The point and purpose of most evaluations are to provide helpful feedback to different audiences, including staff and other relevant stakeholders. The feedback is perceived as useful if it assists in decision-making. However, the relationship between evaluation and its result is not straightforward. Analysis that appears critical sometimes has no impact on short-term decisions, and analysis that initially appears to have no influence may have a delayed impact when more favourable situations occur. Despite this, there is a broad concurrence that the primary purpose of evaluation should be to influence decision-making or procedure development by providing empirically-based feedback. In this paper, the performance appraisal effectiveness will be discussed.
The evaluation process itself assigns roles and responsibilities in a sort of cyclical way – the process begins and ends at the management level and can be repeated continually. Management firstly defines the responsibilities of employees and the results that are expected of them. The employee’s performance, efficiency, and knowledge are demonstrated through the evaluation process (Lum et al., 2017). The main observation task in the evaluation process falls on the supervisor – to follow the employee’s actions, compare their performance with the required standards, and summarise the results together with the employee at the end of the process. The final information is then passed on to management, which makes the necessary decisions. Depending on the results of an employee evaluation, these decisions can be on different planes, from making revisions of the process to taking measures concerning the tested person.
In order to boost the efficacy of the evaluation, the most critical detail is that the manager and supervisor have proper information about the employee’s work, his duties and the processes of their performance. It is also equally important to fully familiarize the employee with all the criteria and requirements of the evaluation before the assessment. Even the practising employees should know what is required of them, and the tasks assigned should be clear and concise. It is also suggested to have a minimum level of completion of any process to improve process efficiency (Miller et al., 2020). The employee should strive to do better but should understand that failure to achieve even the minimum can have negative consequences.
It is not easy to base the evaluation method solely on one factor. While demonstrating excellent performance on delicate tasks, some employees may show more unsatisfactory performance on more critical tasks. That is why the first-line supervisor would be advised to combine and cross-check the employee on the two most relevant methods: management by objectives and critical incident (Miller et al., 2020). The first method is detailed and accurate, suitable for general evaluation. The second one, however, evaluates the employee’s ability to respond to a situation in critical occurrences. According to the job description, an adequate and rapid reaction is mandatory in such a situation; for example, a police officer should correctly assess the situation and react in time.
In any case, there is a possibility of a mistake in assessing the employee’s actions due to the trivial human factor. Most of these errors primarily affect the supervisor’s objectivity, which can render the verification process meaningless, and sometimes even lead to negative results for the employee (Rush Burkey et al., 2021). It is unacceptable for a first-line supervisor to single out any of his subordinates. The result of the employees’ evaluation should not be influenced in any way by the supervisor’s attitude towards them or by their previous results (Engel et al., 2022). That is why it is recommended to use more than one method of evaluation in order to increase the correctness of the evaluation result.
To sum up, the active participation of all the team in the process is essential to ensure the reliability and validity of productivity evaluations. Management must determine and approve with supervisors the most convenient and trustworthy ways and methods of assessment. All employees, especially those being evaluated, must understand the procedure’s nuances, and their opinions should be considered when creating evaluation methods. Also, additional training on processing performance information may not be excessive for supervisors – correctly structured data will help management make the right decisions.
References
Engel, R. S., Isaza, G. T., Motz, R. T., McManus, H. D., & Corsaro, N. (2022). De-escalation training receptivity and first-line police supervision: Findings from the Louisville Metro Police study. Police Quarterly, 25(2), 201–227.
Lum, C., Koper, C. S., & Willis, J. (2017). Understanding the limits of technology’s impact on police effectiveness. Police Quarterly, 20(2), 135–163.
Miller, L. S., More, H. W., & Braswell, M. C. (2020). Effective police supervision (9th edition). Taylor & Francis.
Rush Burkey, C., Miller, L.S., & Braswell, M.C. (2021). Effective police supervision study guide (9th ed.). Routledge.