avoid.

Keep feedback impersonal:

Feedback, particularly the negative kind, should be descriptive rather than judgmental or evaluation. No matter how upset the superior is, he should keep the feedback focused on job-related behaviors, and never criticize someone personally because of an inappropriate action.

Keep feedback goal-oriented:

Feedback should not be given primarily to “blow off steam” or “unload’ on another person. If the manager has to say something negative he must make sure it’s directed toward the recipient’s goals. The feedback is supposed to help the person receiving the feedback. If the feedback is helping the superior then undermines your credibility and lessens the meaning and influences of future feedback.

Make feedback well timed:

Feedback is most meaningful to a recipient when there’s a very short interval between his or her behavior and the receipt of feedback about that behavior. Moreover, if the boss is particularly concerned with changing behavior, delays in providing feedback on the undesirable actions lessen the likelihood that the feedback will be effective in bringing about the desired change. Of course, making feedback prompt merely for the sake of promptness can backfire if the manager or superior has insufficient information. If the superior is angry or otherwise emotionally upset the feedback given in such instances, “well timed” could mean “somewhat delayed.”

Ensure understanding:

Make sure your feedback is concise and complete so that the recipient understands it clearly for making improvements in his work area.

Source: http://www.citeman.com/4525-providing-performance-feedback-2

Methods of Performance Evaluation

Source: http://www.citeman.com/4556-methods-of-performance-evaluation-2

Now we ask: How do we evaluate an employee’s performance? That is, what are the specific techniques for evaluation?

Written Essays: Probably the simplest method of evaluation is to write a narrative describing an employee’s strengths weaknesses, past performance, potential and suggestions for improvement. The written essay requires no complex forms or extensive training to complete. But this method a good or bad appraisal may be determined as much by the evaluator’s writing skill as by the employee’s actual level of performance.

Critical Incidents: Critical incidents focus the evaluator’s attention on the behavior that is key in making the difference between executing a job effectively and executing it ineffectively. That is, the appraiser writes down anecdotes that describe what the employee did that was especially effective or ineffective. The key here is to cite only specific behaviors not vaguely defined personality traits. A list of critical incidents provides a rich set of examples from which the employee can be shown the behaviors that are desirable and those that call for improvement.

Graphic Rating Scales: One of the oldest and most popular methods of evaluation is the use of graphic rating scales. In this method a set of performance factors such as quantity and quality of work, depth of knowledge cooperation, attendance, and initiative is listed. The evaluator then goes down the list and rates each on incremental scales. The scales may specify five points, so a factor such as job knowledge might be rated 1 (poorly informed about work duties) to 5 (has complete mastery of all phases of the job). Although they don’t provide the depth of information that essays or critical incidents do, graphic rating scales are less time consuming to develop and administer. They also allow for quantitative comparison.

Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales: Behavioral anchored rating scales (BARS) combine major elements from the critical incident and graphic rating scale approaches: The appraiser rates the employee based on items along a continuum, but the points are examples of actual behavior on the given job rather that general descriptions or traits. Examples of job related behavior and performance dimensions are found by asking participants to give specific illustrations of effective and ineffective behavior regarding each performance dimension. These behavioral examples are then translated into a set of performance dimensions each dimension having varying levels of performance.

Forced Comparisons:

Forced comparisons evaluate one individual’s performance against the performance of another or others. It is a relative rather than an absolute measuring device. The two most popular comparisons are group order raking and individual ranking.

The group order ranking requires the evaluator to place employees into a particular classification such as top one-fifth or second one–fifth. This method is often used in recommending students to graduate schools. Evaluators are asked whether the student ranks in the top 5 percent of the class the next 5 percent, the next 15 percent, and so forth. But in this type of performance appraisal, managers deal with all their subordinates. Therefore if a rater has 20 employees, only 4 can be in the top fifth and, of course, 4 must also be relegated to the bottom fifth. The individual ranking approach rank orders employees from best to worst. If the manager is required to appraise 30 employees, this approach assumes that the difference between the first and second employee is the same as that between the twenty first and twenty second. Even though some of the employees may be closely grouped, no ties are permitted. The result is a clear ordering of employees, from the highest performer down to the lowest.