12/ 12/ 2005
by Charles R. McConnell
Not long ago several managers were asked if they would prefer to do all their employee performance evaluations during the same brief period or spread them throughout the year. One manager said, “I’d prefer to avoid them altogether.” This individual conveys the feelings of many managers who don’t count performance evaluations among their favorite tasks. Nevertheless, most managers would likely concede that periodic evaluations are necessary.
What’s the best timing scheme for performance evaluations? The two most common approaches are those suggested above: evaluating everyone at the same time each year or evaluating them on some recurring date, such as anniversary of employment. Each approach has its advocates and opponents among managers; each has its advantages and disadvantages.
Most employees seem to regard anniversary date evaluations as more personalized than the all-at-once approach. An employee knows the evaluation date and knows a review will be “written up” and a discussion will follow soon after. Also, if there’s a pay increment associated with a favorable evaluation, the employee usually knows a raise will soon be granted. The employees will see the evaluation as addressing recent performance and the pay increment as a reward for current performance.
When all evaluations are done at once, the employee is less likely to experience a feeling of currency. In the all-at-once process, forms and timetables are distributed. Managers are given a few weeks to get evaluations written and checked for consistency, then a few more weeks are allotted for conducting evaluation interviews. After these steps are completed and the scores are tabulated, it is determined how the money available for raises will be distributed, if a merit pay system is involved.
For managers who do the evaluations, the all-at-once scheme can mean a considerable amount of work, depending on how many employees they must evaluate. Some managers prefer this approach. Even though it means much concentrated effort, they can complete an entire year’s evaluations in a few weeks, while under the anniversary-date approach, evaluations are never completely caught up. But some managers don’t like this method for the same reason and prefer to spread the task throughout the year.
For some managers who have many employees, the all-at-once evaluation presents added problems. To stay on schedule, much work must be done in a short time, and it’s not unusual for the quality of evaluations to deteriorate as the manager hurries to get them completed on time.
Some employees prefer the anniversary date approach because they perceive it as more personalized, and it deals with current information. Although in both approaches the evaluation interview is a one-on-one discussion between manager and employee, there’s bound to be the opportunity for more concentrated attention in the occasional interview than there can be when a number of interviews are packed into a concentrated period.
If the organization grants pay increases on a merit basis, the all-at-once approach is by far more convenient. Many companies budget a fixed amount for each year’s pay increases. When all evaluation scores are known at the same time, the amount budgeted for raises can be accurately distributed down to the last nickel. But if raises related to evaluation score dribble out throughout the year, it’s difficult to equitably distribute the budgeted amount, making it easy to go over or under the budgeted amount.
Which way is best? Generally, if there’s no merit increase connected with evaluation scores, scheduling evaluations on anniversary dates seems to work best for all concerned. However, if raises are tied to evaluation scores, the all-at-once approach works best for the organization’s finances.
Regardless of which of the evaluation schedule is employed, two more aspects of timing are crucial. One involves system administration. Someone—usually whoever looks after human resources—must keep the system moving. Forms need to be distributed and active follow-up is needed to get evaluations completed. Managers are busy people. Evaluations are easy to postpone, and any evaluation system will grind to a halt unless someone keeps the process moving.
The other important aspect of evaluation timing is ensuring that evaluations occur when expected. If the expected time comes and goes, and the evaluation hasn’t happened, the entire process is undermined. Most employees want feedback on their performance. If they don’t receive feedback because evaluations are long overdue, the system’s credibility suffers, and employees are left to wonder how their performance is viewed. In this dimension of performance evaluation, timing is everything.
