Supervisor assessment

The term supervisor appraisal refers to the appraisal of managerial behavior, the knowledge and / or skills of a supervisor by his direct employees . If other people, such as managers with higher levels of responsibility, colleagues or customers, are added as assessors, this is 360-degree feedback .

Purpose of the managerial evaluation

This feedback instrument has been questioned for a long time because it breaks through the traditional understanding of roles ( top-down procedure) and restricts executives in their power privilege. A dependency on the employees can arise, who are now put in a position to issue their boss with a "certificate" and not just the other way around, as was previously the case. In the course of participatory leadership, however, the role of the manager has changed, who is now seen more as a consultant and team player and focuses on values ​​such as partnership and team-oriented work. Thus, the main objective of the managerial appraisal should not be personnel selection and control, but rather the improvement of management relationships and communication between managers and employees. The reason for feedback can be a bad working atmosphere or criticism from employees regarding management, or a target-actual comparison of the company's self-imposed management guidelines.

Not only does the supervisor benefit from the assessment, in that he learns something about its effect on his employees and can bring about corresponding changes in his behavior, but the employees and the company itself can also benefit. There are a number of functions of the managerial appraisal, as the following table shows, which can be weighted and combined differently depending on the company's strategy.

Executive	Employees / team	Companies
Diagnostic function	Motivation / performance function	Participation function
Development function	Dialogue / participation function	Motivation / performance function
Control function	Control function	Personnel development
	Team development function	Control function
		Selection function
		Evaluation function

Fig. 1: Significant functions of managerial appraisal

The diagnosis, development, participation and motivation / performance functions are viewed as particularly relevant and will be explained in more detail briefly. Using the diagnostic function, the manager receives information about how the self-image differs from the external image, i.e. how one's own behavior affects the employees or is perceived and how they would have assessed themselves in this regard. In this area in particular, there is often a large discrepancy. Only if the supervisor is informed about this and receives information about the desired direction of a change, he is also able to make changes. There is a development both on the part of the executives and within the entire organization, since the company recognizes where the deficits of the executives lie and can have appropriate personnel measures such as workshops and training courses carried out.

With the help of the participation function, the employee gets the feeling of having influence and responsibility with regard to the structuring of the relationship with his superior. The extent to which participation actually takes place remains questionable, as the assessment is more of an aid to the superior than a concrete obligation to change his behavior. This in turn depends on the consequences associated with the assessment for him. The company itself hopes in this way for the "implementation of a participatory management philosophy".

Ultimately, the supervisor assessment should lead to an increase in motivation and performance results in addition to improving the relationship between supervisors and employees and vice versa.

Sub-elements

A superior appraisal does not only consist of the appraisal act, but is a process that consists of the sub-elements of planning, execution and implementation. Planning involves setting objectives and developing a concept (e.g. a questionnaire). In the implementation phase, the actual survey and its evaluation take place after all those affected in the company have been adequately informed. Finally, the feedback and the planning of measures, as well as their concrete implementation, which is subject to control.

Variants of the instrument

The managerial appraisal is a "bottom-up" appraisal; H. from the bottom (employee) to the top (manager). However, it can also be expanded by other interest groups ( 360-degree feedback ). The survey is carried out online or in a face-to-face meeting using a validated questionnaire.

The questionnaire-based procedure is most frequently used in the appraisal of superiors. The design of suitable questionnaires is very complex, which is why most companies use questionnaires that have already been developed. The disadvantage here is that these are not adapted to company-specific features. Frequently, questions still have to be developed based on company-specific management principles and guidelines. Only characteristics that relate to the manager's behavior should be assessed and not his personality characteristics, for example, as these are perceived too subjectively.

Classification procedures are very popular, in which the assessment on the basis of behavior observation scales z. B. takes place with values ​​between one and five. However, these are fully standardized procedures; they only provide information about areas that are also queried. In order to get more comprehensive information, it is therefore advisable to also ask a few open questions.

Either external consultants should be used to carry out the investigation or a project group with representatives from all areas of the company should be set up. All those involved should be adequately informed about the upcoming assessment and possibly already involved in the development of the instrument. This breaks down prejudices and anyone who has suggestions can contribute them. The evaluation can be carried out by the HR department or an external facility, the latter rather dissipating concerns about data security. In the best case, the results should then be transmitted to superiors and employees personally, as sending them often leads to misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

The advantage of the questionnaire-based procedure is that the standardized survey guarantees that the results can be compared. The disadvantage is that the individuality of the individual companies is not sufficiently taken into account.

