monitoring services, or undercover investigative firms also may select a formal appraisal service. In actuality, such appraisal occurs day by day, or even hour by hour. Still, a structured process permits an organized means of reviewing evolving issues that have or could change the delivery of services. For example, the contractor might ask what capital investment the contractee has made—or intends to make—that will affect business.
management for specific positions. Supervisors who review specific traits of subordinates often have difficulties in providing unfavorable assessments. This characteristic limits, but does not negate, the use of such measurement.
3. Critical incidents methods. Performance appraisers using the critical incident process note specific positive and negative actions taken by the worker during the evaluation period of complex actions vital to the job description. Such measurements have been identified previ- ously by management as significant with regards to job function.3 An example would be the technique by which a protective employee handled an untoward event that resulted in the completion and submission of an incident report.
4. Behavioral measurement. One type of behaviorally oriented evaluation is the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS).
This scale identifies a number of possible actions by workers and then assesses performance based on a range from very desirable to very undesirable.4BARS graphically rates behavior with specific behavioral descriptions using a numerical scale. Since its introduction in 1963, BARS and its numerous variants have been widely used to evaluate the performance of law enforcement and, to a lesser degree, private security personnel.
5. Mixed-Standard Scales (MSS). Another method of performance review, used in policing and security, are Mixed-Standard Scales (MSS). Such scales describe high, medium, and low performance and force raters to make a choice. Here are examples where a reviewer might have to critically differentiate performance on one of three standards concerning a particular behavior to be emphasized:
• High performance: Takes numerous steps while on patrol both to prevent and to control crime; educates employees and others in prevention techniques; has comprehensive knowledge of preventive equipment.
• Average performance: Makes some efforts to emphasize crime prevention on routine patrol and has an adequate knowledge of preventive equipment.
• Low performance: Has little or no contact with employees and visitors to inform them of methods of reducing their property from loss.
What each standard represents to the rater is not always obvious.
The rater indicates only that the worker’s performance is “better than,”
“as good as,” or “worse than” the behavior described.5However, many appraisal-instrument developers believe that MSS evaluations decrease rater leniency. In assessing “crime prevention” qualities of patrol officers, for example, items were included that identified specific dimensions of performance.6These included judgment, communica- tions skills, job knowledge, demeanor, tolerance, cooperation, and human relations skills (see Box 6.1). While this instrument evaluates law enforcement officers who patrol, it can be adjusted easily to private security or other worker groups.
What Needs to Be Evaluated? 159
Box 6.1 A Mixed-Standard Scale (MSS) for Patrol Performance
The following 13 items are used to assess performance in different facets of a patrol officer’s job. The appraiser is asked whether an item is an accurate description of the patrol officer’s typical performance in that area of work. If so, the appraiser places (0) in the space provided for the worker. If the patrol officer’s typical performance is better than the item description, then a (+) is placed in the space. If the patrol offi- cer’s typical performance is worse than the item description, then a (−) is placed in the space. Appraisers rank officers on code sheets that can later be analyzed.
1. Behavior sometimes shows the effects of a stressful situation, but it does not tend to interfere with the performance of duties.
2. Looks neat most of the time, although uniform occasionally reflects a busy schedule.
3. Reports are good, but occasionally need elaboration or clarifi- cation. Sometimes has difficulty communicating.
4. Takes numerous steps in patrol area both to prevent and to control crime; educates citizens in prevention techniques and has comprehensive knowledge of preventive equipment.
5. Has little or no contact with citizens to inform them of meth- ods of improving their property for crime prevention.
6. Performance reflects the proper judgment necessary to antici- pate, select, and perform the appropriate behaviors in almost all circumstances.
7. Is quite emphatic about the types of people he or she can and cannot work with. Has difficulty getting along with many officers.
8. Shows maximum effort and enthusiasm almost all the time and in almost all circumstances.
9. Carries out assignments and responsibilities with satisfactory standards of performance. Rarely cuts corners or bends the rules.
10. Behavior with others is insightful and skillful, often preventing as well as ending conflicts.
11. Performance must be closely supervised, or it may slip to less- than-adequate standards. Behavior is often designed to find shortcuts in duties.
