4. Inconsistency

\n

Apparent inconsistency robs an appraisal process of its \nlegitimacy. It may also serve as fodder for discrimination claims.

\n

Generally speaking, employers must consider three types \nof inconsistency relative to evaluations.

\n

The first is inconsistency between comments and scores \non an employee\'s evaluation. To minimize this risk, consider instructing \nevaluators to complete the qualitative comments first and then determine what \nquantitative score goes with it. This will help combat over-evaluation, too.

\n

The second is apparent inconsistency between last year\'s \nand this year\'s appraisal. Where material changes downward have occurred, there \nshould have been some interim notice. The decline should not come as a surprise \nto the employee. Consider midyear reviews for those who aren\'t on track to \nachieve the same review as last year [or who are not making the required \nimprovement last year\'s appraisal called for).

\n

The third potential inconsistency is apparent unfair or \ninconsistent application of standards to different employees. \"Yes, my \ncommunication was subpar but so was hers!\" You can minimize this risk in a \nnumber of ways. For example, for any negative score given to an employee on a \nparticular criterion, the evaluating manager should ask herself whether anyone \nelse she manages has similar deficiencies. The evaluating manager should review \neach subordinate, one at a time. Yes, this takes time, but much less than a \ndeposition. And consider evaluating all employees by one criterion at a time as \nopposed to evaluating each employee one at a time. In other words, evaluate all \nemployees on quality of work first, quantity of work second, etc. This will help \nto ensure consistency as you make comparisons and combat over-evaluation, \ntoo.

Errores en la Evaluación del Desempeño