Employee Self Assessment Is Not A Form Of Difficulty.

In many

First, everyone's personality is different, and there are great differences in self evaluation scale.

For example, some employees are confident and have a high opinion of themselves. Some people feel inferior and have low self ratings.

Moreover, some people pursue perfection and are strict with themselves. Others are muddling along. The two kinds of people will definitely score different points for themselves.

In addition, some old employees have a clear understanding of the company and their colleagues. When they are scoring, they are able to work well, while the new employees are not sure that the others are in shallow water.

Second, psychological research shows that most people are overconfident.

As an example of "don't be a normal fool," we often hear many people say that they are "not photogenic", that is to say, the photos taken are not as good as I am.

In fact, photos are the objective reflection of our appearance. And when we look at the mirror, we will only choose the best angle, which means that there is more subjective factor in it, which makes us look better in the mirror than in the picture.

In fact, the employee self assessment link provides such a mirror for us to take photos of the employees who love the beauty, and the errors produced therein are self-evident.

Third, the score of employee self-evaluation will have a great impact on scoring.

Anyone who has had the experience of "bargain" knows that if you see a bag on the stall, you think it is worth 100 yuan, but when you ask for a price, when the boss says 500, if you really want the bag, most people will only dare to cut it for 300 or 400.

This is known as the "anchoring effect". In negotiation, "the first bid, and the higher the better without provoking the other side," that is what it means, because the first bid will greatly grasp the initiative and make the psychological expectation of the other party change greatly.

Employee self-evaluation actually gives the examiners a chance to take the lead in the bid, and whether the examiners face or other considerations are likely to be affected by the quotations, resulting in errors in the assessment results.

We found this phenomenon in the actual work of human resources. The score of performance appraisal of several departments of a company is no less than the score of self-evaluation.

Based on the above analysis, we will find that the self-evaluation scores of the department leaders are mixed with too many subjective factors, so that they can not be filtered out by technical means, and this score will have a great impact on the examiners; most of the employees who are too confident get high scores, but sometimes, because of the need of mandatory distribution, those who are strict with themselves and have low scores are turned into victims.

This is especially serious when there are more components that can not be quantified in the assessment index, or different employees in different departments and lack of unified measurement standards.

In fact, it will only increase the workload and complexity of performance appraisal, but it will not be easy to put it into practice. In fact, as long as we look back at the two purposes of implementing self-evaluation, we will find a simple solution: the relative objective and quantifiable index, the implementation of "staff self-evaluation", which not only keeps "fast data sources", but is actually only a source of data, but also reflects the "employee participation" in form. While the non quantifiable subjective evaluation index is directly assessed by the examiners, it does not give employees the opportunity to self evaluate (thus making errors in this link). Then, how should enterprises solve these problems mentioned above? In practice, many people will probably increase the proportion of quantifiable indicators and strengthen their examination.

We know that performance appraisal is a huge project in the work of human resources, and the cost of implementation is the highest. Enterprises should seize the main contradiction, step by step, and in the initial stage, they should not be trapped in form.

As a result, when the performance management system is initially built for some enterprises, it simply cancels the self evaluation link, thus avoiding the occurrence of the link error and reducing the workload and complexity of the assessment to a certain extent, so as to prepare for the smooth implementation of the next step.

Of course, the former is mainly about the initial stage of performance management.

When the enterprise meets the following conditions: first, the implementation of performance management is relatively smooth, and the implementation cost can be effectively controlled; secondly, a good performance culture has been formed inside the company, so we have a relatively unified understanding of performance management and a more objective evaluation of ourselves. Third, department leaders generally have a sober understanding and independent judgment of subordinates; we can think that enterprises are entering the advanced stage.

At this time, the real employee self-evaluation will further mobilize the enthusiasm of employees and the importance of performance, thus forming a virtuous circle of performance management.

To sum up, the core issue of employee self-evaluation is not how to do well, but when and when to do it.

We should distinguish the development stages of the enterprise performance management and choose the key points that should be solved at each stage, so that we can not achieve the goal of multiplying twice the result with half the effort.

From the primary stage to the advanced stage of performance management, each enterprise has a long way to go, and this process can not be achieved overnight.