By now almost everyone has learned about SMART goals, objectives that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely. Specific and measurable mean the goal is concrete, clear, and descriptive to the point that results can be measured. For instance, giving feedback that a direct report “needs to be more positive and have a better attitude” is not helpful. Identifying the particular improved behaviors is: greeting others, smiling, saying “thank you,” and giving praise.

“Attainable” is often a source of disagreement between the appraiser and employee. The boss’s perception of results that are achievable and realistic might differ from those of the direct report. Here are some questions for the boss to consider:

· What are others in this role accomplishing?

· What is the person’s history?

· Does this person have the experience, knowledge and capability to do this?

· What evidence is there to come to this conclusion?

Relevant goals are also critical, but both bosses and direct reports continu

Create the System

The advantages of an effective performance appraisal system are many: better performance, improved relationships, coordination of personal goals and business objectives, identification of high potential individuals, and justification for monetary rewards. However, much depends on the efforts that go into crafting the system.

The first step is to have clearly defined job descriptions that specify the tasks, functions, and responsibilities of each job. What does it take to do this job right? What are the success indicators? What are the derailers? Answers to these questions form the foundation for deciding behavior-based competencies for the particular job, the area of the organization, or the company as a whole.

Many organizations start by defining roles and responsibilities as they relate to the level the person holds in the organization: executive, manager, or employee. Other companies choose competencies that address certain areas of the organization, such as accounting, manufacturing, human resources, or sales. Once decision makers decide how to measure performance, they are ready to identify specific behaviors that demonstrate competency in relevant areas and to choose the scale that makes sense for them.

Usually competencies relate to one of four areas: ability to get results, capacity to form relationships, decision making, and leadership. Specifically defined competencies might also include business acumen, customer focus, coaching, integrity, vision, communication, teamwork, flexibility, technical skills, and innovation. Once the company decides on 8-10 competencies, the next step is to establish the rating scale.

The most basic scale is three points: exceeds expectations, meets expectations, or fails to meet expectations. However, a four-point scale gives more options for evaluation and forces the evaluator to avoid a middle of the road review.

Once the criteria for evaluation have been determined, the decision makers need to set the timeline. In short, the year begins with goal setting, continues with ongoing feedback, and concludes with the end of the year evaluation that is often tied to raises and bonuses. This sort of schedule avoids surprises and the “once a year” mentality that dooms most performance appraisal systems. Also, the periodic reviews give the employee a chance to take corrective action when there are still opportunities to make a difference.

In general, four meetings per year work well. The first is a goal setting meeting; the second addressees progress on the goals; the third surfaces any problems that might interfere with the end of the year appraisal; and the final one is a formality that ties the progress to rewards. This does not imply that ongoing feedback should not take place between meetings. On the contrary, the four meeting format is the minimum number of meetings the boss should have with the direct report. Even though bosses often resist adding to the number of formal meetings per year, they soon learn that the increase in productivity and morale among their direct reports more than compensates for the extra time they commit to the process.

Clarify Expectations

The purpose of goal setting is to tie individual performance to the organization’s mission, vision, and values and to link short-term objectives to long-term targets. People are most committed to goals they’ve helped construct. When the boss and the direct report work together to clarify these goals, the direct report is more likely to commit to rather than comply with the efforts that will drive success. Well written goals serve a variety of purposes: they create opportunities for objective, fair dialogue; they define the “score card” that will be used to determine rewards; they energize and motivate; and they focus efforts.

By now almost everyone has learned about SMART goals, objectives that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely. Specific and measurable mean the goal is concrete, clear, and descriptive to the point that results can be measured. For instance, giving feedback that a direct report “needs to be more positive and have a better attitude” is not helpful. Identifying the particular improved behaviors is: greeting others, smiling, saying “thank you,” and giving praise.

“Attainable” is often a source of disagreement between the appraiser and employee. The boss’s perception of results that are achievable and realistic might differ from those of the direct report. Here are some questions for the boss to consider:

· What are others in this role accomplishing?

· What is the person’s history?

· Does this person have the experience, knowledge and capability to do this?

· What evidence is there to come to this conclusion?

Relevant goals are also critical, but both bosses and direct reports continue

The first step is to have clearly defined job descriptions that specify the tasks, functions, and responsibilities of each job. What does it take to do this job right? What are the success indicators? What are the derailers? Answers to these questions form the foundation for deciding behavior-based competencies for the particular job, the area of the organization, or the company as a whole.

Many organizations start by defining roles and responsibilities as they relate to the level the person holds in the organization: executive, manager, or employee. Other companies choose competencies that address certain areas of the organization, such as accounting, manufacturing, human resources, or sales. Once decision makers decide how to measure performance, they are ready to identify specific behaviors that demonstrate competency in relevant areas and to choose the scale that makes sense for them.

Usually competencies relate to one of four areas: ability to get results, capacity to form relationships, decision making, and leadership. Specifically defined competencies might also include business acumen, customer focus, coaching, integrity, vision, communication, teamwork, flexibility, technical skills, and innovation. Once the company decides on 8-10 competencies, the next step is to establish the rating scale.

