I'm trying to understand how to get from MT Goals to a performance rating. I’ve reviewed all the Manager Tools content I could find (great stuff!), but I feel like I’m missing something.
We provide a numerical rating on each goal and also rate on selected behaviors. Each of these elements has a predefined weighting, so there is a calculation involving individual ratings x weighting to get to an overall performance rating. We then have calibration discussions to rank overall performance of individuals in similar roles. If you have to adjust your score based on calibration then you need to adjust the individual goal/behavior scores to get to the agreed upon overall performance rating. It seems that the better we get about creating MT goals, the harder it will be to make the calibration adjustments this way.
What is the recommended approach to determining an employee’s overall performance rating?
- Are employees rated on the individual MT goals?
- Is the measurable criteria for each rating (ie, Meets, Meets Plus, Exceeds, etc) defined up front as part of the MT goal?
- What part do behaviors play (or not)
- How do you make the calibration adjustments (to get to the bell curve)?
Thanks!
John
Re: Performance Ratings
[quote="jtardy"]
We provide a numerical rating on each goal and also rate on selected behaviors. Each of these elements has a predefined weighting, so there is a calculation involving individual ratings x weighting to get to an overall performance rating. We then have calibration discussions to rank overall performance of individuals in similar roles.
[/quote]
I would love to know how this compares to the process others are following in developing performance ratings at the end of the year.
John
Performance Ratings
John,
We use a similar process and are currently finalizing new scorecards. There's been some discussion around this. As a call center, we have certain set criteria for metrics - calls per hour, wrap, hold, etc. In most arenas, these numbers by themselves can be used for rankings.
That said, our annual review format is very different. It ranks things like judgement, flexibility, customer service, attendance & punctuality, initiative, and a number of others. My preferred scorecard format identifies the metrics (numbers) but actually uses the annual format for the rankings. In this way, each team member knows EXACTLY where they stand. At the end of the year, they can review those and know what will be on their reviews - no surprises. It also gives a numeric value that can be used for rankings for performance based items like shift bids.
But it's subjective! Yes, somewhat - but that subjectivity is based on the objective data and the specific behaviors (as recorded in quality sessions and O3s). One of my directs did not score as well in the judgement area as she thought she should last year. She said 'but we talked about this!' yes...we did. And the behavior has improved somewhat, but is still evident. This person calls my lead and I more than every other team member combined when a judgment call is needed. How do I do this? Should I handle this this way? We've provided coaching, encouraged her to think and make sound decisions for herself and her customers, and it was still a surprise in the annual review (for a wide variety of reasons, we did not have these scorecards in place last year). By utilizing the same tool throughout the year, this cannot be a shock going forward.
To the original poster, I would suggest that your MT goals should support the overall performance ratings. More detail may help, but it sounds like your group has pre-defined performance expectations. MT goals should lead to 'exceeds' performance. The nice thing about MT goals are that they usually are behavior based but not behavior defined - meaning I may say 'Reduce work order errors to 0%' without saying HOW that happens. Coaching by identifying ways to make this happen as part of that employee's development piece during their O3 would be what defines the behaviors involved.
I've been sick and it's almost 4 am, so I apologize if that doesn't make the sense I think it does right now!