The success of a corporation has been traditionally tied to how well the managers execute the roles of leading, planning and controlling. One of the key components of the controlling aspect of management is the evaluation of the people that they are managing. The function of this process involves monitoring performance goals and has management taking corrective actions when necessary. Performance evaluations can be described as the measurement of the performance of an employee related to defined measures, using an applicable performance goals and appropriate criteria that relates to the employees work in question. This paper will review the engineer’s evaluation in the given case study.
There are three points of concern with the plant manager’s evaluation form. The first problem is that the plant manager is using his own individual assessments and has not taken any input from the plant engineer, who is the subject of the evaluation. The position of the plant engineer in the evaluation is reduced to receiving the finished evaluation. It would be preferred that the engineer actively participate in the evaluation learning the areas that need correction. The second problem of the current evaluation form is that the criterion is completely subjective. There was no attempt by the plant manager to record performance measurements on a continuing basis during the period of the evaluation thus making the evaluation concentrate on inner-office relationships and personality issues. Finally, if the plant manager is going to use the 360-degree evaluation method, the manager needs to seek performance feedback from everyone with whom the engineer interacts including managers, peers, and customers. The 360-degree evaluation method, by its very definition, should be about seeking input from as many sources in an employee's environment as possible.
Businesses should employ evaluation criteria in their evaluation processes, which are common across all performance goals, in order to reduce real or perceived bias in the employee evaluation process.
Four areas that the criteria should include are employee’s impact on the performance goals, skill set, work ethic and professional development. The first set of criteria would relate directly to individual's impact to the vision and objectives of the company. The plant manager should be as specific as possible to help quantify the engineers’ contributions. The second set should be measures concerning a variety employee skill sets such as technical ability, communication, documentation, problem-solving, and adherence to the company’s philosophy. Identifying the engineer’s strengths and weaknesses on diverse skill set criteria will help the engineer gain a wider understanding of his performance overall. The third set of criteria concerns itself with an employee’s work ethic. Work ethic criteria include the amount of work missed, lateness arriving for a job, how well the employee is motivated, positive...