The most basic scale is three points: exceeds expectations, meets expectations, or fails to meet expectations. However, a four-point scale gives more options for evaluation and forces the evaluator to avoid a middle of the road review.

Once the criteria for evaluation have been determined, the decision makers need to set the timeline. In short, the year begins with goal setting, continues with ongoing feedback, and concludes with the end of the year evaluation that is often tied to raises and bonuses. This sort of schedule avoids surprises and the “once a year” mentality that dooms most performance appraisal systems. Also, the periodic reviews give the employee a chance to take corrective action when there are still opportunities to make a difference.

In general, four meetings per year work well. The first is a goal setting meeting; the second addressees progress on the goals; the third surfaces any problems that might interfere with the end of the year appraisal; and the final one is a formality that ties the progress to rewards. This does not imply that ongoing feedback should not take place between meetings. On the contrary, the four meeting format is the minimum number of meetings the boss should have with the direct report. Even though bosses often resist adding to the number of formal meetings per year, they soon learn that the increase in productivity and morale among their direct reports more than compensates for the extra time they commit to the process.

Clarify Expectations

The purpose of goal setting is to tie individual performance to the organization’s mission, vision, and values and to link short-term objectives to long-term targets. People are most committed to goals they’ve helped construct. When the boss and the direct report work together to clarify these goals, the direct report is more likely to commit to rather than comply with the efforts that will drive success. Well written goals serve a variety of purposes: they create opportunities for objective, fair dialogue; they define the “score card” that will be used to determine rewards; they energize and motivate; and they focus efforts.

By now almost everyone has learned about SMART goals, objectives that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely. Specific and measurable mean the goal is concrete, clear, and descriptive to the point that results can be measured. For instance, giving feedback that a direct report “needs to be more positive and have a better attitude” is not helpful. Identifying the particular improved behaviors is: greeting others, smiling, saying “thank you,” and giving praise.

“Attainable” is often a source of disagreement between the appraiser and employee. The boss’s perception of results that are achievable and realistic might differ from those of the direct report. Here are some questions for the boss to consider:

· What are others in this role accomplishing?

· What is the person’s history?

· Does this person have the experience, knowledge and capability to do this?

· What evidence is there to come to this conclusion?

Relevant goals are also critical, but both bosses and direct reports continu

The most basic scale is three points: exceeds expectations, meets expectations, or fails to meet expectations. However, a four-point scale gives more options for evaluation and forces the evaluator to avoid a middle of the road review.

Once the criteria for evaluation have been determined, the decision makers need to set the timeline. In short, the year begins with goal setting, continues with ongoing feedback, and concludes with the end of the year evaluation that is often tied to raises and bonuses. This sort of schedule avoids surprises and the “once a year” mentality that dooms most performance appraisal systems. Also, the periodic reviews give the employee a chance to take corrective action when there are still opportunities to make a difference.

In general, four meetings per year work well. The first is a goal setting meeting; the second addressees progress on the goals; the third surfaces any problems that might interfere with the end of the year appraisal; and the final one is a formality that ties the progress to rewards. This does not imply that ongoing feedback should not take place between meetings. On the contrary, the four meeting format is the minimum number of meetings the boss should have with the direct report. Even though bosses often resist adding to the number of formal meetings per year, they soon learn that the increase in productivity and morale among their direct reports more than compensates for the extra time they commit to the process.

Clarify Expectations

The purpose of goal setting is to tie individual performance to the organization’s mission, vision, and values and to link short-term objectives to long-term targets. People are most committed to goals they’ve helped construct. When the boss and the direct report work together to clarify these goals, the direct report is more likely to commit to rather than comply with the efforts that will drive success. Well written goals serve a variety of purposes: they create opportunities for objective, fair dialogue; they define the “score card” that will be used to determine rewards; they energize and motivate; and they focus efforts.

By now almost everyone has learned about SMART goals, objectives that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely. Specific and measurable mean the goal is concrete, clear, and descriptive to the point that results can be measured. For instance, giving feedback that a direct report “needs to be more positive and have a better attitude” is not helpful. Identifying the particular improved behaviors is: greeting others, smiling, saying “thank you,” and giving praise.

“Attainable” is often a source of disagreement between the appraiser and employee. The boss’s perception of results that are achievable and realistic might differ from those of the direct report. Here are some questions for the boss to consider:

· What are others in this role accomplishing?

· What is the person’s history?

· Does this person have the experience, knowledge and capability to do this?

· What evidence is there to come to this conclusion?

Relevant goals are also critical, but both bosses and direct reports continu

Clarify Expectations

The purpose of goal setting is to tie individual performance to the organization’s mission, vision, and values and to link short-term objectives to long-term targets. People are most committed to goals they’ve helped construct. When the boss and the direct report work together to clarify these goals, the direct report is more likely to commit to rather than comply with the efforts that will drive success. Well written goals serve a variety of purposes: they create opportunities for objective, fair dialogue; they define the “score card” that will be used to determine rewards; they energize and motivate; and they focus efforts.

