Employee appraisals are like trips to the dentist, most people would rather avoid them if they could. But, like a dentist visit, the more you postpone it the more you are likely to make eventual problems worse. If employee appraisals are difficult even in large organizations where there are dedicated HR staffers, how much more so in small organizations where a close working environment can make such discussions even more uncomfortable. How can a supervisor say anything critical about a colleague with whom he must work in a small group without ruining the relationship?

The answer is a supervisor should not have to say anything critical at all, if he employs a collaborative approach to performance evaluation.

For at least the past two decades certain cutting-edge organizations in both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors have incorporated what can best be called a collaborative approach into their personnel decision making. This approach can be employed from the start of a hiring decision, through a successful candidate’s employment.

The concept is simple, but require certain preconditions: the organization has a strategic plan in which its mission, principles and goals are well articulated, and the employee be mature and honest enough to know his own career goals as well as the strengths and weaknesses he brings to the task.

So far so good, right? These preliminaries might seem straightforward, but it is remarkable how often employer and employee are at cross-purposes on these points. Each person might see in the other his own projected aspirations (e.g., the employer sees a bygone version of himself in this youthful prospective employee, while the future employee sees a good six-month stepping stone to the job he really wants). Time usually weeds out such misperceptions, but wouldn't there be a lot less disappointment and suffering in the workplace if hiring decisions were not made this way?

The collaborative approach to hiring and staff appraisals assumes that everyone, employee and organization alike, wants to achieve their goals. The question is, is there a match between the two? And if so, what are the steps that need to be taken to ensure that this meshing occurs in the smoothest and most effective way?

Some might observe that this could be considered a cynical use of a person's private ambitions. If so, maybe we should have more of it - because in truth there is no more dynamic work environment than those organizations where every employee's personal aspirations are perfectly in tune with the overall goals of the group. Most of us have at one time or another worked in such environments. These are the places where people enjoy going to work. To outsiders these are office environments that are bursting with vitality and are career magnets for the best and brightest.

In employing this collaborative approach, supervisor and staffer work together to define goals that both support the organization and the employee's personal career goals. A career path is designed that describes how the employee will grow step-by-step from where they are to where they want to be.

These steps are not defined in terms of job titles (although this can be included) but more in terms of what needs to be accomplished, in what time frame, using what resources. After looking at a multi-year big picture, in order to have a clear idea of long-term expectations, the plan needs to be defined in terms of the year to come, because this is the usual time frame for planning budgets and other resource allocations.

These interim tasks and objectives need to be written by the staffer and approved by the supervisor, and made a part of the staffer’s personnel file. Then, a year later, employer and employee each take a copy of this plan and evaluate how each objective was accomplished. Usually such evaluations include a numbered scale ranking of key attributes that allow people to be effective, such as timeliness, friendliness, knowledge and use of office technology, etc. Such attributes should be an established and permanent part of the evaluation process.

If there are discrepancies between the evaluation forms completed by the employee and the supervisor, then these differences need to be addressed and a compromise worked out with both parties acknowledging the perspective of the other. Only the final joint evaluation goes into the employee records.

Such a goal-based, collaborative approach to employee appraisals works in every size organization, but is especially useful in smaller organizations.

Details: www.plexusconsulting.com.