12 Performance Management Survey

8/11/2019 12 Performance Management Survey

1/115


2/115

ERC Performance Management Practices Survey

ERC, 2012 | www.ercnet.org 1

About ERC

ERC is Northeast Ohio's largest organization dedicated to HR and workplace programs, practices, training and

consulting. ERC membership provides employers access to an incredible amount of information, expertise, and

cost savings that supports the attraction, retention, and development of great employees. We also host thenationally recognized NorthCoast 99 program and sponsor the ERC Health insurance program. For more

information about ERC, please visit www.ercnet.org.


3/115



Table of Contents

Overview 3

Key Findings in the Survey 4

Performance Reviews 5

Performance Criteria 12

Supervisors Role in Managing Performance 16

Other Performance Management Issues 18

Performance Management Technology 21

Respondent Demographics 23

Appendix A: Industry & Organizational Size Breakouts 24

Appendix B: Numeric Rating Scales 102

Appendix C: Self-Appraisal 105

Appendix D: Below Standard Performance 108

Appendix E: Performance Evaluation and Compensation 112


4/115



Overview

In May/June of 2012, ERC conducted a survey of organizations in Northeast Ohio to explore performance

management practices specifically related to performance reviews, performance criteria, role of the supervisor in

managing performance, and other performance management issues. The results show several key trends amongNortheast Ohio employers in terms of their performance management practices.

All ERC members were invited to participate in the survey in May via email invitation and other promotions, and

participated in the survey throughout the month. The survey officially closed on June 15, 2012. In order to provide

the most reliable and accurate information, data was cleaned and duplicate records were removed. Any outliers or

invalid data were also eliminated, yielding a final data set of 83 participating organizations, only from Northeast

Ohio. All quantitative data was analyzed using statistical software to ensure data validity and reliability.

This report shows several frequencies and response distributions. Breakouts of data are provided for industry and

number of employees. Frequencies of data responses may not total 100% exactly in some cases due to rounding

of decimals or the ability for participating organizations to select multiple response options. Additionally, some

breakouts may not be reported due to insufficient or invalid data.


5/115



Key Findings

Virtually all organizations use individual performance evaluations regardless of industry or organizational size.

Performance improvement plans, goal setting and individual development plans are also highly utilized by

90% of employers or greater. Approximately equal numbers of organizations use a numeric scale as the format of their performance

evaluations as those that use comments/summaries- just under two-thirds.

Performance improvement plans are used by the majority of respondents and typically require employee and

supervisor signatures as a formal acknowledgement of the plan. The plans content most often includes

expected behavior or results and activities to be conducted.

Designing and implementing the performance management process within an organization is primarily driven

by human resource representatives, senior managers or executives and managers.

Supervisors commonly set performance criteria for employees, while goals tend to be set mutually (by both

the employee and supervisor).

The most frequently assessed performance criteria include quality of work, job knowledge/job specific

competencies, and quantity of work/productivity. More soft-skill type criteria such as attitude/professionalism

and teamwork/cooperation are also assessed by more than three-quarters of respondents.

Supervisors have a high level of involvement with nearly every aspect of managing employee performance,

but organizations typically provide supervisors with performance management training as it relates directly to

the performance evaluation discussion and documentation process itself. Areas such as developmental

coaching and reward and recognition are less commonly included in these trainings.

The most commonly reported challenges organizations experience with their performance management

systems are failure of supervisor to provide on-going feedback and inconsistent performance documentation

by supervisors.

Performance management technology solutions are not particularly common within this group of respondents.

Additionally, the wide majority of these organizations indicate that they do not currently have plans to

implement one in the foreseeable future.


6/115


Performance Reviews

Employers tend to utilize a variety of activities in their performance management programs. Nearly every

organization (99%) uses individual performance evaluations. More than ninety percent of the organizations

surveyed use performance improvement plans (93%), performance goal setting (92%) and individualdevelopment plans (90%). Over 70% also use reward and recognition, feedback/coaching, developmental goal

setting, performance management training and self appraisal.

Fewer employers report using mid-year reviews (45%), 360 feedback (42%), team performance evaluations

(35%), peer reviews (34%) and performance reviews following an introductory period (28%).

Figure 1 | What activities are featured in your performance management program?

28%

34%

35%

42%

45%72%

79%

84%

87%

87%

90%

92%

93%

99%

% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Review following intro period

Peer review

Team performance evaluation

360 feedback

Mid-year reviewSelf appraisal

Performance management training

Developmental goal setting

Feedback/coaching

Reward and recognition

Individual development plans

Performance goal setting

Performance improvement plans

Individual performance evaluation



7/115



Organizations differ somewhat on the frequency in which they conduct various performance management

activities. The majority of organizations conduct their performance management activities on an annual basis,

particularly individual performance evaluations (77%), performance goal setting (61%), developmental goal

setting (51%) and self appraisal (49%). Many organizations provide feedback/coaching and reward and

recognition on an on-going basis, while others use performance improvement plans, individual development

plans, performance management training and performance review following an introductory period on an as-

needed basis.

Figure 2 | How frequently do your performance management activities occur?

AnnuallyBi-

annuallyQuarterly On-going

Asneeded

Lessoften thanannually

Not used

Individual performanceevaluation 77% 17% 6% 4% 7% 4% 1%

Feedback/coaching 16% 7% 1% 41% 29% 1% 13%

Performance goal setting 61% 16% 2% 13% 11% 1% 8%

Performance improvementplans

16% 4% 0% 11% 59% 0% 7%

Reward and recognition 17% 6% 5% 36% 23% 1% 13%

Individual developmentplans

34% 8% 0% 15% 35% 2% 10%

Developmental goal setting 51% 11% 1% 11% 12% 4% 16%

Self appraisal 49% 8% 0% 4% 7% 1% 28%

Performance managementtraining 15% 0% 1% 13% 32% 9% 21%

360 feedback 12% 1% 0% 1% 13% 2% 58%

Team performanceevaluation 7% 2% 2% 10% 8% 0% 65%

Peer review 8% 0% 0% 1% 10% 4% 66%

Mid-year review 13% 11% 1% 1% 11% 1% 55%

Performance reviewfollowing introductory period

10% 6% 6% 18% 30% 7% 22%


8/115


Organizations (66%) most frequently describe the format of their annual performance evaluation as that of

numeric ratings. Slightly fewer organizations (65%) report using comments/summaries as the format of their

evaluations. Goal setting/management by objectives is also used by more than half of organizations (55%).

Competency-based evaluations are slightly less common, but are still used by 45% of organizations. Numeric

rating systems and comments/summaries are common across size and industry. However, smaller organizations

outside of the manufacturing industry are more likely to use more individualized performance evaluation formats

such as goal setting/management by objectives (MBO) and customized forms.

