Within the example of the experienced engineer at the mid-size manufacturing plant, it is clear that the performance evaluations are not only beneficial for the supervisor and employee, but they have created hostility in the workplace and do not evaluate the employee on appropriate criteria to assess his performance on the job.
Financial management is concerned with the acquisition (investment), financing (arranging funds), and management of assets with some overall goal in mind.
Financial management will then be able to analyse these financial information’s to predict likely future results and to plan more carefully their proposed course of action.
There is often a personal bias associated with the performance evaluation whereby an inherent conflict may exist between the supervisor and employee and is directly represented within the performance evaluation.
This type of personal bias is very common and must be removed to eliminate the ineffectiveness of the employee’s evaluation.
This can be validated because the current form only rates whether the work was completed well or not; it does not ask specific rating questions to determine areas of strength and opportunity for the employee.
Secondly, the current evaluation form includes a natural bias that has been built into the form and is clearly present given this situation.A final error or bias in the implementation of performance evaluations comes from ineffective follow-through.Too many supervisors utilize performance evaluations out of a requirement by human resources and fail to follow through with what has been discussed personally between the supervisor and employee during the official evaluation meeting.Finally, the advantages of using OCB as a global measure of individual behavior at work are defended. Wiley Online Library requires cookies for authentication and use of other site features; therefore, cookies must be enabled to browse the site.The form is based largely on the supervisor’s opinion and personal observations without providing clear examples of the problems that exist.For instance, the employee’s attitude is questioned and the neatness of his desk is two of the greatest areas of opportunity.On the other hand, if an employee performs poorly and is rated poorly but improves in the time between evaluations, many of the subsequent evaluations will still present a poor evaluation.This error in the performance evaluations is known as the Matthew Effect (“Performance Appraisal”).However, the form does not take into consideration the current relations that exist that have impacted the employee’s attitude from his co-workers playing jokes on him.The form does not concentrate on the employee’s organization; instead, it merely concentrates on neatness which is a completely separate concept.