12. Appearance displays a careless attitude toward the job and the impression conveyed to the public.
13. Works adequately with most people, but has difficulty with some types of personalities. Although willing to break in new personnel, would prefer not to.
Source: H.J. Bernardin, L. Eliott, and J.J. Carlyle (1980). “A Critical Assessment of Mixed Standard Rating Scales,” Proceedings of the Academy of Management. Athens, GA:
Academy of Management, pp. 308–12.
U
SING AF
ORMALA
PPRAISALD
OCUMENTA formal employee performance evaluation compares the employee’s performance to a set of standards. A series of ratings used by one formal system allows reviewers the opportunity to provide specific assessments for each task, as shown in Figure 6.1. The form illustrated, used by a security program employing over 200 security officers, begins with the noting of directory-type information:
• Section I clearly indicates to the employee that a performance evaluation is part of the expectation and notifies the officer of the extent of the evaluation period.
Using a Formal Appraisal Document 161
FIGURE 6.1 Non-Managerial Employee Performance Evaluation form.
• Section II identifies the tasks and standards deemed critical by management. During the training process, the new employee would have become aware of these tasks and the nature of the standards expected by management to be met. This would serve as the guideline for the worker during the time allocated for the evaluation. The employee signs the list of functionally assigned tasks, often in the presence of the supervisor. In a sense, this is a contract between the employee and employer, and it is an explicit understanding that the
FIGURE 6.1 Cont’d
worker is to be judged predominantly on these functionally assigned tasks. Figure 6.1 only provides space for five functionally assigned tasks and standards. These should be the critical broad workplace achievements that management expects from the employee at that particular title, level, and unit. These can be expanded according to the requirements of the position. Management then prepares a master list of tasks to be performed by the category of security personnel, as shown in Table 6.1. Standards of satisfactory performance accompany the master list and are entered into the employee performance
evaluation form.
• Section III is completed when the evaluation period has reached an end and the supervisor makes ratings appropriate to the worker’s actual performance compared to the standards. The supervisor will use comments and examples to justify the ratings. Failure to include these can lead to the sense that the supervisor has made a decision without proper reference to actual performance on the part of the employee.
• Section IV provides an overall rating after individual tasks are considered. The overall rating takes into consideration the totality of the employee’s work performance during the previous period of time. Again, comments and examples are needed to justify the overall rating.
• Section V is where the supervisor provides his or her recommendation for the employee in a probationary period.
Using a Formal Appraisal Document 163
Table 6.1 Examples of Master List Tasks and Standards for Security Officers
Master List Task Number Standards
1. Patrols designated areas of public buildings, Reports for patrol in uniform and at reports in uniform, makes rounds, checks that the designated time. Observation is the public and staff are following rules and acute and comprehensive. Makes regulations to prevent crime, vandalism, complete rounds. Follows rules and disturbances, and are safeguarding life and regulations closely.
property.
2. Reprimands and ejects loiterers and disorderly Areas checked frequently. Persons persons by checking rest rooms, stairways, asked to leave correctly, firmly, and halls, and other areas, and advising persons courteously. Force used appropriately to leave. Uses persuasion to obtain results. and only when necessary. Appropriate Follows rules and regulations to remove rules and regulations followed closely.
unauthorized persons and quiet disturbances.
3. Guards department’s personnel and property. Unauthorized persons barred from Restricts persons from entering unauthorized restricted areas. Supervisor notified areas. Notifies supervisor of damaged and promptly and clearly of damaged inoperative equipment. Patrols efficiently to and inoperative equipment. Patrols prevent personal injury or property damage. effectively. Removes disorderly persons
promptly and properly.
• Section VI provides space for specific plans for improvement discussed in the evaluation interview. This section identifies an area or areas in which improvement of employee performance is required. Further, the specific means by which such improvement may be achieved is identified. Frequently, the behavior to be corrected can be altered by nothing more than additional personal effort following a discussion with the supervisor. In other cases, additional training may be needed to achieve the desired performance.
• Section VII provides the employee with an opportunity to add written comments to the evaluation. Such comments may be made on a separate sheet of paper and attached to the appraisal evaluation form if necessary. The date of the evaluation interview is also
indicated.
