Employee evaluation system case study and implementation

¶ … Dr. Maggie needs someone to prepare her an employee evaluation form. Approximately 30% of her employees have left the company relocating to similar jobs in the area and the oft-cited grievance was ambiguity of expectations of employees, and disassociation between written and expected expectations. Staff did not know where they stood, work expectations had not been appropriately clarified, and there did not seem to be a connection between the job they were hired to do and the evaluation of their work. Furthermore, Dr. Maggie's practice used supervisor's evaluations to make recommendations regarding pay increases and promotions, but there was no consistent methodology to the evaluative process. The lead physicians at each site were responsible for evaluating the clinical staff, and the non-medical supervisors, who were located at the Marietta office, handled the clerical staff, but this procedure did not work too well and the evaluation process did not seem connected to the objectives of the group.

Dr. Maggie, therefore, turned to Ruth, her managerial assistant, for help. The three items that she wished her to work on are the following:

1. A one-page employee evaluation form that can be used by everyone on staff, both clinicians and non-clinicians. A rating scale should provide clarity of expectations.

2. An outline of the evaluation process and whether this process should be the same for physicians and clinicians as well as for staff.

3. The creation of a standard timeline for evaluations.

Solutions to problem and recommendations for implementation

An evaluative system must be structured that wins the trust of employees to the company that they are working for. Employees often dislike and distrust evaluation since it carries a punitive impression. This impression, therefore, must be reduced for the evaluation process to be successful. Employees must also feel that their values and standards are in line with those expected of and desired by the organization.

Thirdly, employees must feel that managers are listening to them, that they are valued for whom they are, and that their contributions are important. All of this will inspire employees to work for the benefit of the company and will reduce the rate of turn-over.

The factors, therefore, that Ruth would consider when drafting the evaluation form are intangible concepts that underlie its criterion. These include:

1. Confidence factor: the goals and strategies of the practice should be clearly communicated to employees so that employees know what they are working for and to which end.

2. Emotional factor: employees should be provided with training so as to actualize their potential. Employees should also receive acknowledgment of their value to the company

3. Trust factor: Dr. Maggie should honor her commitments to the employees and be direct and honest with them if and when stressful situations occur to her company.

4. Fit factor: Dr. Maggie should build relationships with her employees and create a friendly and supportive environment. Factors involved in hiring process should ensure that employee be a 'match' to the organization.

5. Listening factor: Dr. Maggie should create a communication system that assures employees that their grievances are heard and their opinions solicited. Dr. Maggie should also follow up on these concerns so that employees are left with a resolution to their issues.

The evaluation itself can be crafted in a way that posits that either employees are placed in a predetermined category, or that paired comparisons can be made where individual employees are compared to other employees. I would not use the paired comparison approach since, aside from the fact that it may not be connected to the strategic goals of the organization, too many variables differentiate between particular individuals making a comparison both impossible and unjust. Nonetheless, Dr. Maggie may find this approach useful for administrative purposes, such as for determining promotions, layoffs, bonuses, and pay raises.

A far more useful approach would be one that focuses on the employee behavior itself and it is this that I would adopt. Here, a rating scale -- generally Likert and on a 5-point spectrum - evaluates behaviors or attributes according to certain characteristics. For instance, 5 can represent 'Excellent' in a certain sphere and 1 be rated as 'poor'. For this evaluation to work construct must be clearly and specifically operationalized and the measure/instrument itself should be objective, preferably adapted from a reliable and authoritative source. A scale connected to specific observable behavior would be even better -- an example in kind here is the BARS (behavioral anchored rating scale) where it is tailored to specific positions in the organization and linked to specific behaviors. In this way, the BARS can be used to refer to both medical and clerical positions in Dr. Maggie's system, or two sorts of BARS can be created, one referring to the medical staff and the other to the clerical staff. The BARS is useful due to its objective, specific approach. However, for it to work clear job expectations must be formulated ahead of time and this is something that Dr. Maggie has to do anyway. The job expectations must relate to specifics of job performance, should be relevant to the specific job, and must be clear and thorough, such as arriving at work at specified time. All possible situations that may intrude must be taken into account for a clear system of job expectations to emerge. Finally, in order to screen possible bias from performance rating, evaluation criteria should be agreed upon by both manager and employee.

Another alternative approach for assessment is the outcomes-based method, which evaluates the individual according to the results of the job rather than according to how the work is actually performed. This may be a viable alternative since each individual has his particular style and insisting on modification of that style may unnecessarily disgruntle and frustrate some individuals aside from constraining their capacity. In terms of this case scenario, a physician may be evaluated according to patient volume. However, I would prefer the BARS approach to this one since the outcome-based approach may jeopardize quality and patient satisfaction in the process particularly when compensation is associated with output.