What is the common pattern in the following relationships? The general manager evaluates line managers, line managers evaluate supervisors, supervisors evaluate staff. Another common example: the principal evaluates teachers, and teachers evaluate students. In each case, a so called "subordinate" is being evaluated by a "superior". Should staff members evaluate supervisors, line managers, and the general manager? Should the supervisor evaluate the line managers and the general manager? And so on. If your answer is yes, then why, and why doesn't it happen in most organizations? If your answer is no, then why not? I will attempt to shed some light on this issue.Think of our current position - either as a student or employee. In both cases we participate in a hierarchical system of management. The hierarchical system is based on a traditional model of power relationships within organizations, and as such, maps out the system of control that is in place. Further, the traditional hierarchy maps out a system of "superiors" and "subordinates" for the organization. It is this system of superiors and subordinates with all of its psychological underpinnings, that entrenches and reinforces a kind of organizational psyche that is a forceful barrier to any change in the direction of employee evaluations.
Webster's dictionary defines a "superior" as a person who surpasses another in rank or excellence. A "subordinate" is defined as a person of a lower class or rank, or of minor or inferior status. Implicitly or explicitly, most individuals are aware of the essence of these two terms and their connotations. Given these above definitions, the use of these terms in an organizational context can be destructive. Why would a "superior" allow themselves to be evaluated by a "subordinate" - someone of lower rank and inferior status? Herein lies part of our difficulty in attempting to achieve "bottom-up" evaluation of employees.
There are additional reasons that deal with other psychological dimensions of evaluation. The most critical is the fear of a "bad" evaluation. Egos can get in the way. As a professor in a North American University, I am evaluated six times a year by students (one evaluation for each course that I teach). The Dean of the Faculty, the Chair of the department, and myself, get to see the evaluations. I am always nervous at reading the comments. I try to remember that evaluations are there to help me improve my classroom performance.Another very critical issue deals with the confusion between the importance of a job function and the individual executing the job function. An organization is a system of interacting job functions with executors of these functions. If the functions are well-defined, then an organization should run smoothly if the behaviors of the individuals are consistent with their job functions, giving full recognition for the critical interaction that takes place between different job functions. Unfortunately, individuals take on some kind of personality based on their job function. If they think that their job is important (supervisory, managerial, or so), then they must act important - even if such behavior may well be in conflict with who they really are.
While there is some natural fear of the possibility of being emotionally hurt, evaluations must be put into perspective. Some basic motivations for any evaluation should be: 1) to provide a barometer reading of one's performance within their job function, and 2) to provide a basis for rewarding excellence, 3) to identify areas that need improvement, hence providing a rational basis for self-development. Unfortunately, most organizations use less-than-desirable evaluations as punitive tools. Several managers use these evaluations for control purposes - to punish workers who are not loyal to them. What is ironic, is that in most cases, poor employee performance is due to bad management, and these same "bad" managers will attempt to say how bad their employees (or "subordinates") are.
With some inquiry, we will find that people who vehemently oppose evaluations may have major problems in executing their job functions, may be full of their own self-importance, may feel that they are infallible and thus beyond critique, may believe that no one can help them improve or that there is no more room for improvement, may have little respect for the opinions of their co-workers, or they may simply fear a "bad rap" from the evaluator and its potential implications.
If we look at evaluations in the context of total quality management (TQM), then performance evaluations are a necessary element of any strategy towards excellence. Further, if we use the customer-driven approach to management recognizing the existence of internal and external customers, then we must recognize that every employee has a customer. In a customer service model, line managers are the customers of the general manager, supervisors are the customers of the line managers, and front-line workers are the customers of supervisors, and consumers are the direct customers of the front-line workers. It is clear, therefore, that external customers ought to evaluate front-line workers, front-line workers ought to evaluate their supervisors, supervisors ought to evaluate managers, and managers ought to evaluate the general manager.
In the total quality organization, the hierarchy is turned upside down, and the customer becomes the most important asset of the organization. Every organizational level then plays a supporting role. The GM facilitates the work of the managers, the managers facilitate the work of the supervisors, and so on. It is imperative therefore, that in order to attain excellence, that each worker must assess how well his/her work is being facilitated, hence changing the direction of employee evaluations.
The following are some prescriptions: 1) Dispense with the notion of "superiors" and "subordinates". These are suitable for describing job relationships not people. Instead, use a system of Associates and Facilitators to describe people. Every employee is an associate of the organization, and each facilitate some aspect of the organization's mandate; 2) Use evaluations to facilitate the development of a culture around excellence, and to facilitate the development of the associates of the organization; 3) Design evaluation instruments in collaboration with the people that will be evaluated so that the basis for assessment is shared and not imposed; 4) Evaluations should provide valuable critique not criticism of a worker's performance. A plan of action for improvement must be developed jointly with the worker. 5) Allow limited peer assessment of workers as a way of assessing the employee in a team-based framework. Re-orienting organizational practice around evaluations can lead to a quantum leap in employee performance.