• Section VIII concludes the evaluation process with the supervisor’s signature. The employee generally signs the statement at this point, indicating that he or she does not necessarily agree with the contents of the statement but acknowledges that the document is complete. At a later date, a reviewer will add a signature indicating that the employee performance evaluation form has been reviewed by a higher level of management. Alternatively, the reviewer may be an independent human resources officer. Generally, reviewers are directly superior to the supervisor completing the evaluation form.
J
OBP
ERFORMANCER
ATINGIn some organizations, job performance evaluations are required during the probation- ary period. A monthly performance rating evaluating new security officers is presented in Figure 6.2. Following the conclusion of a successful probationary period, performance ratings and evaluations can be conducted at the same frequency as with all other employ- ees in that job category. Use of the form acts as an incentive both for the supervisor to note performance on a daily basis and for the subordinate to be aware that the proba- tionary period entails written performance verification on topics important to the work function.
Evaluation of contract employees may be aided by the use of a form designed for this purpose, as shown in Figure 6.3. This document may be completed by the client on a monthly or semi-annual basis and forwarded to the contract company as part of ongo- ing evaluation. The “Remarks” section provides an opportunity for management of the contract firm to take appropriate action. Of course, any substantive unsatisfactory job trait or behavioral quality should be transmitted to the security services contact supervi- sor quickly to result in corrective attention. A telephone call to the contractee as soon as such unacceptable conduct is observed may suffice.
Peer reviews may also be considered as part of the strategy to determine job per- formance, cooperation, and teamwork characteristics. A Colleague Confidential Evaluation form is used for coworkers to evaluate each other’s performance, as shown in Figure 6.4. The evaluation director distributes and later discretely collects completed
forms from evaluators. The evaluation director looks for strengths, weaknesses, and cooperative patterns in workplace performance where close teamwork is required. These forms are then assessed and transmitted to the workers being evaluated. Organizations tend to use peer review when mutual cooperation is essential and cannot be evaluated fully by a supervisor due to the complex nature of the work performed by the teammates.
The team members themselves are most likely aware of who is performing best and worst in the group and may be willing to share their insights via this means. Other barriers to group success may also be identified. The evaluation director must be discreet when shar- ing results so as not to reveal the identities of the evaluators who have prepared the eval- uations, as this could cause friction in the workplace. These documents should be stored separately from other records in the worker’s employment file.
Job Performance Rating 165
FIGURE 6.2 Security Officer Job Performance Evaluation form.
T
HEN
EED FORA
PPRAISALD
OCUMENTATIONEmployees sometimes sue their employers for failure to be promoted, for disciplinary action, or for termination. In such actions, written performance appraisals are likely to become critical evidence. In appraising subordinates, supervisors have to find a balance between encouraging desirable behavior while also identifying nonproductive behavior.
A pattern of substandard performance could lead to termination that conceivably could be the basis of a civil action by an employee. Many supervisors emphasize the positive and ignore the negative in subordinates. However, such relevant negative features could become worse subsequent to their initial identification in the written performance appraisal. Therefore, the supervisor needs to document any negative behavior, potentially serious enough to be the basis of discipline or discharge, at the earliest opportunity.
FIGURE 6.3 Officer Performance Evaluation form.
Regrettably, many evaluators see only the positive in those whom they evaluate (see Box 6.2). Failing to be observant of a worker’s shortcomings is just as harmful as being excessively lenient or strict in judging workers as a group. Other evaluators who judge most or all of their subordinates as “average” may lack the discernment and judgment expected of those with supervisory responsibilities. The appraiser needs to include spe- cific, detailed observations, with the time and date noted, of notable workplace perfor- mance. This rigorous method of identifying both desirable and undesirable performance characteristics supports the overall objectives of operations management.
The Need for Appraisal Documentation 167
FIGURE 6.4 Colleague Confidential Evaluation form.
