Question

Subjective performance evaluations are subject to several rater errors, which makes objective measures seem a better alternative. Discuss when subjective performance evaluations might be better ( or more feasible) than objective ratings.

Answer 1

Answer:

A Subjective performance evaluation is more feasible when evaluating jobs that cannot easily be evaluated by numbers, in finding problems such as ethical errors that objective evaluation cannot identify and in identifying the rate of achievement of work goals that cannot be recorded in an objective evaluation.

Explanation:

Though Objective evaluation has been the more favored form of evaluation for valid reasons, there are still situations where subjective performance evaluation does a better job in the workplace.

Some jobs for example, the job of an attorney, cannot easily be objectively evaluated. In this situation, it falls on the employer to evaluate the performance of the employee by using measurements like team play, professionalism and client service.

In objective analysis, some ethical approaches are overlooked and the achievement of the set goal is the major criterion for ratings. This affords employees the opportunity to use unethical means to achieve set targets and the objective performance evaluation skips it, leaving them safe and with high ratings. In subjective performance ratings however, the employer having the power to rate employers, could expose these unethical behaviors faster and actions, taken on them.

In the workplace, certain goals are set in overall goals, as a method to achieving the overall set target. In an objective performance rating, an employee could bypass these and still appear to have achieved the overall goal. An objective evaluation will miss this but a subjective evaluation could pick this out and make rating each employee based on these soft goals and overall goal achievable.