Figure 3 | Which of the following best describes the format of your organizations annual performanceevaluation?

6%

15%

36%

45%

55%

65%

66%

% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Multi-rater (360)

Forced ranking

Form customized to each job/duties

Competency-based

Goal setting/management by objectives (MBO)

Comments/summaries

Numeric rating

The majority of organizations (69%) that use a numeric rating for performance evaluations tend to rate employees

on a five-point scale. Less frequently used are four-point (11%) and ten-point (6%) scales. Full responses are

provided in Appendix B.

Figure 4 | If numeric ratings are used, what type of scale is employed?


6%

3%

69%

11%

3%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

10-point scale

6-point scale

5-point scale

4-point scale

3-point scale

2-point scale


9/115


10/115


The vast majority of employers (82%) report that employees see their evaluations during the meeting or

discussion of the evaluation. A few organizations (11%) provide evaluations to employees prior to the meeting or

discussion.

Figure 7 | When does the employee see their supervisors completed performance evaluation?

11%

82%

4%4%

Prior to the meeting/discussion of the evaluation

During the meeting/discussion of the evaluation

After the meeting/discussion of the evaluation

Employee does not see the completed evaluation

Approval of performance evaluations is most commonly provided by the supervisors immediate supervisor (1

level up) (46%). Human Resources (41%) is also often involved in the approval process. In some organizations

(37%), only the immediate supervisor needs to approve performance evaluations. Other (12%) positions noted

included top level executives such as COO, CFO and CEO. Manufacturers are the most likely industry type to

report involving the HR department in performance evaluation approvals.

Figure 8 | Who approves performance evaluations?

11%

12%

37%

41%

46%

% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Two levels up from the supervisor

Other

Supervisor only

Human resources

Supervisor's immediate supervisor (1 level up)



11/115


Performance improvement plans in organizations tend to include a variety of information. The vast majority of

organizations include the employee (86%) and supervisor signatures (85%), expected behavior or results (85%),

activities to be conducted (81%) and a target date for improvement (78%). Other (6%) aspects that are included in

performance improvement plans are HR review, HR signature, and consequences for failure to comply.

Figure 9 | If your organization uses performance improvement plans, what is inc luded?

6%

45%

53%

74%

78%

81%

85%

85%

86%

% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Key metrics/measurements

Progress at review date

Date(s) to review progress

Target date for improvement

Activities to be conducted

Expected behaviors or results

Supervisor signature

Employee signature

According to respondents, when organizations use self-appraisals, the employees and their supervisors typically

fill out the same forms (63%). Manufacturers report a fairly even split, but and non-manufacturers and non-profits

tended to have employees and supervisors use the same evaluations forms for self-appraisals.

Figure 10 | If your organization uses employee self-appraisals, do employees and supervisors fill ou t thesame evaluation form?

63%

37%

Yes

No



12/115


Among organizations that use self-appraisals, the most common items to evaluate are their accomplishments and

strengths (24%), goal progress over the past year (24%) and competencies (22%). Full responses are provided in

Appendix C.

Figure 11 | If your organization uses a self-appraisal, what are employees asked to assess?

4%

6%6%

7%

7%

7%

9%

13%

13%

22%

24%

24%

% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Understanding expectations

Supervisor supportJob satisfaction

Organizational mission

Major job responsibilities

Job performance

Training/development

Future goals

Areas for improvement/weaknesses

Competencies

Goal progress

Accomplishments/strengths

According to respondents, the supervisor most frequently sees the employees completed self-appraisal prior to

writing his/her performance evaluation of the employee (70%). Larger organizations tend to have less variation in

this timing- nearly all organizations with over 200 employees allow the supervisor to see the employees self-

appraisal prior to writing his/her performance evaluation of the employee.

Figure 12 | If self-appraisals are used, when does the supervisor first see the employees completed self-appraisal?

70%

15%

15%

Prior to writing his/her performance evaluationof the employee

After writing his/her performance evaluation ofthe employee

During the performance evaluation discussion



13/115


14/115


In terms of goal setting, employees and supervisors tend to mutually set goals (55%). However, in many cases

the supervisor sets these goals alone (47%). Senior managers are only involved in employee goal setting 24% of

the time.

Figure 15 | Who sets the goals for employees?

2%

2%

5%

5%

24%

47%

55%

% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Other

Cross-section of staff representatives/committees

Human resources

Each employee sets their own requirements

Senior managers

Supervisors

Mutual (supervisor and employee)



15/115


Organizations tend to assess a multitude of key performance criteria. Quality of work (89%) and job

knowledge/job specific competencies (88%) are assessed most frequently. In addition, quantity of

work/productivity (82%), attitude/professionalism (77%), teamwork/cooperation and achievement of goals are all

assessed by over three-quarters of respondents. Core/cultural values (47%) and learning/skill development

targets (43%) are evaluated less frequently. Other performance criteria assessed include problem solving, time

management, communication and community building/partnership.

Figure 16 | What key performance criteria does your organization assess?

19%

43%

47%

52%54%

54%

57%

57%

65%

65%

65%

68%

75%76%

77%

82%

88%

89%

% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Learning/skill development targets

Core/cultural values

SafetyMotivation (effort, engagement)

Key performance indicators

Leadership competencies

Adaptability/flexibility

Initiative

Dependability/reliability

Communication

Attendance

Achievement of goalsTeamwork/cooperation

Attitutude/professionalism

Quantity of work/productivity

Job knowledge/job specific

Quality of work



16/115


Organizations tend to assess differing numbers of criteria on employees during performance evaluations. The

average number of criteria in which an employee is evaluated on his/her performance evaluated is 12. The most

common numbers of criteria assessed are 10 (20%), 12 (14%), and 5 (11%). Organizations most commonly

evaluate employees on 10-12 criteria (39%).

Figure 17 | What is the average number of criteria against which an employee is evaluated on his/herperformance evaluation?

13%

2%

11%

39%

16%

16%

5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

20+ criteria

17-19 criteria

13-16 criteria

10-12 criteria

7-9 criteria

4-6 criteria

1-3 criteria



17/115


Supervisor s Role in Managing Performance

Organizations provide performance management training to supervisors on a number of different topics. Most

employers offer supervisory training related to conducting the performance evaluation discussion (61%). Just less

than half indicate they offer training in documenting performance (48%) and performance coaching (43%).Several respondents also offer training in goal setting (39%), performance improvement plans (36%) and

discipline (29%). Twenty-seven percent (27%) of organizations do not provide supervisors with any training

related to performance management. Other (7%) types of training include use of evaluation software and how to

make pay recommendations/salary administration.

