INDUSTRY CONNECTIONS
EVALUATING: NOT A DISCIPLINARY TACTIC
DON’T BE SCARED … JUST KEEP READING, AND I HOPE TO ENERGIZE YOU INTO MOTIVATED PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT WRITTEN BY PAUL HASENMEIER
I
have been evaluated numerous times in my life, at times with varying scores that didn’t make
much sense. I have formally and informally evaluated firefighters under my command. I also have evaluated the performance and direction of many young people who have sought my opinion. Over the years, I developed a flexible evaluating strategy program presented to public and private sector organiza- tions, hoping to improve the performance of said group. It is vital to work on improving an employee’s performance through coaching, counseling and evaluating — not disciplin- ing. Of course, a time may come for discipline, but hopefully you can improve most issues before reaching that point.
ATTITUDE Turn the negative perceptions
of evaluations into positive ones by using some easy terms: asso- ciates in place of subordinates, attributes versus strengths, objectives in place of weakness- es. Focus on the positives and value of each person, though they may be difficult to find in some people.
METHODS OF EVALUATING
Supervisor appraisals Self-appraisals Subordinate appraisals Outside appraisals Combined appraisals (supervisor and self)
Some forms use scoring from 1 to 5, while others use 1 to 10,
with the highest number being the highest score. What level of performance is a 3 or a 7? It is the evaluator’s opinion, which is subjective, and what we are trying to avoid? If we use a scoring scale of
0, 1 and 2, with 0 representing “does not meet expectations,” 1 representing “meets expecta- tions” and 2 representing “ex- ceeds expectations,” we can place importance on where improve- ment is needed. On this type of scale, the evaluator is required to document and provide details as to why a person does not meet or exceeds expectations.
REMAINING OBJECTIVE
Tis is difficult, but not impossible. Do you base an em- ployee’s evaluation off of the job description they are given? Tis is OK, but job descriptions are general and don’t list specific ex- pectations. Have each member of your organization contribute some expectations that should be met by everyone, and hold each other accountable.
DIFFICULTIES EVALUATING By recognizing the difficul-
ties, you will be more prepared and cognizant of how to make the process a positive step in the performance improvement
process. Subjectivity: It can be a de-motivator
Inconsistencies Perception of being unfair Little or no information obtained
Value management places on evaluation
22 School Transportation News April 2014
ERRORS WHEN EVALUATING Tis should be avoided. You
must first understand errors, and then avoid them, which will help you remain objective, consistent and fair. Here are some common
errors evaluators commit: Deficiency Error — An
employee may be deficient in one area, but you score them deficient in all areas. Contamination Error — You
were told something bad about the employee just prior to the evaluation. Halo Error — You apply the
perception of one aspect across the entire evaluation; may be good or bad. Lenient or Hard Error —
Lenient reduces conflict, and hard is a common error of new supervisors (does not meet expectations). Bias Error — Your person- al bias should not cloud the evaluation.
Recency Error — Evaluating based off of recent events, not the entire evaluation period. Average Score Error — Rating the employee in the middle of the scale for all categories. Comparing Error — Only one
employee would receive a good evaluation. Frame Reference Error — In-
consistency among supervisors based on personal standards.
You must be proud of the
people you are developing. Never forget to give feedback during training, after an unusual event or even during daily duties. You and the organization will benefit as performance improves.
Lt. Paul Hasenmeier has been a firefighter since 2000 for the City of Huron (Ohio) Fire Department, and also is a paramedic, fire inspector, SCUBA diver and instructor. He can be reached at
phas@bex.net or
www.firstduetackle.com.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68