Task-Specific Performance Reviews – An Accurate Metric for a Structured On-Job-Training Outcome

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.

We have all been through it. For decades this has been the topic of comedy shows and movies…the dreaded annual performance review. And when it is over, we might tell our confidants how non-reflective of reality and unfair it was. We calm down over the next few months and grow more anxious each month as we get closer to the next one thinking we are at its whim.

Why are they used? Are they supposed to be a good measure or performance or just a way to meet a human resources department obligation? More times than not they seem like a justification for not giving a wage increase than guidance on how an employee can continually improve and contribute to the organization.

It is bewildering why management would spend the time and money, and risk employee morale time and again, on an employee measurement that isn’t.

Conceptually, the performance review has a purpose. It is to measure employee performance during a review period, identify areas of weakness and strength, and offer guidance on how an employee can improve on shortcomings and expand potential. But that is only possible if it is accurate to the job classification against which an individual is measured.

Several decades ago, performance review criteria became a template – one form fits all. In order for that to be possible, the metrics had to become more general, such as whether the individual “works well with others,” “completes projects on time,” “shows initiative.”  At best, these types of measures leave the reviewed wondering whose job performance is being discussed. At worst, these subjective measures leave a lot of latitude for the reviewer who sometimes deliberately or unintentionally punishes an otherwise good performing employee.

Studies have shown that performance reviewers rarely have a method to gather performance history for each employee throughout a review period, so they rely on their memory. It tends to focus on the last 2-3 weeks before the scheduled review. Most assuredly the bad instances remain fresh in the mind while the many instances of good performance are not consciously retained. And what if a manager is replaced during a review period? Is there a method to transfer memories to the incoming manager?

It is bewildering why management would spend the time and money, and risk employee morale time and again, on a measurement that isn’t.

There is an accurate way to build useful and fair, employee-specific performance measures and a way to collect task-based performance data throughout the year. An instrument that offers real development status information and guidance for performance improvement, so a manager doesn’t have to remember it, just refer to it. But it takes a little effort and research to gain accuracy and job-relatedness.

Proactive Technologies, Inc.’s Performance Appraisal Report, generated by the PROTECH© system of managed human resource development software system, is based on a detailed job and task analysis offering the highest level of “content validation.” If used as designed, it not only is legally defensible it is fair to everyone, including to the reviewer who is asked to assess performance.  

Most importantly, it is designed from the same data as the structured on-the-job training plans and checklists are made, allowing the reviewer to objectively rate the trainee on tasks they were actually, properly trained on.

The report has two parts. The first part is the general traits one usually sees in a performance appraisal instrument. The second part is employee-specific listing all the tasks that make up the job classification and tasks for which the employee received training to focus the reviewer on only the performance of tasks for which the employee has demonstrated mastery. The report also lists the tasks for which training was not provided during the review period. Both are drawn from the PROTECH Employee File database and tasks are listed as mastered and non-mastered to allow the evaluator to suggest activities for employee continuous improvement.

Part One and Part Two scores are added to give an overall performance score which rates the employee on the social and general performance as well as the task-specific performance. Best of all, the performance reviewer does not have to recall, without historical information, an entire year of task-specific performance for each employee in each department they oversee. This is also a good measure of the effectiveness of training for each of the measured tasks if linked to a structured on the job training program.

Performance reviews have a proper place in a worker development strategy. It can be a useful tool in rewarding performance, providing empirical evidence why one person is paid more than another and assuring those responsible for training the worker are fulfilling their obligation. Rather than being afraid to use this tool, why not embrace it and do it right, with confidence?

Proactive Technologies, Inc. is a leader in reality-based worker development through the accelerated transfer of expertise™. For a briefing on the power of the PROTECH© system of managed human resource development, take a few minutes and contact a representative today.