By now almost everyone has learned about SMART goals, objectives that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely. Specific and measurable mean the goal is concrete, clear, and descriptive to the point that results can be measured. For instance, giving feedback that a direct report “needs to be more positive and have a better attitude” is not helpful. Identifying the particular improved behaviors is: greeting others, smiling, saying “thank you,” and giving praise.

“Attainable” is often a source of disagreement between the appraiser and employee. The boss’s perception of results that are achievable and realistic might differ from those of the direct report. Here are some questions for the boss to consider:

· What are others in this role accomplishing?

· What is the person’s history?

· Does this person have the experience, knowledge and capability to do this?

· What evidence is there to come to this conclusion?

Relevant goals are also critical, but both bosses and direct reports continu

By now almost everyone has learned about SMART goals, objectives that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely. Specific and measurable mean the goal is concrete, clear, and descriptive to the point that results can be measured. For instance, giving feedback that a direct report “needs to be more positive and have a better attitude” is not helpful. Identifying the particular improved behaviors is: greeting others, smiling, saying “thank you,” and giving praise.

“Attainable” is often a source of disagreement between the appraiser and employee. The boss’s perception of results that are achievable and realistic might differ from those of the direct report. Here are some questions for the boss to consider:

· What are others in this role accomplishing?

· What is the person’s history?

· Does this person have the experience, knowledge and capability to do this?

· What evidence is there to come to this conclusion?

Relevant goals are also critical, but both bosses and direct reports continue to make some fundamental errors in this area. First, all goals are not created equal; they need to be prioritized. People are often motivated to work on things they like, things that are familiar, or things that are easy. But frequently these initiatives are not the most critical. Therefore, the boss needs to be sure that the “timely” elements of effectiveness are considered: First things are done first; deadlines are met; and direct reports separate important from unimportant uses of their time.

Second, the people involved fail to define the parameters in which the goals will occur, so the boss has one set of expectations and the employee another. If a condition of goal attainment is “with no overtime” or “with our current equipment,” these limiting conditions need to be spelled out so no one is surprised. If there are disagreements about these conditions or if the direct report considers the conditions unrealistic, the goal setting meeting, not the end of the year review, is the time to surface those issues. One way to do this during the goal setting meeting is for the boss to ask, “What factors might interfere with your achieving this goals?” This question alone can help to put things on the table and resolve differences.

A third mistake is direct reports often don’t understand their parameters for accountability and decision making. They either overstep when boundaries are not clear, or they err on the side of caution and risk-avoidance. Working together, the boss and direct report need to clarify which decisions the employee will make alone, which ones will require notification of the boss, and which ones need to be cleared with the boss. When the direct report is either not making decisions or is running to the boss with every problem, both parties are wasting time and efforts, and the boss is overlooking chances to develop talents and potential among his or her reports.

Finally, bosses frequently do no support the efforts of their direct reports. The research suggests, and multi-rater feedback reports confirm, that mentoring, giving feedback, and developing others are usually the boss’s lowest ratings, primarily because “getting the job done” is more important.

The fact that bosses overlook is that developing others is “the job,” a significant and critical part of the job. Usually coaching others is only one part of a boss’s job, so taking care of other responsibilities often takes precedence. Also, organizations frequently reward solo performance and individual efforts more than they recognize coaching others. Therefore, in order for an appraisal system to succeed, companies need to recognize and reward efforts related to leading and managing others.

Support from the boss is an inexpensive but effective way to improve performance and show a commitment to excellence. Frequently managers don’t have the authority to give financial rewards, but all bosses can give the intangible rewards of attention, coaching and mentoring. Furthermore, through discussion, the boss can learn what other kinds of intangible rewards the direct might appreciate—increased responsibility, more interesting work, variety, opportunities to work alone or on a team, etc. The key is to build trust that the boss cares and wants to respond to the needs of the direct report.

Review Performance

Another way to build trust and reduce anxiety is through scheduled conversations. Obviously, feedback about performance should occur when it can do the most good—when it is immediate and focused. When a direct report makes a mistake, addressing the problem right away is the surest way to take corrective action. Similarly, when a person excels at a task, complimenting and praising the efforts immediately will show appreciation and encourage more of the same.

However, having more formal review sessions is also critical to the direct report’s development. Regularly scheduled reviews avoid the end of the year angst and allow employees to receive feedback when there is still time to take corrective action.

One of the reasons these critical discussions are not occurring is bosses feel uncomfortable, unprepared, or ineffective in such encounters. They avoid the very conversations that could help them build better relationships and increase productivity among the people who need their direction and support. One way for bosses to improve their coaching is to follow the GLAD feedback method, a step-by-step approach that can help bosses improve performance appraisals and inspire peak performance:

Get to the core of the performance issues.
Listen to the other firs