Overcoming a Misaligned Evaluation Form

An effective performance evaluation system serves as both a source of valuable feedback for the employee and useful documentation for management. But being forced to use an evaluation form that is completely out of alignment with an employee’s job responsibilities creates a difficult, if not uncommon, problem for supervisors tasked with evaluating their employees. How can you make your evaluation process work if you are forced to use an evaluation form that is so mismatched that it was obviously written not only for different job descriptions, but for a different type of organization?

When required to use a performance evaluation form that does not align with your employees' actual job duties, focus on the process not the form. That is important enough to say again. Focus on the process, not the form. While completing the evaluation form is one part of the evaluation process, the other parts of the process, if administered appropriately, can overcome a bad evaluation form. Here are the other parts of an effective evaluation process:

Performance Planning Meeting: This meeting is where the supervisor and employee come to an agreement on the employee’s required job competencies (and responsibilities). It is where the supervisor (rater) identifies or clarifies the supervisor’s expectations for the employee. This meeting should be held a week or two AFTER the completion of evaluations to help the employee prepare for the next rating period, or it should be held as far in advance of doing the actual performance evaluation as possible.

Performance Implementation: This phase takes place continuously throughout the rating period. It includes continuous monitoring of employees which includes analyzing performance and adjusting expectations when necessary. During this period, the supervisor provides continuous feedback including conversations, coaching and performance discussions when needed. The supervisor should give feedback, modify expectations as conditions change, offer immediate feedback on unacceptable behavior, and offer recognition to reinforce observed desired behavior.

Performance Review Meeting: This is the meeting where the supervisor discusses the performance ratings given to the employee. The old “balanced meeting” approach, where you praise every employee and identify one area for improvement, is a recipe for failure in this phase.

For top employees and solid performers (typically the majority of the workforce), the focus of this meeting should be entirely positive. Tell them what they did right and thank them for a job well done. Suggested improvements are NOT discussed with these employees in this meeting. They are discussed with them in the Performance Planning Meeting or during coaching or feedback at any other time during the evaluation process.

For marginal employees needing or requiring improvement, the focus of this meeting is their required correction and/or improvement. Trying to “balance” the meeting by citing occasional positive behavior will cause the problem employee to more easily ignore corrective feedback. If strengths are discussed at all, it is only to point out they haven’t been demonstrated lately or have been overshadowed by other problem areas. A few successes do not outweigh their many failures or shortcomings. When you require improvement in a problem employee, save positive feedback for the performance implementation phase when you are providing ongoing feedback (and encouragement) as they improve to meet your expectations.

TIP: Even if you are forced to use an evaluation form that is totally out of alignment with your employee’s responsibilities, a good Performance Planning Meeting, Performance Implementation (feedback) process, and a good Performance Review Meeting can overcome any shortcomings in the evaluation form. It really is about the process not the form!