8.2cWho Should Appraise an Employee’s Performance? Just as there are multiple standards by which to evaluate performance, there are also multiple people who can evaluate an employee’s performance. Given the complexity of today’s jobs, it is often unrealistic to presume that one person can fully observe and evaluate an employee’s performance. At IBM, employees are regularly reviewed by a broad cross-section of the company’s leaders, not just their immediate bosses. As shown in Figure 8.5, the raters can include supervisors, peers, team members, employees themselves, their subordinates, customers, vendors, and suppliers. Each may be more or less useful for the administrative and developmental purposes we discussed earlier. Manager/Supervisor Evaluations The manager and/or supervisor evaluation has been the traditional approach to evaluating an employee’s performance. In most instances, supervisors are in the best position to perform this function, although it may not always be possible for them to do so. Managers with many subordinates often complain that they do not have the time to fully observe the performance of each of them. These managers must then rely on performance records to evaluate an employee’s performance. If reliable and valid measures are not available, the evaluation is likely to be less than accurate as a result. (Recall our earlier discussion of criterion deficiency and criterion contamination.) In addition, research has shown that the ratings managers give employees they have known for less than one year are less reliable, which can be a drawback of relying solely on information from managers. Self-Evaluations In many firms, employees are asked to evaluate themselves on self-evaluation forms. A self-evaluation can increase an employee’s involvement in the review process and get the employee thinking about his or her strengths and weaknesses. In other words, they serve as a catalyst for discussion. The employee and his or her manager then discuss the employee’s job performance and agree on a final evaluation. It’s not uncommon for employees to present themselves in a highly favorable light in self-evaluations or believe they will have more influence over the outcome of a performance evaluation. If that expectation is not met, the employee can become frustrated. For this reason, self-evaluations are often best used for developmental purposes rather than for administrative decisions. Subordinate Evaluations Subordinate evaluations have been used by both large and small organizations to give managers feedback on how their subordinates view them. Subordinates are in a good position to evaluate their managers because they are in frequent contact with their superiors and occupy a unique position from which to observe many performance-related behaviors, such as their leadership ability, ability to delegate, employee supportiveness, and so on. Managers are often hesitant to be evaluated by the people they supervise, particularly w.

1. 8.2cWho Should Appraise an Employee’s Performance?
Just as there are multiple standards by which to evaluate
performance, there are also multiple people who can evaluate an
employee’s performance. Given the complexity of today’s jobs,
it is often unrealistic to presume that one person can fully
observe and evaluate an employee’s performance. At IBM,
employees are regularly reviewed by a broad cross-section of
the company’s leaders, not just their immediate bosses. As
shown in Figure 8.5, the raters can include supervisors, peers,
team members, employees themselves, their subordinates,
customers, vendors, and suppliers. Each may be more or less
useful for the administrative and developmental purposes we
discussed earlier.
Manager/Supervisor Evaluations
The manager and/or supervisor evaluation has been the
traditional approach to evaluating an employee’s performance.
In most instances, supervisors are in the best position to
perform this function, although it may not always be possible
for them to do so. Managers with many subordinates often
complain that they do not have the time to fully observe the
performance of each of them. These managers must then rely on
performance records to evaluate an employee’s performance. If
reliable and valid measures are not available, the evaluation is
likely to be less than accurate as a result. (Recall our earlier
discussion of criterion deficiency and criterion contamination.)
In addition, research has shown that the ratings managers give
employees they have known for less than one year are less
reliable, which can be a drawback of relying solely on
information from managers.
Self-Evaluations
In many firms, employees are asked to evaluate themselves on
self-evaluation forms. A self-evaluation can increase an

2. employee’s involvement in the review process and get the
employee thinking about his or her strengths and weaknesses. In
other words, they serve as a catalyst for discussion. The
employee and his or her manager then discuss the employee’s
job performance and agree on a final evaluation.
It’s not uncommon for employees to present themselves in a
highly favorable light in self-evaluations or believe they will
have more influence over the outcome of a performance
evaluation. If that expectation is not met, the employee can
become frustrated. For this reason, self-evaluations are often
best used for developmental purposes rather than for
administrative decisions.
Subordinate Evaluations
Subordinate evaluations have been used by both large and small
organizations to give managers feedback on how their
subordinates view them. Subordinates are in a good position to
evaluate their managers because they are in frequent contact
with their superiors and occupy a unique position from which to
observe many performance-related behaviors, such as their
leadership ability, ability to delegate, employee supportiveness,
and so on. Managers are often hesitant to be evaluated by the
people they supervise, particularly when it might be used as a
basis for compensation decisions. However, when the
information is used for developmental purposes, managers tend
to be more open to the idea. Evidence suggests that when
managers heed the advice of their subordinates, their own
performance can improve substantially. To avoid any problems
with retaliation, subordinate evaluations should be submitted
anonymously and the results of the individuals combined in a
single report.
Peer Evaluations
Individuals of equal rank who work together are increasingly
asked to evaluate each other using a peer evaluation With peer
evaluations, coworkers complete an evaluation on the employee.