Overall, just under three-quarters (73%) of organizations reported offering some type of performance

management training to their supervisors. Small organizations (1-50 employees) were slightly less likely to

provide any performance management training as compared to larger organizations.

Figure 18 | What training do supervisors receive in performance management?

7%

18%

21%

21%

21%

27%

29%

36%

39%

43%

48%

61%

% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other

Rater training



Developmental coaching

No training

Discipline


Goal-setting

Performance coaching

Performance documentation

Performance evaluation discussion



18/115


Organizations report that supervisors tend to have many responsibilities related to managing employee

performance. Nearly all organizations report that supervisors conduct a performance review discussion (90%),

document performance (90%), provide on-going feedback/coaching (89%), recognize good performance (81%),

and set performance expectations and goals (80%).

Figure 19 | What role do supervisors play in managing employee performance?

2%

76%

80%

81%

89%

90%

90%

% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Improving performance

Setting performance expectations and goals

Recognizing good performance

Providing on-going feedback/coaching

Documenting performance

Conducting a performance review discussion

Most organizations deal with below standard performance by instituting a performance improvement plan (68%).

One-third use some form of formal discipline (33%), while still others use meetings with supervisors (29%), and

coaching/counseling (20%). Full responses provided by respondents can be found in Appendix D.

Figure 20 | Please explain the process by which your organization deals with below standard performance?

5%

8%

20%

29%

33%

68%

% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Reassignment of job/duties

Training

Coaching/counseling

Meeting with supervisor

Formal discipline

Performance improvement plan



19/115


Other Performance Management Issues

Organizations report several challenges with their performance management systems. Failure of the supervisor

to provide on-going feedback (60%) and inconsistent performance documentation by supervisors (58%) are the

most commonly reported problems. Other somewhat common challenges cited by respondents includeinconsistency with ratings (43%) and lack of employee accountability for meeting goals or performance criteria

(39%). Other (7%) challenges noted include inconsistent or missing documentation of performance reviews as

well as supervisors not being held accountable for completing the reviews in a timely manner.

Larger organizations report the most challenges with their performance management systems when compared to

smaller organizations in terms of failure of supervisors to provide on-going feedback, inconsistent performance

documentation by supervisors, inconsistency with ratings and lack of employee accountability for meeting goals or

performance.

Figure 21 | Does your organizations performance management system experience any of the followingchallenges?

7%

12%

19%34%

39%

43%

58%

60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80

Other

Poorly designed evaluation form

Poor linkage of performance management system to other HR practices

Inconsistent application of system by supervisors

Lack of employee accountability for meeting goals or performance criteria

Inconsistency with ratings

Inconsistent performance documentation by supervisors

Failure of supervisors to provide on-going feedback



20/115


Sixty-seven percent of organizations use one or more methods to evaluate CEO performance, and 82% use at

least one method to evaluate the performance of other executives.Most often, CEOs are evaluated by working

with the board (29%). They are sometimes evaluated on their leadership/managerial competency, execution of

business strategy and financial management, but evaluation in each of these areas is more common for other

executives apart from the CEO.

Figure 22 | How are executives' performance evaluated?

30%

54%

45%

45%

46%

16%

18%

15%

16%

17%

19%

21%

29%

33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Relationships with key stakeholders

Performance targets/objectives

Financial management

Execution of business strategy

Leadership/managerial competency

Working with the board

Performance is not evaluated

CEO Other Executive

Of those organizations that evaluate executive performance, the CEO/President (67%) evaluates other executives in a

majority of organizations. The Board of Directors (37%) was the most common evaluation mechanism for CEOs.

Figure 23 | If executives performance is evaluated, by whom?

6%

6%

10%

13%

38%

65%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other

360 evaluation

Ownership

Upper level management

Board of directors

CEO/President



21/115


In the majority of organizations (65%), performance evaluation results and scores are tied to compensation. Full

responses provided by respondents on how compensation is tied to performance evaluations can be found in

Appendix E.

Figure 24 | Are performance evaluation results or scores tied to compensation?

65%

35%

Yes

No

Of organizations who tie performance evaluation results to compensation, just under half (48%) use ratings or

performance evaluation scores to make this determination. Overall performance is used by 29% of organizations.

Ties based on informal evaluations (10%) or goals and matrix/grid methods are far less common at 7% each.

Figure 25 | How are performance evaluation results or scores tied to compensation?

7%

7%

10%

29%

48%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Matrix/grid

Goals

Informal

Overall performance

Ratings/evaluation scores



22/115


Performance Management Technology

Online performance management systems are most commonly used by organizations for performance review

administration (21%). These online systems are used both for goal setting/cascading goals and

tracking/monitoring performance by seventeen percent of organizations. Other functionalities utilized includecreating employee profiles and documenting journal notes by both supervisors and employees.

Figure 26 | Does your organization use an online performance management sys tem to do any of thefollowing?

6%

6%

10%

11%

17%

17%

21%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

360 feedback administration

Other functionality

Development planning

Compentency management

Tracking/monitoring performance

Goal setting/cascading goals

Performance review administration

Respondents use a wide variety of performance management technology systems. Systems created in housewere most common at 18%. Other software products listed are reported below.

Figure 27 | If your organization uses a performance management technology system please specify thename of the sof tware.

* N=1 for each: ADP, HayGroup 360 ESCI, Knowledge Point, Outside consultant, Paycor, Performance Manager

from HealthcareSource, PerformancePro, PRADCO, Sharepoint, Taleo (Small Business Edition)

45%

9%

14%

14%

18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Other*

Wing Span

SuccessFactors

Halogen

In house/custom software



23/115


Of organizations without a performance management technology solution in place, 26% have plans to implement

one at some point in the future. Eleven percent of these organizations plan to do so within the next 6-12 months.

Figure 28 | If your organization is not currently using a performance management technology solution

how soon does your organization plan to implement one?

74%

2%

7%

10%

7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

N/A (do not plan to implement at this time)

Other time period

12-24 months

6-12 months

6 months or less



24/115



Respondent Demographics

Eighty-three (83) organizations in Northeast Ohio participated in the survey; a breakdown of the industries and

sizes they represent is provided below.

Figure29 | Respondent demographics by industry and organizational size

Percent

Industry

Manufacturing 43%

Non-Manufacturing 41%

Non-Profit 16%

Organizational Size

1-50 18%

51-200 47%

201-500 28%

Over 500 7%


25/115



Appendix A: Industry and Organizat ional Size Breakouts

Due to the quantity of differences in survey responses by industry and organizational size, the following breakouts

are provided for each question.