O
THERW
RITTENA
PPRAISALT
ECHNIQUESPerformance evaluation may involve extended documentation. Prior to evaluation, the standards should have been made clear to everyone involved. They should be realistic, objective, and comprehensible to all security workers in the job category. However, more than one rating category can and should be used. The following are some options:
• Ranking. In this type of measurement, the supervisor is asked to simply rank all subordinate workers in the group on a numerical basis from best to worst. This may create a bias against the most recently hired and, therefore, less experienced worker.
• Paired comparison. In this circumstance, the supervisor compares subordinates to specific tasks ranking them in order from best to worst according to each criterion. In this situation, the overall highest ranking can be determined from an aggregate of different factors.
A negative feature of this process is that those most recently hired—
regardless of their level of training—are likely to perform less well than experienced work unit members.
• Narrative form. In this rating method, the supervisor writes a discursive passage on each worker to summarize individual strengths and weaknesses. This helps to provide a human dimension to the worker’s performance during the evaluation period.
• Forced-choice method. In this measurement, the supervisor selects from a set of statements involving the subordinates in the work unit.
Box 6.2 Rating Colleagues Objectively in Appraisals
The process of using written appraisals can be counterproductive if the rater is not objective about the person being judged. Raters can improve the accuracy of their ratings by recognizing the following factors that subvert effective evaluations:
1. The halo effect. The tendency of an evaluator to rate a person as good on all characteristics based on an experience or knowl- edge involving only one dimension.
2. Leniency tendency. A tendency toward evaluating all persons as outstanding or above average and to provide inflated ratings rather than true assessments of performance.
3. Strictness tendency. The opposite of the leniency tendency, this is a bias toward rating all persons at the low end of the quality scale and a tendency to be overly demanding or critical.
4. Average tendency. This is the habit of evaluating every person as average regardless of major differences in performance.
Source: Effective Phrases for Performance Appraisals (1994). Perrysburg, OH: Neal Publications.
The rater selects two items from a group of four descriptive items, one that emphasizes the most characteristic quality of the worker and another that emphasizes the least characteristic quality. Perhaps 10 or 12 sets of four characteristics are presented and then subsequently analyzed for each worker. The report is tedious to create and requires construction by a technical specialist, but it provides a portrait of the worker unattainable by other written appraisal techniques. One problem with this measurement is that the sets may be widely different in terms of their significance, and the appraiser may not understand which employee characteristics are deemed most significant.7For example:
1. A. Problems need not be stated in detail for him or her.
B. Doublechecks work others do for him or her.
2. A. Does more than his or her share of the work.
B. Works to improve his or her main weaknesses.
T
HEA
PPRAISALI
NTERVIEWThe preceding section discussed written, documented appraisal forms. These are prepared prior to sharing the results with the employee or have been used as part of the evaluation process. When transmitted to a subordinate worker, the results must be communicated with brevity, tact, and clarity. The supervisor who conducts the appraisal interview needs brief training or coaching on how to conduct such interviews. Initially, many supervisors are uncomfortable with the prospect of appearing to judge a subordinate, perhaps saying or doing something that will be counterproductive and could create an unpleasant envi- ronment within the workplace from that point on. This usually occurs subsequent to an unfavorable rating. The cooperative basis between the supervisor and subordinate could be tainted by the experience and a previously friendly environment may become soured.
These are fears many supervisors possess when they approach appraisal interviews for the first time. In the days and weeks prior to a formal appraisal interview, stress among those involved is common, and is not necessarily harmful. Some emotional ten- sion concerned with appraisal is inevitable and causes interviews and interviewees to think about what’s important for achievement in the organization. Yet for the vast major- ity of appraisal interviews, the process is positive and ultimately even enjoyable for both parties. High-performing workers leave the interview enthusiastic about doing better work. Substandard workers realize they have a sympathetic supervisor and another opportunity to do better; often, they too feel relieved by the process. The following are guidelines for letting workers know how they are doing:8
• Select a quiet, comfortable, and appropriate location for the interview, such as the supervisor’s office, if private, or a conference room.
• Plan to avoid interruptions. The process has been on the minds of the interviewees for weeks. They deserve the supervisor’s undivided attention during the interview. The supervisor also should allow extra time for the subordinate to discuss workplace-related matters.
The Appraisal Interview 169