Evaluation is an important that managers need to play. However, it is essentially difficult to undertake. Performance appraisals and other forms of employee evaluations can be hard to develop, as different people have different attitudes and thus employees are sure to react to evaluations differently. While some may receive negative feedback constructively, this is not the case with all employees. This is the dilemma posed in the first video where Warren was shown weighing the predicament of evaluating Nick, an employee who has been performing poorly at work. Warren was uncomfortable with doing this role, and it showed in his evaluation and interview of Nick. He was so uncomfortable that he ended up giving Nick a subjective rather than an objective, fact-based appraisal. Gail, who also underwent appraisal, knew from the beginning that Nick has been messing with work. Thus, she was surprised to learn that his evaluation went well and was even rewarded the same way as she had. She also felt that there is something wrong with CanGo.
The difficulty for appraisal that Warren went through is due to the lack of standards in evaluation that he could have used. He also let his emotions lead and was unprepared for the interview with Nick. It would have been useful for him to list down the issues he needs to discuss with Nick, and associate them with the overall goals of CanGo.
Warren’s performance appraisal of Nick displeased many other employees and even other department leaders as divulged in the board meeting held later on. This shows that erroneous execution of evaluation processes can hurt organizations and their people. As much as it is a sensitive task to undertake, managers and supervisors like Warren should see to it that proper and creative execution is done. They need to review what the management needs from the employees and define their expectations and levels of performance.
The main problem of the evaluation process at CanGo, which is what Warren used, is that it is prone to subjective evaluation. While it used metrics to gauge the performance of employees, the metrics were not very specific and it gave room for evaluators like Warren to inject their own feelings in the evaluation process. Thus, when he evaluated Nick, it got the better out of him and ended up giving Nick good marks. He also missed discussing with Nick serious things that he needs to improve on.
This loophole of the evaluation process was brought about by underlying factors. For one, the evaluation criteria which should have been presented to the employees ahead of time, before the evaluation started, was not presented. The criteria were known to the evaluators but not to the employees. Thus, there was no chance given to them to contest its contents, nor to match their work roles according to them.
The metrics were also vague. While there is obvious effort given to make the evaluation as specific as possible, the gauges were still broad. There were numerical ratings that aimed to rate an employee at specific points, yet there was no definition as to what these numerical gauges stand for. The questions also generalized on the attitudes and skills of the employee, yet it did not single out specific tasks which could have measured the employee performance on a different level.
Lastly, these numerical ratings such as what Warren used do not specify the weak or strong points of the employees. Thus, when Warren gave Nick 3s and 4s which he meant he had room to improve on, Nick and other colleagues regarded the imperfect albeit high scores as good scores. With the absence of opportunity for the evaluator to explain the ratings and because Warren did not fully exploit the chance for evaluation interview, the evaluation for Nick and perhaps many other employees at CanGo went inaccurate and astray.