Figure 1a | What activities are featured in your performance management program?


Yes No

Al l Organizat ions 99% 1%

Industry

Manufacturing 100% 0%

Non-Manufacturing 97% 3%

Non-Profit 100% 0%

Organizational Size

1-50 93% 7%

51-200 100% 0%

201-500 100% 0%

Over 500 100% 0%


Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 92% 8%

Organizational Size

1-50 73% 27%

51-200 95% 5%

201-500 100% 0%

Over 500 100% 0%


26/115




Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 92% 8%

Organizational Size

1-50 87% 13%

51-200 90% 10%

201-500 96% 4%

Over 500 100% 0%


Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 92% 8%

Organizational Size1-50 80% 20%

51-200 95% 5%

201-500 91% 9%

Over 500 83% 17%


27/115




Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 85% 15%

Organizational Size

1-50 87% 13%

51-200 85% 15%

201-500 87% 13%

Over 500 100% 0%

Feedback/coaching

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 92% 8%


51-200 87% 13%

201-500 87% 13%

Over 500 100% 0%


28/115




Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 85% 15%

Organizational Size

1-50 67% 33%

51-200 87% 13%

201-500 87% 13%

Over 500 100% 0%

Performance management t raining

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 77% 23%


51-200 87% 13%

201-500 78% 22%

Over 500 83% 17%


29/115


30/115


31/115



Peer review

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 8% 92%

Organizational Size

1-50 33% 67%

51-200 31% 69%

201-500 43% 57%

Over 500 17% 83%

Performance review follow ing introductory period

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 77% 23%


51-200 85% 15%

201-500 74% 26%

Over 500 100% 0%


32/115



Figure 2a | What activities are featured in your performance management program and how frequently dothey occur?


Annually Bi-annually

Quarterly On-going Asneeded


Not used

Al l Organizat ions77% 17% 6% 4% 7% 4% 1%

Industry

Manufacturing 81% 14% 6% 3% 11% 3% 0%

Non-Manufacturing 71% 21% 9% 6% 6% 6% 3%

Non-Profit 85% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Organizational Size

1-50 60% 20% 0% 0% 7% 13% 7%

51-200 79% 13% 5% 3% 5% 3% 0%201-500 83% 22% 13% 9% 13% 0% 0%

Over 500 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%


AnnuallyBi-


Asneeded


Not used

Al l Organizat ions 16% 4% 0% 11% 59% 0% 7%

IndustryManufacturing 17% 6% 0% 3% 61% 0% 0%


Non-Profit 15% 0% 0% 15% 69% 0% 8%

Organizational Size

1-50 20% 7% 0% 13% 33% 0% 27%

51-200 15% 0% 0% 13% 56% 0% 5%

201-500 13% 4% 0% 9% 74% 0% 0%

Over 500 17% 17% 0% 0% 83% 0% 0%


33/115




AnnuallyBi-


Asneeded


Not used

Al l Organizat ions

61% 16% 2% 13%11% 1% 8%

Industry

Manufacturing 58% 19% 0% 8% 14% 3% 6%


Non-Profit 77% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8%

Organizational Size

1-50 40% 20% 0% 7% 7% 0% 13%

51-200 56% 8% 3% 18% 10% 3% 10%

201-500 78% 26% 4% 13% 17% 0% 4%

Over 500 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%


AnnuallyBi-


Asneeded


Not used


Industry

Manufacturing 47% 11% 0% 8% 28% 3% 6%


Non-Profit 31% 0% 0% 8% 46% 0% 8%

Organizational Size

1-50 13% 7% 0% 20% 33% 0% 20%

51-200 36% 5% 0% 15% 28% 5% 5%

201-500 39% 13% 0% 13% 52% 0% 9%

Over 500 50% 17% 0% 0% 17% 0% 17%


34/115


35/115




AnnuallyBi-


Asneeded


Not used


Industry

Manufacturing 53% 17% 0% 6% 14% 3% 8%


Non-Profit 62% 8% 0% 0% 8% 8% 15%

Organizational Size

1-50 33% 7% 0% 7% 7% 0% 33%

51-200 51% 5% 3% 13% 10% 5% 13%

201-500 52% 22% 0% 13% 22% 4% 13%

Over 500 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Performance management t raining

AnnuallyBi-


Asneeded


Not used


Industry

Manufacturing 28% 0% 0% 3% 31% 11% 11%


Non-Profit 15% 0% 0% 15% 23% 23% 23%

Organizational Size

1-50 0% 0% 0% 13% 20% 7% 47%

51-200 21% 0% 0% 3% 38% 13% 13%

201-500 30% 4% 0% 9% 30% 9% 22%

Over 500 33% 0% 0% 7% 17% 0% 17%


36/115



Self appraisal

AnnuallyBi-


Asneeded


Not used


Industry

Manufacturing 39% 8% 0% 3% 8% 3% 33%


Non-Profit 69% 8% 0% 0% 8% 0% 15%

Organizational Size

1-50 47% 13% 0% 7% 0% 0% 33%

51-200 46% 5% 0% 5% 8% 3% 26%

201-500 57% 9% 0% 0% 9% 0% 30%

Over 500 50% 17% 0% 0% 17% 0% 17%

Mid-year review

AnnuallyBi-


Asneeded


Not used


Industry

Manufacturing 19% 8% 3% 0% 14% 3% 42%


Non-Profit 8% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 77%

Organizational Size

1-50 7% 13% 0% 0% 7% 0% 67%

51-200 10% 5% 3% 3% 10% 3% 56%

201-500 22% 17% 0% 0% 17% 0% 43%

Over 500 17% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 67%


37/115



360 feedback

AnnuallyBi-


Asneeded


Not used


Industry

Manufacturing 8% 0% 0% 0% 19% 3% 47%


Non-Profit 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Organizational Size

1-50 27% 7% 0% 7% 0% 0% 60%

51-200 10% 0% 0% 0% 10% 5% 56%

201-500 9% 0% 0% 0% 26% 0% 57%

Over 500 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 67%

Team performance evaluation

AnnuallyBi-


Asneeded


Not used


Industry

Manufacturing 8% 3% 0% 14% 11% 0% 56%

Non-Manufacturing 6% 3% 6% 3% 9% 0% 71%Non-Profit 8% 0% 0% 15% 0% 0% 77%

Organizational Size

1-50 7% 0% 7% 7% 7% 0% 73%

51-200 5% 3% 3% 5% 3% 0% 72%

201-500 13% 4% 0% 13% 22% 0% 52%

Over 500 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 50%


38/115



Peer review

AnnuallyBi-


Asneeded


Not used

Al l Organizat ions 8% 0% 0% 1% 10% 4% 66%Industry

Manufacturing 11% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 61%


Non-Profit 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 92%

Organizational Size

1-50 7% 0% 0% 7% 7% 7% 67%

51-200 10% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 69%

201-500 9% 0% 0% 0% 17% 9% 57%

Over 500 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 83%

Performance review follow ing introductory period

AnnuallyBi-


Asneeded


Not used


Industry

Manufacturing 14% 0% 6% 19% 39% 6% 11%Non-Manufacturing 6% 3% 9% 15% 26% 3% 32%

Non-Profit 8% 31% 0% 23% 15% 0% 23%

Organizational Size

1-50 20% 7% 7% 7% 20% 0% 40%

51-200 10% 5% 8% 18% 28% 5% 15%

201-500 4% 0% 0% 26% 48% 0% 26%

Over 500 0% 33% 17% 17% 0% 17% 0%


39/115



Figure 3a | Which of the following best describes the format of your organizations annual performanceevaluation?