Another possibility to carry out a managerial assessment is either the workshop-oriented or the discussion-oriented procedure. The use of workshops is far more flexible than the questionnaire-based procedure, as each manager decides for himself when one should take place. A limited number of participants, precise information for those involved and moderation by a neutral moderator are important. In order to maintain anonymity, the results should be discussed as group results, which is often difficult to implement in practice. The advantage of this procedure lies in the direct dialogue between supervisor and employee, this also applies to the conversation-oriented procedure. These are mutual feedback meetings in which change measures and their implementation are agreed. This procedure is also much more flexible than the questionnaire; the disadvantage, however, is the lack of comparability of the results.

The 360-degree feedback is a supplement to the upward assessment. The difference lies in the number of assessors: While in the bottom-up procedure only the directly subordinate employees are included, in this variant an assessment is made by several target groups. 360 ° clarifies the image of a circle and symbolizes that the superior "[...] is viewed from all essential points of view of the organization [...]". In most cases, the circle with a 90 ° angle range is made up of the superior's assessment, the colleague's assessment, the upward assessment and a self-assessment. Judgments from customers and / or suppliers can also be obtained. The objectives and functions of the variant correspond to those of the general managerial assessment. The only advantage is that the person to be assessed gets a more comprehensive comparison of his self-image with several external images, since each target group expresses different demands.

Design parameters

By setting different goals, which are to be achieved through the superior assessment, there are also different formal and content-related design options. If, for example, the idea of ​​control is given top priority, more standardized instruments should be used for better comparability. If the idea of ​​team development is in the foreground, whereby voluntariness can be an important prerequisite, the quality of the evaluation in a team discussion or workshop comes to the fore.

What is important is which form of recording is selected. As already mentioned, the survey can be carried out orally (in a workshop or employee interview) or in writing (via questionnaire). A mixed form would also be conceivable, e.g. B. a workshop in which a questionnaire has to be filled out, which is then discussed orally. The frequency and time of the survey must also be taken into account, although this can be decided individually from company to company. It is only crucial that a scheme that has been introduced once (e.g. assessment once at the end of the year) is consistently maintained.

For the implementation and acceptance of the assessment, the voluntary nature of both employees and superiors is of central importance. If participation in the survey is voluntary, this can reduce concerns on both sides. However, the mere introduction of such a procedure creates pressure to participate. Refuses z. If, for example, the supervisor took part in such a survey, it would very likely have negative effects on his career opportunities.

Furthermore, the personal reference must be clear, i.e. the question of who actually assesses whom. This can be the classic constellation, i.e. the employee assesses the direct superior, or several superiors or even the entire management are assessed. It is important here that the survey is individually adapted depending on the personal reference.

The direction is also an important design parameter and indicates that the superior should be assessed from different perspectives. If only employees evaluate, the assessment of the results requires a comparison, e.g. B. with standards. The assessment can also be compared with the superior's self-assessment or, as with the 360 ​​° assessment, the judgments of different people are included.

Probably the most widely discussed criterion in superiors assessments is the question of anonymity. A survey can either be carried out completely anonymously, i.e. without giving a name, semi-anonymously in a group meeting or with the names of all participants. Due to the anonymity, the supervisor receives the employee's assessment of all previously developed points, but clarification through inquiries is not possible. In addition, this type of survey contradicts an open feedback culture. In an open survey, on the other hand, due to the hierarchical relationship, the employee cannot give open feedback on all points. Accordingly, the supervisor does not find out the honest assessment of the employee and its characteristics on all points. While superiors would rather know which employee assesses them and how, employees prefer anonymity. Studies show that employees who evaluate anonymously rate their superiors worse than those who openly make judgments.

The question of evaluation must also be taken into account. On the one hand, this can be taken over by the HR department, as these employees know the company very well and costs can be saved. On the other hand, especially with anonymous questionnaires in which open questions have to be answered by hand, it makes sense to have the evaluation carried out by external consultants.

It must also be clear who actually gets and uses the results (the line manager, the employees, the HR department), how they are reported back (conversation, workshop) and what consequences result from this or which measures (assistance such as coaching ) can be derived from it.

Impact hypotheses

If a superior assessment is carried out, in addition to the intended, i.e. targeted effects, effects can of course also occur that contradict the objectives. The former are referred to as functional, the latter as dysfunctional effects. It is also important to distinguish whether these effects relate to the supervisor, the employee or the company area. Furthermore, the effects always depend on which design parameters were selected in advance. If, for example, the supervisor was “forced” to undergo such an assessment, the consequence will hardly be a greater interest in such assessment processes.

A functional effect is often offset by a dysfunctional effect. In the managerial area, the assessment can, for example, promote a positive attitude towards participatory leadership and cooperation, or it can cause the manager to feel insecure about his or her own leadership behavior. Concrete approaches for personal development can be obtained, but on the other hand there is the risk that the manager will now want to permanently meet the employee's wishes. A stronger interest in one's own leadership behavior can be evoked, or a “defiant reaction” due to critical or negative assessment results.

