Ratings, Rating Sources, and Rating Formats
Retaining highly skilled employees is a strategic intervention to maintaining organizational prosperity and competitive edge. One rule for reducing low employee turnover is acknowledging their commitment to meeting organizational objectives through appraisal. The best system of rewarding competence is through effective Performance Management (PM), which follows a systematic structure including planning, monitoring development, rating and appraisal (Aguinis et al., 2009). Strategic PM depends on proper identification, measurement and development of performance since it indicates the level of alignment with organizational strategic goals. Various rating systems can provide accurate performance analysis to award deserving individuals (Brown et al., 2019). However, it can also be a source of dissatisfaction, hate and prejudice if any loopholes are detected in identification. Therefore, various types of ratings, their sources, formats, advantages, limitations and how leaders can integrate technology into performance management are explained.
Ratings are performance evaluation techniques that determine commitment to achieving organizational goals. The rating sources can be behavioral, trait, comparative, or results. All these strategies are used to determine employee performance. For example, the trait method assesses the personality exhibited when an employee is working, including empathy, cohesion, justice and integrity (Nitika & Arora, 2020). Leaders can use the trait analysis system to gauge their worker’s commitment considering that exhibiting good traits indicates an individual commitment to creating a better work environment (Aguinis et al., 2009). Leaders can evaluate traits by examining the external factors affecting their employees and how they manage to maintain balance. For example, an individual may have a sick family member at home, which justifies a moody behavior; however, if they are always joyful and ready to work on tasks, they may have passed the test and be rewarded for resilience.
Another strategy is observing the behavioral methods which analyze an individual’s activity within their posting. For example, friendliness and kindness are individual actions that can attract an appraisal (Nitika & Arora, 2020). Additionally, there is also a comparative method whereby performance is matched against other employees’ performance (Brown et al., 2019). Finally, another rating source is results rating which analyzes the employee’s accomplishments, such as meeting the daily quota. Managers can use all these rating sources independently or cumulatively to assess the performance of employees so that the assessment is accurate.
Leaders can use various rating formats to assess performance, including the graphic rating scale and the checklist scale. The graphic rating scale is an evaluation system that lists traits exhibited when working on projects. This scale assesses performance based on a scale of one to five, whereby five is considered excellent performance while one is considered unsatisfactory (Nitika & Arora, 2020). Employees with a five-star rating are considered exceptional, responsible and organized in achieving the organization’s objectives. A four-star rating is considered good since these employees are on track and perform competently and responsibly on every task allocated. They also occasionally exceed the requirements set. A three-star-rated employee usually meets the standards or expectations required (Nitika & Arora, 2020). However, they require improvement in some areas and may improve in weaker areas. Unsatisfactory is the lowest performance rating that shows performance that impedes the work allocated.
Pros and Cons of Rating Sources
There are various advantages and disadvantages of rating sources, including that they give a quantifiable view of performance and enable firms to focus on development. However, the rating sources may also not be accurate, and they lose efficacy with time (Brown et al., 2019). On the other hand, the rating sources are integral in identifying top performers by assessing their commitment and motivation rates (Aguinis et al., 2009). This examination enables the company to retain the best employees who may enhance productivity. The system is also important since it enhances development by promoting dedicated staff and demoting non-committed workers. This strategy enables the company to focus on development since productive employees are retained.
However, the sources also have disadvantages, including challenged viability and high turnover due to stress. These results may not accurately depict an individual considering that there are specific variables that cannot be measured but only perceived, such as kindness (Aguinis et al., 2009). This factor indicates that the data may be inaccurate, considering that perception can be misguiding (Brown et al., 2019). Another limitation is that the employees may become tired of consistent scrutiny resulting in absenteeism and high turnover. This challenge may make the business sleepwalk into a system of hiring and firing, which is expensive and time-consuming.
Organizational executives can use technology in planning appraisals by enabling digital collection and broadcasting of information to understand the merits and demerits of this process. For instance, leaders can use online networks and mobile technology to gather information during planning to ensure that the timing is right for implementing the strategy (Nitika & Arora, 2020). Assessment officials can also use digitalized systems in examining commitment other than the traditional systems of asking for peer review (Aguinis et al., 2009). For example, managers can track performance daily using digital systems to ensure accurate projection. Similarly, the leaders can apply artificial intelligence in developing a structured evaluation process and effective rating to ensure that the process is fair and cannot be contested for irregularities. Additionally, robotic systems provide data-driven metrics that leaders can use to rate their employees since they effectively guide and depict the quantitative and qualitative results, which is difficult to undertake manually.
References
Aguinis, H., Aronson, H, Z. Atwater. L., Bragger. J, Carson, B, J., Coverdale, H, S., Jay, V, D., Day,V, D.,Krauss, D. A., Mone, M, E., Muller, M, W., Peterson, B, D.,Pingor, C., Reily, R. R., Rosen, A, M., Salas, E., Schiemann, A, W., Sessa, I, W., Silverman, B, S., & Smith-Jentsch, K. (2009). An expanded view of performance management. In J. W. Smither & M. London (Eds.) Performance management: Putting research into action (pp.2-38). John Wiley & Sons.
Brown, T. C., O’Kane, P., Mazumdar, B., & McCracken, M. (2019). Performance management: A scoping review of the literature and an agenda for future research. Human Resource Development Review, 18(1), 47-82. Web.
Nitika, N. K., & Arora, P. (2020). Performance appraisal in the era of the new normal. Journal of Technology Management for Growing Economies, 11(1), 11-15. Web.