Numericrating

Comments/summaries

Goalsetting/

MBOs

Competency-based

Customizedform

Forcedranking

Multi-rater

(360)Al l Organizat ions 66% 65% 55% 45% 36% 14% 6%

Industry

Manufacturing 67% 67% 47% 47% 11% 8% 3%


Non-Profit 69% 77% 62% 54% 62% 15% 0%

Organizational Size

1-50 47% 60% 53% 27% 47% 20% 7%

51-200 67% 64% 56% 49% 41% 15% 8%

201-500 78% 65% 61% 48% 26% 13% 4%Over 500 67% 83% 33% 50% 17% 0% 0%

Figure 4a | If numeric ratings are used, what type of scale is employed?

2-point 3-point 4-point 5-point 6-point 10-point

Al l Organizat ions 6% 3% 14% 69% 3% 6%

Industry

Manufacturing 8% 0% 8% 77% 0% 8%

Non-Manufacturing 0% 0% 14% 71% 7% 7%

Non-Profit 13% 13% 25% 50% 0% 0%

Organizational Size

1-50 0% 0% 0% 67% 0% 33%

51-200 12% 0% 18% 65% 6% 0%

201-500 0% 9% 9% 73% 0% 9%

Over 500 0% 0% 25% 75% 0% 0%


40/115



Figure 5a | Are all employees evaluated us ing the same performance evaluation form?

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 46% 54%

Organizational Size

1-50 53% 47%

51-200 56% 44%

201-500 61% 39%

Over 500 17% 83%

Figure 6a | What employees receive different evaluations?

Management/non-management

Jobspecific

Exempt/non-exempt

Office/production

Non-exempt/exempt/

management

Al l Organizat ions 28% 25% 22% 13% 13%

Industry

Manufacturing 13% 7% 33% 27% 20%

Non-Manufacturing 40% 50% 10% 0% 0%

Non-Profit 43% 29% 14% 0% 14%

Organizational Size

1-50 25% 50% 25% 0% 0%

51-200 27% 20% 13% 20% 20%

201-500 13% 25% 50% 13% 0%

Over 500 60% 20% 0% 0% 20%


41/115



Figure 7a | When does the employee see their supervisors completed performance evaluation?

Prior to themeeting/discussion

of the evaluation

During themeeting/discussion

of the evaluation

After themeeting/discussion of

the evaluation

Employeedoes not see

evaluation

Al l Organizat ions 11% 81% 4% 4%Industry

Manufacturing 9% 86% 6% 0%

Non-Manufacturing 12% 76% 3% 9%

Non-Profit 15% 85% 0% 0%

Organizational Size

1-50 14% 71% 0% 14%

51-200 10% 85% 5% 0%

201-500 14% 77% 5% 5%

Over 500 0% 100% 0% 0%

Figure 8a | Who approves performance evaluations?

Supervisoronly

1 level up 2 levels upHuman

resourcesOther


Industry


Non-Manufacturing 32% 38% 3% 38% 21%Non-Profit 46% 38% 0% 23% 15%

Organizational Size

1-50 40% 27% 0% 13% 27%

51-200 51% 31% 13% 38% 10%

201-500 22% 78% 13% 65% 4%

Over 500 0% 67% 17% 33% 17%


42/115



Figure 9a | If your organization uses performance improvement plans, what is included?

Employee signature

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 100% 0%

Organizational Size

1-50 60% 40%

51-200 89% 11%

201-500 95% 5%Over 500 100% 0%

Supervisor signature

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 100% 0%

Organizational Size

1-50 53% 47%

51-200 89% 11%

201-500 95% 5%

Over 500 100% 0%


43/115



Expected behaviors or results

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 100% 0%

Organizational Size

1-50 80% 20%

51-200 84% 16%

201-500 86% 14%

Over 500 100% 0%

Activi ties to be conducted

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 92% 8%


51-200 81% 19%

201-500 91% 9%

Over 500 83% 17%


44/115



Target date for improvement

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 92% 8%

Organizational Size

1-50 67% 33%

51-200 76% 24%

201-500 82% 18%

Over 500 100% 0%

Date(s) to review progress

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 92% 8%


51-200 78% 22%

201-500 68% 32%

Over 500 100% 0%


45/115



Progress at review date

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 54% 46%

Organizational Size

1-50 27% 73%

51-200 54% 46%

201-500 64% 36%

Over 500 67% 33%

Key metrics/measurements

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 46% 54%


51-200 35% 65%

201-500 64% 36%

Over 500 83% 17%


46/115



Other

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 8% 92%

Organizational Size

1-50 7% 93%

51-200 3% 97%

201-500 9% 91%

Over 500 17% 83%

Figure 10a | If your organization uses employee self-appraisals, do employees and supervisors fill out thesame evaluation form?

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 73% 27%Organizational Size

1-50 56% 44%

51-200 77% 23%

201-500 53% 47%

Over 500 25% 75%


47/115



Figure 11a | If your organization uses a self-appraisal, what are employees asked to assess?

