During the interviewed employee John Doe’s monthly evaluation was discussed. The assessment covered three broad topics used to generate a numerical score that represents John’s performance within the firm and at his job. The interview was done more to reflect on the methods of communication used by employees, and a reflection follows below regarding the engagement had with employee John Doe. In the discussion below, the perceived quality of the outcome of the interview is discussed alongside the effectiveness of the feedback. Additionally, some key issues are pointed out in John’s response to the discussion that draws attention to important concepts in management and business as a whole.
The interview had somewhat of a casual feel, despite the fact that the discussion was meant to represent a non-casual issue being the employee-performance. The interview took place via phone call and not in person. From one standpoint, this might improve the relationship with the employee or hindered it. Reflecting on Gabriel, Frantz, Levy, and Hilliard (2014) drew attention to an over-site on my role as a manager in that the environment might best suit the employee to foster better a positive attitude. In retrospect, the style of the interview done completely as a convenience to the manager and not the employee. A phone call is physically easier than being in the same place at the same time; it may have impaired the physical and professional environment to the degree where it may be perceived as dismissive by John Doe (Gabriel et al.,2014). While there were no perceived concerns with this at the time, it is something that should be evaluated later or in contrast to varying styles of communication such as in-person and digital or written feedback. Beyond the content of the exchange, the environment of the interview ought to be evaluated. Many people have concerns about their performance being reduced to numbers, however regarding creating systems for fair and standardized evaluation they are often necessary. In an attempt to promote a more practical or compassionate demeanor the bid to discuss what the numbers represent was made. John was familiar with the process and did not seem too bothered by it until the evaluation of his quality score came up. At this juncture, there was an opportunity to connect with John more personally and relatively as not only the face of leadership but as a mentor to guide him in his future endeavors. During the agreeance with John’s concerns regarding the standard, he is being held to, an emphasis was placed on trying to distinguish intrinsic value in John’s work through the acceptance of his observation and the praise for bringing it to attention (Yun, Jianquiao, Shudi, & Yanhon, 2014). It was a crucial point that might have led to contention if not dealt with compassionately, especially when considering that these scores can influence John’s ability to move around the company as well as his eligibility for promotions or wage increases. It was important to acknowledge that even though John disagreed, he brought to light an issue of importance that he is not obligated to do, having the potential to generate a greater sense of self-worth within his position (Hon, Chan, & Lu,2014; Yun et al.,2014). The use of the numerical rating system, while less humanistic and more mechanical, is still important when generating feedback. …show more content…
While the emphasis on appealing to John’s sense of “self” or referring to John as a person and not another “part” is significant, there also needs to be a standard of evaluation to prevent leadership from employing personal biases and a numerical system does just that. John may not entirely realize it, but the use of the mathematical system as a standard creates a foundation for all employees, not just John, to adhere to making a fair evaluation. Emphasizing the importance of these numbers, alongside the personal details, is crucial when attempting to provide reasonable, fair, and accurate feedback to employees regarding their performance (Hon et al.,2014). The overall quality of the interview was perceived, coincidentally, as a four of five on a rating scale where five represents the highest quality and one represents the poorest; it would seem prudent to hold the quality of leadership’s performance to the same level of ratings that John Doe and
The interview had somewhat of a casual feel, despite the fact that the discussion was meant to represent a non-casual issue being the employee-performance. The interview took place via phone call and not in person. From one standpoint, this might improve the relationship with the employee or hindered it. Reflecting on Gabriel, Frantz, Levy, and Hilliard (2014) drew attention to an over-site on my role as a manager in that the environment might best suit the employee to foster better a positive attitude. In retrospect, the style of the interview done completely as a convenience to the manager and not the employee. A phone call is physically easier than being in the same place at the same time; it may have impaired the physical and professional environment to the degree where it may be perceived as dismissive by John Doe (Gabriel et al.,2014). While there were no perceived concerns with this at the time, it is something that should be evaluated later or in contrast to varying styles of communication such as in-person and digital or written feedback. Beyond the content of the exchange, the environment of the interview ought to be evaluated. Many people have concerns about their performance being reduced to numbers, however regarding creating systems for fair and standardized evaluation they are often necessary. In an attempt to promote a more practical or compassionate demeanor the bid to discuss what the numbers represent was made. John was familiar with the process and did not seem too bothered by it until the evaluation of his quality score came up. At this juncture, there was an opportunity to connect with John more personally and relatively as not only the face of leadership but as a mentor to guide him in his future endeavors. During the agreeance with John’s concerns regarding the standard, he is being held to, an emphasis was placed on trying to distinguish intrinsic value in John’s work through the acceptance of his observation and the praise for bringing it to attention (Yun, Jianquiao, Shudi, & Yanhon, 2014). It was a crucial point that might have led to contention if not dealt with compassionately, especially when considering that these scores can influence John’s ability to move around the company as well as his eligibility for promotions or wage increases. It was important to acknowledge that even though John disagreed, he brought to light an issue of importance that he is not obligated to do, having the potential to generate a greater sense of self-worth within his position (Hon, Chan, & Lu,2014; Yun et al.,2014). The use of the numerical rating system, while less humanistic and more mechanical, is still important when generating feedback. …show more content…
While the emphasis on appealing to John’s sense of “self” or referring to John as a person and not another “part” is significant, there also needs to be a standard of evaluation to prevent leadership from employing personal biases and a numerical system does just that. John may not entirely realize it, but the use of the mathematical system as a standard creates a foundation for all employees, not just John, to adhere to making a fair evaluation. Emphasizing the importance of these numbers, alongside the personal details, is crucial when attempting to provide reasonable, fair, and accurate feedback to employees regarding their performance (Hon et al.,2014). The overall quality of the interview was perceived, coincidentally, as a four of five on a rating scale where five represents the highest quality and one represents the poorest; it would seem prudent to hold the quality of leadership’s performance to the same level of ratings that John Doe and