Evaluation_System

Evaluation 1 Performance Evaluation System M. G. Week 3 Individual Paper Evaluation 2 Introduction The United States Air Force utilizes a sophisticated evaluation system for its enlisted airmen. The system provides a reliable method of distinguishing high performers from low performers. It encompasses a ‘whole person’ concept. This concept evaluates not only an airman’s primary duties, but also areas like teamwork, leadership, training, and fitness. First, it discusses assessment areas. Secondly, discussion on the formal timeline is provided. Next, it covers the requirements of an effective performance evaluation process. Then it covers the appeal process. Followed by, the impact of the appraisal to both the organization and the individual is discussed. It then moves to recommendations followed lastly by a summary. Context The United States Air Force requires an annual written performance evaluation. The Air Force instruction that governs this is AFI 36-2406. The instruction provides guidance on both how to evaluate and when to evaluate. There are minimum requirements to become a first level rater. A rater must be a noncommissioned officer and have graduated from Airman Leadership School, which is the first level of professional military education. There are also requirements to be a second level rater. Those requirements are that the rater must be a senior noncommissioned officer and have graduated from the second level of professional military education, known as the Noncommissioned Officer Academy. The third and last level of rater is the reviewer level. The requirement for this level is that the rater is a commissioned officer and possesses the duty title of commander. The Air Force’s performance evaluation system is a hybrid of both behavior and results oriented systems. This paper focuses on an aircraft maintenance unit and its 319 members and the application of the enlisted evaluation system used. Evaluation 3 Research Findings and Analysis The enlisted evaluation system used by the Air Force consists of formal feedback sessions and a formal written evaluation. The performance assessment evaluates: primary duties, standards, fitness, resource management, training, teamwork, and leadership. Each section has a graphic rating scale and space for a narrative summary. This affords a rater the opportunity to capture both behavior and results oriented performance. This permits the rater to evaluate the subordinate by capturing both results and how the results were achieved. In addition to personal observations by the rater, the rater is also encouraged to gather information about the ratee through other sources such a quality assurance reports, and performance observed by other unit members. The evaluations serve not only to capture performance but also to aid in decisions for continued service, retraining, discharge and promotion. The evaluation process begins when a ratee is assigned to a rater. The first formal step is to conduct an initial feedback session. This must occur within 60 days of the rater being assigned. This is a vital cog in the evaluation process. The initial feedback, establishes goals and objectives that are specific, measureable and that link individual goals to organizational goals (McConkie, 1979, p. 29). The second formal step is to conduct a midterm feedback session. Here the rater and ratee formally review the goals and objectives established initially and discuss areas of positive progression and areas that require additional effort. This occurs at 180 days after supervision began. The third formal feedback session occurs at approximately 60 days prior to the evaluation being written. There is little time remaining by this point to improve in areas that are lacking. At the completion of one year of supervision the performance evaluation is written and it becomes part of the member’s permanent personnel file. Along with this formal, well laid out process, there is also an informal process that parallels it. Evaluation 4 An effective evaluation system requires the following be met: relevance, sensitivity, reliability, acceptability and practicality (Cascio, 2010, p. 335). The relevance of the evaluation system ties the evaluated areas to the performance of the unit’s mission. The unit’s mission is to provide safe, flyable aircraft to support a global strategic airlift. This system is relevant in that it captures performance of aircraft maintenance actions not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. Sensitivity of the system is garnered by the graphic rating scale. If ratees fail to meet standards they are at risk of being denied the privilege of continuing to serve in the Air Force. The graphic scale has ratings of: does not meet, meets, above average, and clearly exceeds. Markings in the ‘does not meet’ have the potential of being denied re-enlistment. The reliability requirement is met through the fact that all raters are trained through professional military education courses and are held accountable if they fail to perform their duties with integrity and honesty. Application of sound evaluation techniques and not relying on only one viewpoint assist in making the evaluation system reliable. The fourth requirement is acceptability. It is no secret to enlisted members regarding the basis of what their evaluation relies upon. Through the feedback sessions with their rater the ratee assists in setting their goals and establishing the expectations required to earn a good evaluation. The rater must ensure the goals are set to avoid a low expectancy of the ratee. A low expectancy or underachiever could become labeled as such, when in fact the goals set were low and unchallenging that the ratee achieved the set