Accomplishments/strengths

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 20% 80%

Organizational Size

1-50 27% 73%

51-200 16% 84%

201-500 33% 67%

Over 500 33% 67%

Goal progress

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 40% 60%

Organizational Size

1-50 36% 64%

51-200 24% 76%

201-500 7% 93%

Over 500 67% 33%


48/115



Competencies

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 30% 70%

Organizational Size

1-50 9% 91%

51-200 24% 76%

201-500 20% 80%

Over 500 67% 33%

Areas for improvement/weaknesses

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%


51-200 8% 92%

201-500 20% 80%

Over 500 0% 100%


49/115



Future goals

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 10% 90%

Organizational Size

1-50 0% 100%

51-200 8% 92%

201-500 27% 73%

Over 500 33% 67%

Training/development

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%


51-200 8% 92%

201-500 20% 80%

Over 500 0% 100%


50/115



Job performance

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%

Organizational Size

1-50 18% 82%

51-200 0% 100%

201-500 13% 87%

Over 500 0% 100%

Major job responsib ilities

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%


51-200 4% 96%

201-500 7% 93%

Over 500 0% 100%


51/115



Organizational Mission

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 20% 80%

Organizational Size

1-50 0% 100%

51-200 8% 92%

201-500 7% 93%

Over 500 33% 67%

Job satisfaction

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%


51-200 8% 92%

201-500 0% 100%

Over 500 0% 100%


52/115



Supervisor support

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%

Organizational Size

1-50 0% 100%

51-200 4% 96%

201-500 13% 87%

Over 500 0% 100%

Understanding expectations

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 10% 90%

Organizational Size

1-50 0% 100%

51-200 8% 92%

201-500 0% 100%

Over 500 0% 100%


53/115



Figure 12a | If self-appraisals are used, when does the supervisor fir st see the employees completed self-appraisal?

Prior to writing his/herperformance evaluation

of the employee

After writing his/herperformance evaluation

of the employee

During the performanceevaluation discussion

Al l Organizat ions 70% 15% 15%

Industry

Manufacturing 70% 15% 15%

Non-Manufacturing 64% 16% 20%

Non-Profit 89% 11% 0%

Organizational Size

1-50 40% 30% 30%

51-200 65% 15% 19%

201-500 93% 7% 0%Over 500 100% 0% 0%


54/115



Figure 13a | Are any of the following groups consulted on the performance management process anddesign?

Human resource representatives

Yes NoAl l Organizat ions 70% 30%

Industry



Non-Profit 69% 31%

Organizational Size

1-50 53% 47%

51-200 69% 31%

201-500 78% 22%

Over 500 83% 17%

Senior managers or executives

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 69% 31%

Organizational Size

1-50 33% 67%

51-200 69% 31%

201-500 74% 26%

Over 500 83% 17%


55/115



Managers and supervisors

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 38% 62%

Organizational Size

1-50 40% 60%

51-200 59% 41%

201-500 65% 35%

Over 500 83% 17%

Staff representatives from a cross-section of departments

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 23% 77%


51-200 18% 82%

201-500 9% 91%

Over 500 17% 83%


56/115



External consu ltants

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 15% 85%

Organizational Size

1-50 7% 93%

51-200 5% 95%

201-500 17% 83%

Over 500 17% 83%

Al l employees who desire to take part in the process

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%


51-200 3% 97%

201-500 9% 91%

Over 500 17% 83%


57/115



Figure 14a | Who sets the performance criteria for employees?

Supervisors

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 46% 54%

Organizational Size

1-50 33% 67%

51-200 56% 44%

201-500 48% 52%Over 500 100% 0%


Yes No


Industry


Non-Manufacturing 38% 62%Non-Profit 38% 62%

Organizational Size

1-50 33% 67%

51-200 33% 67%

201-500 39% 61%

Over 500 17% 83%


58/115



Senior managers

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 46% 54%

Organizational Size

1-50 20% 80%

51-200 41% 59%

201-500 22% 78%

Over 500 50% 50%

Human resources

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 23% 77%


51-200 23% 77%

201-500 35% 65%

Over 500 17% 83%


59/115



Cross-section of staff representatives

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%

Organizational Size

1-50 20% 80%

51-200 3% 97%

201-500 4% 96%

Over 500 0% 100%

Other

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 8% 92%

Organizational Size

1-50 13% 87%

51-200 3% 97%

201-500 4% 96%

Over 500 0% 100%


60/115




Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%

Organizational Size

1-50 7% 93%

51-200 3% 97%

201-500 4% 96%

Over 500 0% 100%


61/115



Figure 15a | Who sets the goals for employees?


Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 62% 38%

Organizational Size

1-50 53% 47%

51-200 56% 44%

201-500 57% 43%Over 500 50% 50%

Supervisors

Yes No


Industry



Organizational Size

1-50 27% 73%

51-200 51% 49%

201-500 48% 52%

Over 500 67% 33%


62/115



Senior managers

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 8% 92%

Organizational Size

1-50 20% 80%

51-200 18% 82%

201-500 35% 65%

Over 500 33% 67%


Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%


51-200 0% 100%

201-500 9% 91%

Over 500 0% 100%


63/115



Human resources

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 8% 92%

Organizational Size

1-50 7% 93%

51-200 5% 95%

201-500 4% 96%

Over 500 0% 100%

Cross-section of staff representatives/committees

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 8% 92%


51-200 0% 100%

201-500 4% 96%

Over 500 17% 83%


64/115



Other

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%

Organizational Size

1-50 7% 93%

51-200 0% 100%

201-500 4% 96%

Over 500 0% 100%


65/115


66/115


67/115



Teamwork/cooperation

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 85% 15%

Organizational Size

1-50 53% 47%

51-200 79% 21%

201-500 87% 13%

Over 500 67% 33%

Achievement of goals

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 85% 15%


51-200 82% 18%

201-500 65% 35%

Over 500 83% 17%


68/115



At tendance

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 62% 38%

Organizational Size

1-50 47% 53%

51-200 72% 28%

201-500 74% 26%

Over 500 67% 33%

Communication

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 69% 31%


51-200 64% 36%

201-500 74% 26%

Over 500 83% 17%


69/115


70/115



Adaptabi li ty/flexibi li ty

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 46% 54%

Organizational Size

1-50 27% 73%

51-200 62% 38%

201-500 70% 30%

Over 500 50% 50%

Leadership competencies

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 62% 38%


51-200 56% 44%

201-500 65% 35%

Over 500 67% 33%


71/115



Key performance indicators

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 46% 54%

Organizational Size

1-50 47% 53%

51-200 46% 54%

201-500 74% 26%

Over 500 50% 50%

Motivation (effort, engagement)

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 46% 54%


51-200 62% 38%

201-500 39% 61%

Over 500 50% 50%


72/115



Safety

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 31% 69%

Organizational Size

1-50 20% 80%

51-200 51% 49%

201-500 70% 30%

Over 500 67% 33%

Core/cultural values

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 46% 54%


51-200 41% 59%

201-500 57% 43%

Over 500 67% 33%


73/115



Learning/skill development targets

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 46% 54%

Organizational Size

1-50 47% 53%

51-200 38% 62%

201-500 52% 48%

Over 500 33% 67%

Other

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 46% 54%


51-200 10% 90%

201-500 26% 74%

Over 500 67% 33%


74/115



Figure 17a | What is the average number of criteria against which an employee is evaluated on his/herperformance evaluation?