The same is true of the employees. Positive effects after such an assessment would be an increase in motivation, self-esteem and better teamwork. Equally, however, the consequences can be fear of sanctions, unrealistic expectations with regard to concrete changes, a feeling of being overwhelmed or an overestimation of one's own influence on change processes. In the best case, effects such as an improved working atmosphere, an increase in job satisfaction and an improvement in performance behavior can be recorded. However, here again the reference to the design parameters: what effects the superior assessment has on the individual employee depends heavily on, for example, whether the investigation was carried out anonymously or not.

There are also positive, but also negative effects in the corporate sector that can be achieved through a superior assessment. Functional effects can be the rethinking of the previous management concept, more open communication as well as the joint design of management guidelines and their implementation in participatory manners. The assessment represents an early warning system for loss of motivation and performance as well as decreasing job satisfaction. Dysfunctional effects in the company area would be the resistance of employee representatives, loss of working time due to long discussions about the results, the overestimation of the effects of managerial assessments or the establishment of "class societies" according to the assessment criteria.

Application requirements

In addition to the design parameters, the desired results of an instrument are also dependent on the given conditions of action, i.e. the application situation

In addition to the general quality criteria of objectivity , reliability and validity, the following methodological criteria must be taken into account when executing or specifically designing the superior assessment :

• Relevance: The information must be relevant to managerial behavior.
• Comprehensibility and limitation: The supervisor must be able to understand the information and its scope must not exceed his recording and processing capacity.
• Verifiability: The statements must be verifiable.
• Influenceability: The feedback statements must be within the manager's sphere of influence so that he can influence them and change his behavior.
• Comparability: The superior must be able to classify his assessment based on comparable colleagues or given standards.
• Openness: The feedback statements do not represent the end, but the beginning of development processes.

The last methodological criterion is a very important application requirement. "Employees take part in the managerial assessment with the clear expectation that [their input] will have a concrete impact on improving relationships in the workplace". The superiors' appraisal is considered pointless if, after the results have been announced, which must be viewed and explained for both parties, no recognizable improvement measures are taken. The supervisor is not signaling any openness to criticism. The acceptance of the instrument suffers as a result, which in turn is very important for its application. It can be increased by a further condition: the early information and involvement of those affected by the assessment. Objectives, backgrounds, processes and consequences must be disclosed openly so that employees are ready to give an honest answer and that their superiors can also see their advantage.

In order to give the employees an orientation for the assessment of the leadership behavior and to enable the company management to control the current situation, it makes sense for the company management to introduce management guidelines and to convey the company culture . The leadership style shows whether a managerial assessment will be successful. A cooperative management style supports the personnel policy when using the instrument.

The size of a company is also decisive: For smaller companies, a standardized supervisor assessment using a questionnaire would be too time-consuming and would not correspond to the corporate culture. In such companies it is more natural to seek direct conversation with the supervisor, as anonymity can only be guaranteed to a limited extent here. In addition, the prerequisite for anonymity is only given if the assessment sheet does not contain any identification of what has been completed and additional questions answered by hand are automatically rewritten.

Assessment of the instrument

Can a managerial assessment really lead to a lasting improvement in the relationship between managers and their employees? In any case, it can be said that it could. If the application requirements are met, it is possible to use the respective design parameters to achieve an effect that may not always be the one you want.

The superior appraisal can be successful if there are no reservations on the part of the superiors, employees and management and everyone is ready to initiate this process. Honest answers are indispensable for this and it is not enough just to change something, but also to implement it. The company must signal in all its business activities and with its corporate culture that it wants better communication between managers and employees. Employees must be relieved of the fear of possible negative consequences on the part of their superiors, who must also be able to be sure that they will not incur any sanctioning measures.

Here, however, there is the incalculable risk of an appraisal of superiors, just as there is with an appraisal of employees. Based on the assessment, the company management should only find out where the differences between target and actual are within the management guidelines and open up opportunities for superiors to be able to further train themselves accordingly. Other consequences should be ruled out as far as possible. Nevertheless, a selection function is not categorically rejected, as Figure 1 shows, so that an influence on personnel decisions can arise. Perhaps these decisions do not go as far as a dismissal, but provisions on salary and promotion are not the purpose of a superior appraisal, but would create a dependency on the judgments of the employees. Another argument is to say that precisely because of the lack of consequences for the supervisor, the instrument is pointless from the point of view of the employees.

However, there is definitely a legitimation for an appraisal of superiors, since managers as well as employees contribute to the success of the company. They take a very important position in terms of performance and existence and it makes sense to have their work assessed and not just that of the employees

Whether the employees' point of view is not too one-sided and therefore 360-degree feedback should be used depends on the objectives of the respective company. The qualification of employees for assessment is also controversial and assessment errors ( halo effect , primacy recency effect , etc.) can occur. Ultimately, the individual employee can only reflect his or her subjective perception of the superior's behavior and this can turn out to be very different, so that under certain circumstances no clear result is achieved.