goal with minimum effort and therefore concludes that they are performing as expected (McNatt, 2000, p. 316). The last requirement is practicality. The evaluation system is not difficult to implement, enlisted members are exposed to this process shortly after entry. Through exposure, training and mentoring the system is practical. Next, the appeal process for if a ratee believes they were evaluated unfairly will be discussed. Evaluation 5 The Air Force’s enlisted airman evaluation system includes means to appeal, if one does not agree with the evaluation given. The evaluation process affords a ratee the opportunity to present information to be considered in the event that they earned a graphic rating of ‘does not meet’. If this occurs the evaluation is termed as a referral report. During this process the ratee is informed in both writing and verbally by the rater of the area in which a does not meet rating was earned. In the letter and face-to-face presentation the ratee is informed of the rating and the reason for the rating. The ratee is given 10 days to gather information and documentation to either contest the rating or they may recognize their failure to meet the expectations and goals established between themselves and the rater during the initial feedback session. The information is presented to the third level in the rating chain, which is the member’s unit commander. The commander will review the information provided by the ratee and make a final determination. If the ratee is still unsatisfied with the decision they may go to the next higher level commander to appeal the unit commander’s decision. If the unit commander’s decision is upheld the evaluation becomes official. If it is overturned the higher level commander will be the final rater for the report. Overinflated ratings in the evaluation system are another potential area of concern in the use of this system. Evaluation reports are directly used in determining promotions in the enlisted grades of E-5 through E-9. The evaluation ratings are weighted factors into an overall scoring system that determines if a member should be promoted or not during the annual promotion cycle. A direct result of this is the potential for raters to become lenient. If leniency becomes normal than the evaluation system will become invalid. The rater must make the tough decisions to differentiate true top performers from average performers or possibly low performers. One method to combat this tendency is to conduct refresher training to raters (Taylor & Wilsted, Evaluation 6 1974, p. 449). This training would be designed to reinforce the methods taught during professional military education and reaffirm the importance entrusted to raters to use integrity and honesty in the evaluation process. This author took an online assessment that evaluated his performance appraisal discomfort scale. He scored a 12 out possible 60, which correlated to him having little or no discomfort in providing negative feedback. Recommendations The following three recommendations are made to help the Air Force and the evaluators improve and maintain an appropriate and effective rating system. The first recommendation is to mandate additional training for raters. Enlisted members attend only three professional military education courses through their career. These courses are spread out over 20-25 years of service. Although experience is gained by conducting evaluations a benefit to the process would be to conduct seminars to refresh raters how to use the established process. Secondly, raters must evaluate honestly, which requires them to have the moral courage to rate honestly. Raters must not allow themselves to become lenient during the evaluation process, or allow personal connections to cloud their judgment. If leniency becomes the norm than the evaluation process will be invalid. Honest evaluations will bring out the best of the Air Force team. Lastly, the Air Force should remove the evaluation reports as a weighted factor in the promotion score. If the evaluation reports were used solely to determine if a member should be allowed to compete for promotion, be retained, or separated from the Air Force then the tendency to be lenient would vanish. Summary/Reflections Evaluation 7 The military structure of top down command influences the evaluation process. Because of this structure, the performance evaluation process used in the military may not translate to the civilian sector easily. The military provides training to its members to learn to evaluate performance. It also provides a structure and format with specific guidelines that must be followed. The process encompasses a ‘whole person’ concept that evaluates traits like leadership and teamwork. The structure provided follows a definitive timeline and provides for appeals of evaluations if there is disagreement. A consideration to retain this effective performance evaluation system is to reduce or eliminate the impact rater leniency. References Evaluation 8 Cascio, W.F. (2010). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. McConkie, M. L. (1979). A Clarification of the Goal Setting and Appraisal Processes in MBO. Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 29-40. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. McNatt, D. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion Joins Contemporary Management: A Meta-Analysis of the Result. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 314-322. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Taylor, R. L., & Wilsted, W. D. (1974). Capturing Judgment Policies: A Field Study of Performance Appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 17(3), 440-449. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.