HOME│SYNOPSIS│THE PROCESS│CULTURES│DO THESE PROBLEMS SOUND FAMILIAR? │EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS│EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION│INTERNAL CUSTOMERS│PSA AND QUALITY│PSA AND ACCOUNTING│FAQ’s│CONTACT US│GRUNSTEN AND ASSOCIATES
Process and Service Accountability replaces ineffective, subjective annual evaluations of attitudes and skills with objective scores based on actual task performance. Although production managers, supervisors and line leaders are subject to annual evaluations, they are assessed, primarily, with the daily metrics listed below. Unlike production personnel support and administrative personnel are not assessed daily. The net effect is for production personnel to be held solely and ultimately responsible for meeting quality, cost and delivery targets.
Production personnel are assessed daily with objective, numeric measurements in:
First-pass product acceptance percentage
Percentage of rework
Support personnel are assessed annually on:
Quantity and quality of work
Planning and organizing
All of the above rated annually in such subjective terms as:
While theres no question that job knowledge, leadership, problem solving and decision making skills are essential to achieving results. Process and Service Accountability transfers focus from skills to execution.
Process and Service Accountability audit and requisition scores form the basis for holding a position, meriting general and additional increases and candidacy for promotion. The system moves away from subjective annual evaluations and bases compensation on task performance.
The even distribution of work and clear definition of tasks among each department leads to expectation of good performance from everyone.
Each operation must determine key performance levels that are expected of their employees. Three performance levels are recommended: minimum acceptable, general and supplementary increases. The performance levels are expressed in terms of percentages from audit and requisition scores.
In this system each company can select the performance levels for their operation. An example might be 90% for the minimum acceptable, 95% for the general increase level and 100% for the additional increase level. (It is best to set the performance levels after the system has been in place for a period of up to 90 days.)
Minimum acceptable performance level
In the case of the minimum acceptable level, it is important to set a time limit under which someone can continue to occupy a position. One may decide to put a limit of a maximum of 30 consecutive days below the lowest acceptable performance level at which point the individual would be switched to a different position.
General increase performance level
This increase level can refer to the percentage budgeted or to a specific percentage such as a government dictated minimum wage increase. This increase takes the form of a merit increasesomeone at the minimum level would not warrant an increase. A score midway between the minimum acceptable performance and the general increase would merit 50% of the established increase. (For example if the minimum acceptable performance score were 90%, the general increase level score 95% and the general increase 10% and individual with a score of 92.5% would merit a 5% increase)
Supplementary increase performance level
The company might establish an additional percentage, for example an additional 50% over the general increase. Again, an individual would gain an additional increase proportional to the position between the general increase and 100% level.
Candidates for promotion
Individuals with the highest performance scores and necessary prerequisites such as technical training would presumably be automatic candidates for open positions.
The employee sees this type of performance evaluation and compensation scheme as fair; favoritism does not play a role. The employee knows where he or she stands at all times. A lapse in performance need not drop an individuals score in the long run.