3. The forms are then usually compiled into a single profile, which
is given to the supervisor for use in the final evaluation. One
advantage of peer evaluations is the belief that they furnish
more accurate and valid information than evaluations by
superiors. Supervisors often see employees putting their best
foot forward, while those who work with their fellow employees
on a regular basis may see a more realistic picture. Peers can
readily identify leadership and interpersonal skills along with
other strengths and weaknesses of their coworkers. For example,
a superior asked to rate a patrol officer on a dimension such as
“dealing with the public” might not have had much opportunity
to observe it. Fellow officers, on the other hand, likely would
have.
For employees who have trouble confronting their coworkers
about problems, the reviews provide a forum in which to
address issues and resolve conflicts. They also provide an
opportunity to hand out praise. However, peer evaluations alone
should not be used to make administrative decisions related to
salaries, bonuses, promotions, and other major decisions about
an employee. They should also be kept confidential, so
interpersonal rivalries or hurt feelings don’t result among
coworkers. Instead of listing individual comments and ratings
from an employee’s peers, the ratings should be tallied to arrive
at a composite score, and the comments summarized by the
worker’s supervisor.
Team Evaluations
An extension of the peer evaluation is the team evaluation. In a
team setting, it may be nearly impossible to separate out an
individual’s contribution. To address this issue, organizations
ranging from Boeing and Texas Instruments to Jostens and
Ralston Foods have used team evaluations to evaluate the
performance of their teams as a whole. These companies believe
that team evaluations can help break down barriers between
individual employees and encourage a joint effort on their part.
Frequently, the system is complemented by the use of team

4. incentives or group variable pay. (See Chapter 10 and Chapter
16.)
Customer Evaluations
Customer evaluations are another source of performance
evaluation information. External customers’ evaluations, of
course, have been used for some time to appraise restaurant
personnel. However, companies such as Federal Express, Best
Buy, and Isuzu are among the companies that have utilized
external customers as well. To provide feedback to its
technicians and see how well they have performed, Sears
routinely calls customers after the technicians have serviced
their appliances. Other companies survey their vendors and
suppliers as part of the evaluation process. By including the
firm’s business partners in the performance reviews, managers
hope to produce more objective evaluations, more effective
employees, more satisfied customers, and better business
performance.
In contrast to external customers, internal customers include
anyone inside the organization who depends on an employee’s
work output. For example, managers who rely on the HR
department for selecting and training employees would be
candidates for conducting internal customer evaluations of
employees in the department or the department as a whole. For
both developmental and administrative purposes, internal
customers can provide extremely useful feedback about the
value added by an employee or team of employees.8.2dPutting
It All Together: 360-Degree Evaluations
Companies such as Intel, Morgan Stanley, and Disney are
among the many organizations that have used a multiple-rater
approach—or 360-degree evaluation—that combines various
sources of performance evaluation information. Jobs are
multifaceted, and different people see different things. As the
name implies, 360-degree feedback is intended to provide
employees with as accurate a view of their performance as
possible by getting input from all angles: supervisors, peers,

5. subordinates, customers, and the like.
Figure 8.6 shows a list of pros and cons of 360-degree
evaluation. When Intel established a 360-degree system, the
company observed the following safeguards to ensure its
maximum quality and acceptance:
· Assure anonymity. Make certain that no employee ever knows
how any evaluation team member responded. (The supervisor’s
rating is an exception to this rule.)
· Make respondents accountable. Supervisors should discuss
each evaluation team member’s input, letting each member
know whether he or she used the rating scales appropriately,
whether his or her responses were reliable, and how other
participants rated the employee.
· Prevent “gaming” of the system. Some individuals may try to
help or hurt an employee by giving either too high or too low an
evaluation. Team members may try to collude with one another
by agreeing to give each other uniformly high ratings.
Supervisors should check for obviously invalid responses.
· Use statistical procedures. Use weighted averages or other
quantitative approaches to combine evaluations. Supervisors
should be careful about using subjective combinations of data,
which could undermine the system.
· Identify and quantify biases. Check for prejudices or
preferences related to age, gender, ethnicity, or other group
factors.
Figure 8.6
Pros and Cons of 360-Degree Evaluation
PROS
· The system is more comprehensive because feedback is
gathered from multiple perspectives.
· It may lessen bias and prejudice since feedback comes from
more people, not one individual.
· The feedback from peers and others may improve an
employees’ self-development.

6. CONS
· The system is complex in combining all the responses.
· The feedback can be intimidating and cause resentment if
employees feel the respondents have “ganged up” on them.
· There may be conflicting opinions, though they may all be
accurate from the respective standpoints.
· Raters must undergo some training.
· Employees may collude or “game” the system by giving
invalid evaluations to one another.
· Raters may not feel accountable if their evaluations are
anonymous.