Get Staff Involved!
Four tips to engage staff members in a performance-appraisal system
By Michael A. Mulvaney and Mike Kianicka
Everyone involved in managing or operating a parks and recreation agency has a stake in the employee performance-appraisal process. And, with existing research indicating that pay-increase decisions account for more than 80 percent of appraisal uses, employees are eager not only to receive formal performance feedback but also to learn its impact on their future pay levels.
Photo: © Can Stock Photo / JackF
Performance-appraisal systems also guide important agency and employee decisions, such as training needs or employee selection and promotion. These systems can motivate staff, increase productivity, and create an environment conducive for organizational growth.
On the other hand, a poorly crafted performance-appraisal system can actually de-motivate employees, sometimes driving down performance. Ineffective instruments—those that are not job-related, that have unclear rating levels, or that are perceived by employees and managers as unfair—are often seen as a waste of time, or sometimes, illegal.
How can your agency avoid these pitfalls? Employees who are given the opportunity to participate in their agency’s appraisal-related activities tend to develop a stronger sense of ownership over the appraisal, become more engaged, and typically respond more positively to the appraisal, their jobs, and agency leadership.
Employee participation can be categorized as value-expressive and instrumental participation. Value-expressive participation centers on activities that allow employees to share their ideas, thoughts, and opinions during the process. These shared ideas may not be acted upon by administration, but employees are given a “voice” in the process. In contrast, instrumental participation involves creating situations where employees have some level of control or influence over the appraisal system and decision-making. Research has found the most effective efforts have been those that include both value-expressive and instrumental participation.
Guided by these ideals, here are four tips for implementation:
Tip #1: Support a collaborative job-analysis process. Recognized as a cornerstone in developing a valid and legally defensible appraisal system, the job analysis and job description process provide a clear definition of job-specific performance that can guide the creation of an appraisal instrument. Getting employees involved in this foundational activity can help promote a system that is more supported by staff members. Through this collaborative process, the employee and the supervisor will both develop clearer insight into the scope and responsibilities associated with the job title. Greater levels of “buy-in” can occur as employees and supervisors are both directly involved with developing and refining the core content for the appraisal.
A recommended approach for a collaborative job-analysis process is to conduct a meeting between the job incumbent (or all incumbents sharing the same job title or similar job titles) and the supervisor to review the job description. Reviewing other agencies’ descriptions for similar jobs might also be useful. Once the description has been reviewed, the incumbent and supervisor can brainstorm a list of job domains and tasks associated with the job title. Next, a discussion of the significance of each task and an eventual rating of each job task based on its importance to the job and the time/frequency required in the job can be determined. This process invites insightful discussions about job expectations and the significance of each task to the job.
Supervisors and employees will walk away with a clear understanding of their job tasks and the importance that supervisors place on these tasks. This meeting may likely lead to employees accomplishing those tasks successfully.
Tip #2: Promote the cooperative development of the appraisal instrument and rating scale. Agencies can use the job tasks created during the collaborative job analysis as the content for the appraisal instrument. Each job task can serve as an evaluation criterion for the job-specific performance appraisal. This creates legally defensible instruments that were the result of a collaborative discussion.
Next, the agency must determine the format of the appraisal instrument. Two of the most common formats are ranking and rating. Ranking involves rating each employee in comparison to other employees on each performance area. Rating formats, on the other hand, require the evaluator to measure employees on predetermined standards (e.g., below standard, meets standard, exceeds standard) for each task. Get staff members engaged in conversations about these formats. If a ranking format is preferred by staff, seek input on “why” it is the desired choice and vice versa. At the agency level, be sure to share the current research on the topic. For instance, current research suggests it is better to use a rating format when with evaluation criteria that are based on what the employee does (e.g., the job task statements) and has found 3- to 7-point rating scales to be the most reliable.
Tip #3: Facilitate a collective discussion on performance standards and criteria. A crucial, yet often overlooked procedure is the definition of the performance scales (e.g., below standard, meets standard, exceeds standard). Devote time to having collective conversations with all staff members, both supervisors and employees, on what it means to be “exceeding standards” or performing “below standards.” These discussions should be regularly scheduled, such as twice per year and not during the actual appraisal interview. Rather, they should be held months in advance to allow staff members the opportunity to freely discuss these performance levels and definitions.
Tip #4: Ensure a mutual exchange of information. Employee participation is associated with a variety of desirable outcomes, including appraisal-system fairness, appraisal satisfaction, satisfaction with supervisors, appraisal-system acceptance, and greater acceptance of feedback. To foster this involvement, provide employees with the opportunity to assess their own performance. Ask them to complete a self-appraisal during the evaluation period. Spend time discussing this appraisal during the interview. Compare the employee’s self-appraisal to the evaluator’s ratings. The final outcome of this meeting will be an agreed-upon rating for each job task statement, understanding that the supervisor, ultimately, will determine the rating for each task.
Improving employee performance is one of a manager’s most important and challenging responsibilities, and one that is magnified in the service-oriented field of public parks and recreation as budgets become tighter and personnel play a central role in determining the agency’s success. If your agency’s employees and managers view the current performance-appraisal system as unclear, unfair, or illegal, perhaps these tips will lead the agency toward a more useful employee-evaluation experience.
Michael A. Mulvaney is the Program Director and a Professor for the School of Kinesiology & Recreation at Illinois State University in Normal, Ill. Reach him at (217) 519-1983, or mamulva@ilstu.edu.
Mike Kianicka is a graduate student in the School of Kinesiology & Recreation at Illinois State University. Reach him at mrkiani@ilstu.edu.