1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-16 17-19 20+


Industry

Manufacturing 0% 14% 24% 45% 7% 3% 7%


Non-Profit 0% 11% 22% 44% 11% 0% 11%

Organizational Size

1-50 18% 36% 0% 9% 18% 0% 18%

51-200 0% 15% 15% 52% 7% 4% 7%

201-500 0% 14% 18% 41% 14% 0% 14%

Over 500 0% 0% 50% 25% 0% 0% 25%


75/115


76/115



Performance coaching

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 38% 62%

Organizational Size

1-50 27% 73%

51-200 33% 67%

201-500 61% 39%

Over 500 83% 17%

Goal setting

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 38% 62%


51-200 36% 64%

201-500 57% 43%

Over 500 33% 67%


77/115




Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 31% 69%

Organizational Size

1-50 20% 80%

51-200 38% 62%

201-500 43% 57%

Over 500 33% 67%

Discipline

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 23% 77%


51-200 23% 77%

201-500 39% 61%

Over 500 67% 33%


78/115



No training

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 38% 62%

Organizational Size

1-50 33% 67%

51-200 26% 74%

201-500 26% 74%

Over 500 17% 83%

Developmental coaching

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 23% 77%

Organizational Size

1-50 13% 87%

51-200 15% 85%

201-500 30% 70%

Over 500 33% 67%


79/115




Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 23% 77%

Organizational Size

1-50 13% 87%

51-200 15% 85%

201-500 26% 74%

Over 500 50% 50%


Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 31% 69%


51-200 15% 85%

201-500 35% 65%

Over 500 33% 67%


80/115



Rater training

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%

Organizational Size

1-50 0% 100%

51-200 21% 79%

201-500 26% 74%

Over 500 17% 83%

Other

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 31% 69%


51-200 3% 97%

201-500 9% 91%

Over 500 50% 50%


81/115



Figure 19a | What role do your supervisors p lay in managing employee performance?

Conducting a performance review discussion

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 100% 0%

Organizational Size

1-50 73% 27%

51-200 92% 8%

201-500 96% 4%Over 500 100% 0%

Documenting performance

Yes No


Industry



Organizational Size

1-50 67% 33%

51-200 92% 8%

201-500 100% 0%

Over 500 100% 0%


82/115



Providing on-going feedback/coaching

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 100% 0%

Organizational Size

1-50 73% 27%

51-200 95% 5%

201-500 87% 13%

Over 500 100% 0%

Recognizing good performance

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 77% 23%


51-200 74% 26%

201-500 96% 4%

Over 500 100% 0%


83/115



Setting performance expectations and goals

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 92% 8%

Organizational Size

1-50 60% 40%

51-200 82% 18%

201-500 83% 17%

Over 500 100% 0%

Improving performance

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 85% 15%


51-200 77% 23%

201-500 83% 17%

Over 500 83% 17%


84/115


85/115



Meeting with the supervisor

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 25% 75%

Organizational Size

1-50 50% 50%

51-200 31% 69%

201-500 22% 78%

Over 500 0% 100%

Coaching/counseling

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 8% 92%


51-200 13% 88%

201-500 44% 56%

Over 500 17% 83%


86/115


87/115



Figure 21a | Does your organizations performance management system experience any of the followingchallenges?

Failure of supervisors to provide on-going feedback


Industry



Non-Profit 85% 15%

Organizational Size

1-50 40% 60%

51-200 56% 44%

201-500 74% 26%

Over 500 83% 17%

Inconsistent performance documentation by supervisors

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 77% 23%

Organizational Size

1-50 40% 60%

51-200 59% 41%

201-500 65% 35%

Over 500 67% 33%


88/115



Inconsistency with ratings

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 54% 46%

Organizational Size

1-50 27% 73%

51-200 46% 54%

201-500 43% 57%

Over 500 67% 33%

Lack of employee accountability for meeting goals or performance

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 69% 31%


51-200 49% 51%

201-500 35% 65%

Over 500 50% 50%


89/115


90/115



Poorly designed evaluation form (i.e., inaccurately measures performance)

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 15% 85%

Organizational Size

1-50 13% 87%

51-200 15% 85%

201-500 9% 91%

Over 500 0% 100%

Other

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 8% 92%

Organizational Size

1-50 13% 87%

51-200 3% 97%

201-500 9% 91%

Over 500 17% 83%


91/115


92/115



Leadership/managerial competency

CEO Other Executive


Industry



Non-Profit 15% 62%

Organizational Size

1-50 13% 33%

51-200 18% 49%

201-500 22% 52%

Over 500 50% 33%

Execution of business strategy

CEO Other Executive


Industry



Non-Profit 15% 62%


51-200 18% 54%

201-500 13% 48%

Over 500 50% 33%


93/115



Financial management

CEO Other Executive


Industry



Non-Profit 31% 38%

Organizational Size

1-50 0% 27%

51-200 21% 44%

201-500 9% 65%

Over 500 67% 17%

Performance targets/objectives

CEO Other Executive


Industry



Non-Profit 8% 62%


51-200 18% 62%

201-500 9% 57%

Over 500 50% 33%


94/115



Relationships w ith key stakeholders

CEO Other Executive


Industry



Non-Profit 15% 38%

Organizational Size

1-50 7% 27%

51-200 10% 36%

201-500 17% 26%

Over 500 50% 17%


95/115



Figure 23a | If executives' performance is evaluated, by whom?

CEO/president

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 56% 44%

Organizational Size

1-50 44% 56%

51-200 73% 27%

201-500 67% 33%Over 500 67% 33%

Board of directors

Yes No


Industry



Organizational Size

1-50 33% 67%

51-200 50% 50%

201-500 27% 73%

Over 500 33% 67%


96/115



Upper level management

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%

Organizational Size

1-50 0% 100%

51-200 23% 77%

201-500 13% 87%

Over 500 0% 100%

Ownership

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%

Organizational Size

1-50 11% 89%

51-200 0% 100%

201-500 20% 80%

Over 500 17% 83%


97/115



360 evaluation

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%

Organizational Size

1-50 11% 89%

51-200 5% 95%

201-500 7% 93%

Over 500 0% 100%

Other

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%

Organizational Size

1-50 11% 89%

51-200 5% 95%

201-500 7% 93%

Over 500 0% 100%


98/115



Figure 24a | Are performance evaluation results or scores tied to compensation?

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 62% 38%

Organizational Size

1-50 71% 29%

51-200 54% 46%

201-500 77% 23%

Over 500 83% 17%

Figure 25a | How are performance evaluation results or scores tied to compensation?

