2 Inappropriate Evaluation by Mr. Yoshida
The following points raise problems in his method of evaluation.
・He checked past ratings of his staff.
He inquired of Mr. Hara, his predecessor, how he had graded his staff and went to the Personnel Division to research the grades which his staff had received in the past. Under the circumstances, with no available training, his consultation with Mr. Hara is understandable to a certain extent. The Personnel Division, however, has to be criticized for disclosing confidential information such as this. His action is most reproachful in that he abandoned his own sense of judgment on the abilities and performance of his staff. Knowledge of past grades may prejudice supervisors and prevent them from making free and objective evaluations.
・He decided to award special pay increases to each of his staff in turn.
Performance evaluation should reflect the aptitude and abilities of staff. Evaluation which doesn't appraise abilities and performance is little more than a senseless exercise.
Special pay increases are to reward employees for excellent work performance. It goes without saying that the practice of giving special pay increase to each member of staff in turn goes against the grain of this philosophy.
Some supervisors do not want to draw attention to differences in abilities and performance among staff through special pay increases. They are concerned about disturbing the harmony in their office. There may be more of a tendency for this to happen in the public sector where cooperative operations are common and conspicuous differences in work performance are difficult to monitor.
・He didn't take true performance evaluations into account in support of these grades.
It appears that he didn't take note of work performance or other facts in support of his evaluation. This negligence may be accounted to the fact that he had already decided on a policy of giving special pay increases to each member of staff in turn. Without supporting evidence, evaluation is liable to become arbitrary. The evaluation meeting could become a place in which subjective views about performance are juggled between the evaluator and the evaluee and this, in itself, is unlikely to produce any meaningful result.
・He adapted the grades in response to the reaction of a member of staff.
He changed his evaluation of Mr. Akiyama when he expressed dissatisfaction and insisted that his grade should be changed. He compensated for this by downgrading the assessment rating of Mr. Tsuchiya, a less truculent character. In a situation like this, the aggressive individual benefits and the silent one loses out. The objective performance evaluation by immediate supervisors who can observe work performance and staff attitude at close quarters is designed to prevent nonsense such as this.
Regardless of the consequences, supervisors have to judge their staffs performance with confidence. They must support their assessment with clear evidence and discuss with staff their individual performance in an attempt to motivate them in their work.
・He made a commitment to good ratings next year.
He made a commitment to give a member of staff special pay increase thinking that it might motivate them in their work. This, to the contrary, may have a negative impact on the individuals' work ethics. They know that it now doesn't matter whether they work hard or not, for they will receive a special pay increase anyhow. Laziness may spread in the office. His office may have a friendly atmosphere but staff may not accomplish much in the performance of their mission.
