In response to a client question, I did a little research recently on the number of performance rating categories that organizations most typically use in their performance appraisals, and I found a QuickQuestion poll that WorldatWork did on this topic in 2005.
The poll, which features the responses of 569 members, shows the following responses to the question: "How many performance rating categories/levels does your organization use (not including levels such as 'Too New to Rate', 'New Hire', etc.)?":
- Five - 52.0%
- Four - 20.6%
- Three - 16.3%
- Six or more - 7.4%
- Do not use levels to categorize performance - 2.6%
- Two - 0.9%
- Other - 0.2%
Clearly five categories is the most popular choice, which doesn't surprise me (or probably anyone else who has seen a few performance management programs in their time). But a few other thoughts occurred to me in response to this information that I thought I'd share here:
- I wonder how many of these organizations with five performance categories are "balanced" around a middle ("3" level) "meets job expectations" rating, with two rating categories ("1" and "2") describing performance "below expectations" and two rating categories ("4" and "5") describing performance "above expectations". Then I wonder, in this era of overpraising and grade inflation, how many really need and use both of the "below expectations" levels. Or, alternatively, are the categories really "centered" around "2" as "meeting job expectations", leaving three levels to describe performance above that level?
- I admit being slightly taken aback by the number of "Six or more" responses. There is, I know, that universal desire among performance raters to have more choices, even to create them where they don't exist (as evidenced by ratings of "4-" or "3++"). What I struggle to understand, though, is this: Why is it that the same people (performance raters, being mostly supervisors and managers) who believe they are given too few rating choices on the back end of the process will often find themselves unable to articulate, at the front end, in the spirit of proactive performance managemet, the difference between these performance levels? For example, why is it sometimes so difficult to inform employees, up front, what you would expect from them in order to award them an "above expectations" rating? I guess I lean toward fewer, clearer performance rating choices.
How do the rest of you react? What is your experience with different numbers of performance categories?
Comments