As a result of increased competition from businesses operating in the same field, there has been the urgent need for managers and other stakeholders to ensure that, service delivery by employees is of high standards. This way, the level of customer satisfaction is significantly raised, thus higher sales turnover both in the short and long-run. In order to gauge the performance of every employee, performance evaluation appraisal is carried out in relation to particular pre-established criterion and objectives set by an organization. Einstein & LeMere-Labonte (1989) define performance evaluation or appraisal as periodic and systematic process, which candidly assesses job productivity and performance of every employee.
There are three types of criteria, which are crucial in evaluating the performance of an engineer. One of it is quantity and quality of work done. It is notable that, quality of work done is the method of sustaining and performing healthy performance of tasks at hand. On the other hand, quantity is the total amount of work that should be handled by an individual employee at a given duration. Generally, performance evaluation, which significantly improves as well as sustains good results of a given firm, is preferred.
The other evaluation method is the duration taken to complete a given task as organizations enormously base performance on the duration taken to accomplish at task. The other aspect is the cost benefit derived from performance evaluation. For many organizations, there is the need for performance evaluation to be less costly, thus higher returns. This method is appropriate since organizations, mostly carry out cost benefit analysis on evaluation criteria prior to carrying out the performance evaluation.
There are several values of using the above common criteria of performance evaluation. Based on the quantity and quality of work done, it is easy for the management to clearly indentify as well as understand the weaknesses and strengths of every employee in line to the expected function and roles. In line with time taken to complete a task, it is easy to gauge the efficiency an individual employee, in line with the set targets of a firm. Costs benefits help to improve efficiency as well as reduce running costs (Einstein & LeMere-Labonte, 1989).
The inclusion of peers, supervisors and subordinates in the evaluation can be an advantage to the organization. This is because this action is going to reduce the level of biasness in the whole process. Additionally, it helps managers to establish the areas that need improvement (John & Eeckhout, 2006). On the other hand, inclusion of peers, supervisors and subordinates can be time consuming. As a result, such practice can be costly for the organization. Moreover, data collected from these parties may contain a lot of anomalies because each party has its own views (John & Eeckhout, 2006).
Management by objective appraisal method helps in analyzing the success of a manager in a certain task or duty (John & Eeckhout, 2006). For instance, a sales manager’s objective is to increase sales by thirty per cent by the end of the first quarter. In this case, success or failure of the sales manager in achieving the task is easy to analyze. Performance ranking method evaluates the employees from the highest to the lowest in relation to job performance in the organization (Einstein & LeMere-Labonte, 1989). One of the methods used to evaluate performance after data is gathered is judgmental evaluation method. The main methods, which is used in judgmental appraisal includes graphical rating scale, employee comparison method and behavioral scales and checklists. The other appraisal method is the MOB (Management by Objectives Method) and Behavioral BOS (Observation Scales Method). This is where engineers are rewarded based on achievement of goals, while BOS highly relates to the measured factors such as behaviors, cleanness among other factors.
The halo effect is one of the biases in performance evaluation. An excellent example is where the manager rates an employee lower in neatness because he or she is also lower in that criterion (John & Eeckhout, 2006). Leniency biasness is where the manger will give an employee a higher rating. In this case, the manger might tend to give an employee a higher rating because they are friends. False attribution error is when the manager rates an employee based on ability (John & Eeckhout, 2006). For instance, the manager might give an employee a higher rating for work done, even though that work was solely performed by a machine.
There are several tools, which can be used by plant managers to improve the performance evaluation of engineers. The plant manager should employ aspects like interpersonal skills, performance, and behavior among others as a part of appraisal. Other aspects are those based on effective communication, observable behaviors among others (Einstein & LeMere-Labonte, 1989).