JOB EVALUATIONS MAY NEED ANOTHER LOOK : EVALUATION ERRORS.

Byline: Michael Higgins Tallahassee Democrat

A student at Florida A&M University learned this lesson early: When it comes to performance reviews, not all companies make the grade.

On an internship about two years ago, she got a job review she didn't like - from a manager who didn't even supervise her.

``Someone had a lack of understanding'' of the process, recalled Bobby Davis, a FAMU management professor whose class discussed the incident.

After the student protested, the company gave her a new evaluation. ``She was pleased with that,'' Davis said. ``Maybe it was a learning exercise for the company in the long run.''

In the business world, job reviews are often a troubling topic.

They're supposed to be a way of measuring an employee's job performance: strengths, weaknesses and setting goals for the employee.

Too often, however, evaluations deteriorate to charges of unfairness, hurt feelings, bruised egos and simmering resentments - especially if they're tied to pay and promotions.

Companies have trouble devising evaluations that are meaningful and fair. And employees have trouble taking the bad news with the good.

In fact, ``People right now are talking about whether performance appraisals should be abolished,'' Davis said. ``But they still haven't found anything to take their place.''

So companies are experimenting with different kinds of reviews: manager reviews, self-evaluations, peer-reviews and ``360'' reviews that include comments from managers, co-workers and customers.

And not a moment too soon. It's not just workers who are skeptical.

When the American Management Association surveyed 745 managers last March, it found that:

Ninety-eight percent said their companies used performance evaluations, but only 13 percent strongly agreed that they improved worker performance.

Ninety-three percent said the evaluations were used to decide merit pay, but only 19 percent strongly agreed the appraisals were a valid and objective guide.

What's so hard about evaluating employees?

Finding standards that truly measure good work, said Kenneth Gray, a management professor at FAMU.

You need clear standards so that reviews aren't entirely subjective and left to a manager's whim.

But ``where are you going to get them?'' asked Gray. ``Last year's sales? Last year's data? Next year could be a totally different situation. . . . If you lost your major client, for instance, that could be a good reason why the person didn't make sales.''

In choosing a type of performance evaluation, companies should look at what they truly value, said Micki Kacmar, management professor at Florida State University. If creativity is what's most important, don't use reviews that stress being on time.

The trend in performance reviews is getting more comments from more people - including co-workers.

That's good because you get a broader base of opinions, said Davis of FAMU. But it also raises the danger of logrolling if ``some peers just get together and rate each other high.''

No matter the system, experts say the key to effective evaluations is training managers to perform them. Don't just assume that because they supervise employees, they also know how to review them fairly.

There are any number of pitfalls that even well-meaning managers can fall into: overvaluing recent contributions or mistakes; giving everyone good or middling reviews; not giving enough feedback before reviews come out.

``If you're silent all year, and then you wham them in the performance appraisal, that's when lawsuits occur,'' said Kacmar of FSU. Employees think: ``Oh, no. I'm being fired. But no one warned me. No one told me I needed to improve.''

While managers don't always get it right, employees need to be flexible, too. They should understand that for most managers, reviews are one of the most unpleasant parts of their jobs.

``Giving somebody negative feedback about themselves is the last thing anybody wants to do - unless you're a really bad person,'' Kacmar said.

She advises employees to keep notes to document their good performance. And remember: Don't go into a review expecting to be told you are faultless.

``There's always something you could do more of, or less, or better or faster,'' Kacmar said. ``If the person is perfect, wouldn't that be a lovely world?''

Recency: Occurs when a manager bases the review only on recent events - not the whole period of the review. It happens when the supervisor does a rush job or doesn't keep track of the employee's performance throughout the year.

Similar to me: Occurs when a manager rewards people who are similar to the manager. It might be as simple as giving a break to a fellow Florida State University grad, or as insidious as favoritism based on race or gender.

The ``halo'' error: Another shortcut managers sometimes take. They see an employee performing well in one area - keeping a neat desk, for example - and leap to the conclusion that the employee is doing the rest of their job well.

Leniency: One way to stay popular with your employees. If the review asks for ratings on a 1-to-5 scale, give everyone 4s and 5s. But it doesn't help anyone improve.

Central tendency: Another way to avoid making tough choices. For example, on the 1-to-5 scale, give everyone 3s. But just like leniency, this defeats the purpose of the review, and nobody really benefits.

Source: Micki Kacmar, associate professor of management at Florida State University.

CAPTION(S):

Box

Box: EVALUATION ERRORS (See text)