RatingsOverall

performanceInformal Matrix/grid Goals


Industry



Non-Profit 50% 13% 0% 25% 13%

Organizational Size

1-50 38% 13% 38% 0% 13%

51-200 29% 35% 6% 18% 12%

201-500 62% 38% 0% 0% 0%

Over 500 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%


99/115



Figure 26a | Does your organization use an online performance management system to do any of thefollowing?

Performance review adminis tration


Industry



Non-Profit 23% 77%

Organizational Size

1-50 7% 93%

51-200 15% 85%

201-500 30% 70%

Over 500 50% 50%

Goal setting/cascading goals

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 15% 85%

Organizational Size

1-50 7% 93%

51-200 15% 85%

201-500 26% 74%

Over 500 17% 83%


100/115



Tracking/monitoring performance

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 15% 85%

Organizational Size

1-50 7% 93%

51-200 15% 85%

201-500 26% 74%

Over 500 17% 83%

Competency management

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 8% 92%


51-200 10% 90%

201-500 22% 78%

Over 500 0% 100%


101/115



Development planning

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 8% 92%

Organizational Size

1-50 7% 93%

51-200 8% 92%

201-500 17% 83%

Over 500 0% 100%

360 Feedback

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 0% 100%


51-200 3% 97%

201-500 17% 83%

Over 500 0% 100%


102/115



Other

Yes No


Industry



Non-Profit 8% 92%

Organizational Size

1-50 0% 100%

51-200 5% 95%

201-500 9% 91%

Over 500 17% 83%

Figure 28a | If your organization is not currently using a performance management technology solutionhow soon does your organization plan to implement one?

6 months orless

6-12 months 12-24 monthsOther time

periodN/A (do not plan

to implement)


Industry



Non-Profit 10% 10% 0% 0% 80%Organizational Size

1-50 9% 18% 0% 0% 73%

51-200 7% 0% 10% 3% 79%

201-500 7% 14% 7% 0% 71%

Over 500 0% 50% 0% 0% 50%


103/115



Appendix B: Numeric Rating Scales

Two scales used

o 1 = Does Not Meet, 2 = Meets, 3 = Exceeds

o 1 = Does Not Meet, 2 = Inconsistently Meets, 3 = Meets, 4 = Exceeds, 5 = Far Exceeds 1 = Unsatisfactory; 2 = Needs Development; 3 = Meets Expectations; 4 = Exceeds Expectations; 5 =

Substantially Exceeds Expectations

5 = Exceptional; 4 = Exceed Expectations; 3 = Meets Expectations; 2 = Below Expectations; 1 =

Unsatisfactory

1 = Significantly Exceeds Expectations; 2 = Exceeds Expectations; 3 = Meets Expectations; 4 = Needs

Improvement; 5 = Unsatisfactory

1 = Unsatisfactory/Needs improvement; 2=Below Average Performer; 3=Solid Performer; 4=Above

Average/Excellent Performer; 5=Exceptional/Outstanding Performer

4 = Exceptional performance; 3 = Exceeds Requirements; 2 = Meets Requirements; 1 = Marginal; 0 =

Unsatisfactory

1 = Unacceptable; 2 = Below expectations; 3 = Satisfactory; 4= Above average; 5 = Exceptional

1 = Unsatisfactory; 2 = Needs Improvement; 3 = Meets Job Requirements; 4 = Exceed Job

Requirements; 5 = Outstanding

1 = Did not meet expectations; 2 = Met some expectations; 3 = Met expectation; 4 = Exceeded

expectations; 5 = Significantly exceeds expectations

1 = unsatisfactory; 2 = needs improvement; 3 = satisfactory; 4 = excellent

1 = Unacceptable; 2 = Fair/Marginally Proficient; 3 = Good/Fully Proficient; 4 = Very Good/Excellent; 5 =

Distinguished

Dual rating: number(competency) and letter (results)

o 1 = does not meet; 3 = meets 5 = exceeds

o Letters: U = unsatisfactory, N = Needs improvement, P = performing, H = highly performing, O =

outstanding

1 = Does not meet requirements; 2 = Meets requirements; 3 = Exceeds requirements

0 = Does not meet expectations; 1 = Meets expectations

5 = High Performer; 4 = Valued Performer; 3 = Contributor; 2 = Needs Improvement; 1 = Unacceptable

1 = Needs improvement; 2 = Meets performance expectations; 3 = Consistently exceeds performanceexpectations

1 = Does not meet; 2 = Minimal meets; 3 = Meets; 4 = Exceeds; 5 = Over achieves

1 = unsatisfactory; 3 = Good; 5 = Outstanding

0 = Unsatisfactory; 1 = Improvement needed; 2 = Satisfactory; 3 = Very Good; 4 = Outstanding

1 = Does not meet requirements; 2 = Meets requirements; 3 = Exceeds requirements


104/115



1 = Unsatisfactory- Performance falls substantially short of job requirements. Consequences may include,

but are not limited to, reassignment, termination, corrective action, demotion or redefinition of duties; 2 =

Marginal- Performance does not meet an acceptable level in all areas. Improvement is needed; 3 =

Satisfactory- Has performed at a fully satisfactory level, meets the requirements of the job in all respects

and occasionally exceeds job performance standard; 4 = Distinctive Performance- Performance is

significantly better than average. Performance consistently exceeds standards; 5 = Outstanding-

Exceptional performance of unusually high caliber. Remarkable achievement and pacesetting

performance.

1 = Fails to meet minimum standards; 2 = Objectives missed/minimally acceptable; 3 = Job duties

completed competently/thoroughly; 4 = Consistently achieves challenging objectives; 5 = Exceeds

expectations

5 = Outstanding: always surpasses expectations of this job factor & is recognized by peers as a leader &

positive example for others; 4 = Above Expectations: consistently achieves and often exceedsperformance required for this job factor; 3 = Meets Expectations (norm): meets all expectation of this job

factor, successfully performs duties as listed in job description; 2 = Below Expectations: occasionally fails

to meet this job factor expectation (additional coaching may be warranted); 1 = Not Acceptable:

consistently fails to meet this job factor expectation (job performance improvement plan is required)

1 = Performance Unacceptable; 2 = Needs Improvement; 3 = Meets Expectations; 4 = Exceeds

Expectations

1 = Does not meet requirements, 2= Needs Improvement 3 = Meets requirements, 3 = Exceeds

requirements 5= Outstanding

5 = Exceeds; 4 = Meets; 3 = Needs improvement; 2 = Unsatisfactory

5 = Exceptional: Consistently exceeds all relevant performance standards. Provides leadership, fosters

t

12 Performance Management Survey

Documents

Transcript of 12 Performance Management Survey