One reason everyone hates
performance evaluations is because most companies donít properly
train their managers how to do them.
One common mistake is
using a scale that's too narrow to differentiate between good
Imagine that youíre evaluating
three employees on a broad scale of 1-100.
Employee #1 is an 80. Heís
okay but has plenty of room for improvement.
Employee #2 is a 90. Heís good, but still has
some room for improvement.
Employee #3 is a 99 and is
as close to perfect as they come.
There's 19 points difference
between Employee #1 and Employee #3. Now look at the disaster
that will happen if they're evaluated on a narrow scale of 1-5.
Employee #1 gets a 4 because thatís the
mathematical equivalent of 80.
Employee #2 also gets a 4, because thatís the only
place you can put him on the narrow scale.
Employee #3 also gets a 4 because
he's not perfect, so 4 is the highest he can get.
This creates a disincentive for
Employee #1 to improve, because he now gets the same score (and
raise) as his harder working counterpart.
It also creates a demotivator for Employee #3
to continue working so hard, because he now gets the same score
and raise as his so-so counterpart.
The result will be mediocrity.
While you might not go as far as
using a 1-100 scale, use a scale broad enough to distinguish
mediocre from good, and good from great.
To Your Success,
The only thing that encourages mediocrity more than an
insufficient evaluation system is across-the-board raises that
are given regardless of individual performance.
Click on this button to
on today's column.