How to write better employee evaluations.

In the vast majority of factories, shops and offices across the country today, the most dreaded and despised supervisory function of all is the periodic written employee evaluation. Supervisors don't like to write them because it puts them on the spot. Workers don't like to receive them because

they think they are artificial and unfair. In fact, no one in the organization completely trusts them. Nevertheless, writing periodic job reviews continues to be a basic responsibility for most managers, supervisors and foremen. Formal written performance appraisals are universally disliked; but remain universal anyway.

To make matters even worse, these much-maligned job reviews continue to carry enormous clout in organizations of all sizes. No matter how unscientific or untrustworthy they may be, written evaluations still determine wage increases, bonus amounts, promotion possibilities and, even job security, in a large proportion of businesses and industries nationwide.

Entire lives and careers can be shaped or shattered by a single written evaluation. It's no wonder formal performance appraisals are feared equally by those who give them and those who get them.

Among human resources professionals, it is generally agreed supervisors everywhere need to do a much better job of evaluating their employees. It has to begin by identifying the trouble with the way many job reviews are handled today.

What's Wrong With Written Evaluations?

About the only thing supervisors and subordinates agree on regarding written job assessments is they don't work. The most common complaints include the following:

* Supervisory personnel rarely receive training on how to write effective evaluations. Somehow, it is assumed anyone worthy of becoming a manager or supervisor has the innate ability to appraise the work of others accurately and to reflect their assessments in writing. This is one of the business world's more fallacious assumptions.

Analyzing a worker's overall performance requires skills which have to be learned. Likewise, writing clear and concise evaluations is an art which needs to be perfected over time through carefully guided practice. Many supervisors today write ineffective evaluations simply because they don't know how to do it any better.

* Some managers (particularly those new to the supervisory ranks) don't have the breadth of experience necessary to judge and compare the performance of a diverse group of workers. To evaluate properly, supervisors need to compare the performances of others with something more than just their own personal work experience. It takes time and exposure to build reliable standards of behavior and productivity.

* Employee evaluations are only as good as the knowledge, objectivity and memory of the supervisor who writes them. Unfortunately, none of these factors is ever perfect or complete.

Supervisors can't know everything that goes on. What they think they know has been filtered through their own biases and values. Moreover, managers and supervisors, like everyone else, are limited by a natural system of selective memory.

Writing job reviews under these conditions can be as unfair to the persons writing them as it is to those receiving them.

* Periodic performance reviews are, by their very nature, untimely. They look backward. More than anything else, they are historic documents. The "teachable moment" is often long gone.

Most evaluations ignore the more important questions for workers such as: What have you done for me lately? and What can I expect from you today and tomorrow?

* Many evaluations contain too few facts and too many opinions. What the evaluator believes to be true (opinion) is frequently accepted as truth without question, challenge or reservation. Corroboration backed by facts is often missing.

Opinions are important to all appraisals; but they should be clearly identified and labeled - not passed off as established fact.

* Too often, evaluations dwell on extraneous characteristics. The important consideration, however, is whether or not the worker produces results.

* Job reviews can be unduly influenced by peaks and valleys in performance. Supervisors tend to remember break-through successes and/or devastating failures. When this happens, the evaluations don't tell the whole story.

What's important is the employee's average performance over time. Successful careers aren't made out of isolated, singular events. They're built on taking care of business every day!

* Too many written evaluations all look alike. Performance reviews should be more than mere boiler-plate. Every worker is different. These distinctions should be reflected in their written appraisals.

* Sometimes, supervisors are asked to evaluate employees who are better at the job than they are. Envy can color the results of these evaluations. Some evaluations reflect a different standard for male and female employees. When this occurs, objective evaluation is a sham.

Despite all these flaws, written employee evaluations are not going away. For the foreseeable future, supervisors are still going to have to write evaluations and these assessments will continue to make a difference in the lives and careers of large numbers of workers.

Nothing beats continuing, face-to-face feedback; but as long as periodic job reviews have to be written, they deserve to be done right. The tips below can help any supervisor write better employee evaluations.

Doing a Better Job of Job Reviews

If no one is going to teach supervisors how to write performance assessments, they're going to have to pick it up on their own. The quicker, the better. The guidelines below can provide a framework for improving employee evaluations in any work setting:

* Review evaluations written by other experienced supervisors to see what works and what doesn't.

* Keep notes throughout the evaluation period. Don't rely on recall at the end of the time.

* Seek input from other observers when appropriate.

* Base written evaluations on multiple, first-hand observations.

* Know what you're looking for. Evaluate the right things. Concentrate exclusively on factors directly related to job performance.

* Don't include rumors, allegations or guesswork as part of your written evaluations.

* Be complete. Include the good, the bad and the ugly. Don't be afraid to criticize. Don't forget to praise.

* Focus on improvement. Use the evaluation to set goals for better performance.

* Never use an evaluation as a threat or as punishment.

* Supplement periodic written evaluations with frequent verbal feedback. Negative written evaluation should never come as a surprise.

* Don't put anything in writing which you wouldn't say to the employee in person.

* Don't beat around the bush or sugarcoat needed criticism. Say what has to be said and move on.

* If checklists are part of the evaluation, be sure written comments are consistent with the items checked.

* Be as specific as possible. Use examples. Glittering generalities don't help much in targeting action or improvement plans.

* Relate evaluations to previous reviews. Are things better? Worse? The same?

* Allow plenty of time to prepare evaluations properly. Don't work under pressure.

* Never complete an evaluation when you are angry or frustrated.

* Choose words carefully. The goal is clarity.

* Let the evaluation "cool" overnight before distributing it.

* Be willing to change an evaluation if new information becomes available.

Good supervisors are never satisfied with the assessments they write. There's always room for improvement. Some managers and supervisors, in different parts of the country, are now experimenting with a promising new approach to providing performance feedback.

The Latest Wrinkle: 360 Degree Feedback

A growing number of organizations nationwide are now using or considering multiple evaluations provided by the employee's supervisor, peers, subordinates and others. The idea is to generate 360 degree feedback. Under such a program of multisource job review, workers receive evaluative information from everyone in their circle of influence, not just from a supervisor.

The concept of 360 degree feedback has been used extensively in many places for upper-echelon executives. Now, it is being extended to the rest of the work force. If multiple reviews become the wave of the future, the supervisor's job may become somewhat easier and employee evaluations may become much more useful and acceptable. When done properly, multisource evaluations can help build teamwork and heighten motivation.

Whether done in the traditional mode or as part of a multiple evaluation, supervisors owe it to their employees and to themselves to make every review as complete, accurate and fair as possible.

Few supervisors like writing employee evaluations; but the best don't put it off or hurry through it. It always pays to do it right. Well-done performance appraisals can boost the careers of those who receive them and those who write them as well!

Dr. Robert D. Ramsey is a life-long educator and freelance writer from Minneapolis who has extensive experience in supervision and personnel management. Dr. Ramsey is a frequent contributor to a variety of popular journals and is the author of "Management Techniques For Solving School Personnel Problems" (Prentice-Hall).