 |
|
|
|
|
|
Please
help me with the following question: How can an administrator use diagnostic
evaluations on staff members? I am familiar with the use of formative and
summative evaluations, but not diagnostic unless it's medical.
Signed,
The Diagnoser
Dear
Diagnoser:
Performance appraisals can pave a path to boss-bossed collaboration and motivation or erect a brick wall over which the employee can never climb, to paraphrase Allen Frank and Judi Brownell, authors of Organizational Communication and Behavior. Diagnostic assessment is a variation of performance appraisal. Following the medical model, an employee is examined--symptoms of health and dysfunctional behavior are assessed and interpreted. Following that, there is diagnosis of what seems to ail or not ail the employee. Such an assessment can be made by a superior, a psychologist, or an employee assistance counselor and/or made by one's co-workers as in a 360-degree collection of opinions of an individual's performance.
Just like performance appraisals, the objective is to inform and support administrators' decisions regarding staffing, matters of salary, transfers, promotions, and discharge, and provide motivating feedback to those appraised. The goals of diagnostic assessment are to discover what makes the employee tick or not tick effectively. The employee can become the subject a diagnostic assessment because drug abuse is suspected, difficult interpersonal worker relationships is observed, and/or promotion potential recommended, etc.
Assessment methods include rating and ranking, field reviews, supervisor evaluation of meeting/not meeting Management Behavioral Objectives, assessment center testing (in-basket handling of assignments, simulation/games, role-playing, interaction with others), and by behavioral anchored rating scales (BARS). Behavioral anchored assessment entails development of criteria for what is effective to or distracting from high quality and high speed performance, and traits which contribute to such.
A diagnostic evaluation is what good performance reviews should be. They are not something, however, that managers should do to employees. Rather to evaluate and appraise is most cost-beneficial and motivational if done collaboratively.
My feeling is that most performance evaluations are threatening and result in unnecessarily rigorous "you-are-not-quite-good-enough" summations. I know that sometimes candid confrontations need to take place within the work setting, such as spelling and grammar problems with an administrative assistant who needs greater attention or training, or for other serious problems of absenteeism, drug abuse, harassment and hostility, and inadequate performance. But these are special situations, it seems to me, that should be handled at the point of the problem, rather than in annual or periodic performance reviews.
A work group can benefit from regular group-self-appraisals, such as a coach and a team does after a game. This can include straight forward questions such as What did we do right this week? What went wrong and why? How well are we serving our internal and external customers? Are we cutting costs, reducing cycle time, and improving quality?
WEGO entails team frequent, candid self-appraisal and a good measure of that is praisal.
Bill Gorden