From an empirical point of view, some companies, especially large companies such as Lufthansa or BASF, are already carrying out managerial assessments. Many, such as Mercedes-Benz or Wella, have mostly seen positive developments in their company. On the basis of a study it can be determined that superiors generally assess the usefulness of the instrument more positively than the employees, 63% also see a more positive change in their management behavior while only 42% of the employees confirm this. A similar result emerges for the statements on the improvement of cooperation. An increase in work motivation can only be seen slightly on both sides.

There is no silver bullet for an appraisal of superiors; if used correctly, it can be a means to an end, but it has to adapt to different circumstances and companies.

bibliography

• Bahners, Christian (2003): Supervisor assessment using 360 ° feedback, Munich and Mering
• Domsch, Michel E./Ladwig, Desiree H. (1995): Target formation and conception phase, in: Hofmann / Köhler / Steinhoff (eds.): Superiors assessment in practice, Weinheim, pp. 23–35
• Ebner, Hermann G./Krell, Gertraude (1991): Superiors assessment, Oldenburg
• Felfe, Jörg (2000): Feedback processes in organizations: Acceptance by superiors and employees, in: Busch, Rolf (Ed.): Employee discussion - management feedback: Instruments in practice, Munich and Mering, pp. 37–63
• Hofmann, Karsten / Schönsee, Ralf / Blandfort, Anja / Köhler, Friedhelm (1995): Results of an Evaluation of the Different Phases of the Supervisor Assessment, in: Hofmann / Köhler / Steinhoff (Ed.): Supervisor Assessment in Practice, Weinheim, p. 97 -109
• Köhler, Friedhelm (1995): Preparation and information phase in the company, in: Hofmann / Köhler / Steinhoff (ed.): Superiors assessment in practice, Weinheim, pp. 57–62
• Krug, Joachim S./Kuhl, Ulrich (2005): Multi-Source-Feedback for Executives - a practical report, in: Scherm, Martin (Ed.): 360 degree assessments, Göttingen, pp. 42–69
• Martin, Albert (2001): Personal - Theory, Politics, Design, Stuttgart
• Nerdinger, Friedemann W. (2005): Superiors assessment, in: Jöns, Ingela / Bungard, Walter (ed.): Feedback instruments in the company: Basics, design tips, experience reports, Wiesbaden, pp. 100–112
• Scherm, Martin (2005): 360 degree assessments: assessing performance and developing skills, in: Scherm, Martin (Ed.): 360 degree assessments, Göttingen, pp. 3-19
• Steinhoff, Victoria (1995): Superiors evaluation: basic philosophy application, in: Hofmann / Köhler / Steinhoff (ed.): Superiors evaluation in practice, Weinheim, pp. 7-14
• Voltz, Tom (1998): Courage to Criticize: Use and Perform Supervisor Assessment, Zurich
• Weider, Petra C. (1995): The 360 ​​° Feedback in a European Insurance Company, in: Hofmann / Köhler / Steinhoff (Ed.): Superiors Assessment in Practice, Weinheim, pp. 159–166

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Horst Steinmann / Georg Schreyögg, Management , Wiesbaden, 6th edition 2005, pp. 815 and 819
2. ↑ Wehrle (2004), p. 40
3. ↑ Felfe (2000), 37f.
4. ↑ Felfe (2000), p. 38
5. ↑ Nerdinger (2005), p. 100
6. ↑ Felfe (2000), p. 39
7. ↑ See Nerdinger (2005), p. 101; Steinhoff (1995) p. 10
8. ↑ Nerdinger (2005), p. 101
9. ↑ See Ebner / Krell (1991), p. 15ff .; Nerdinger (2005), p. 100f .; Steinhoff (1995), pp. 10f.
10. ↑ See Domsch / Ladwig (1995), p. 30ff .; Bahners (2003), p. 17
11. ↑ Waldemar Pelz: The 360 ​​degree feedback: popular, effective and objective - what is useful in assessing competencies and where the traps lurk , in: HR Today Special 4/2011 pdf download ( Memento of the original from January 1, 2016 in Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
12. ↑ See Nerdinger (2005), p. 104 ff.
13. ↑ See Nerdinger (2005), p. 107 ff.
14. ^ Bahners (2003), p. 4
15. ↑ See Bahners (2003), p. 4f .; Scherm (2005), p. 5
16. ↑ cf. Weider (1995), p. 159; Bahners (2003), p. 59
17. ↑ See Felfe (2000), p. 40
18. ↑ See Nerdinger (2005), p. 102
19. ↑ See Voltz (1998), p. 65
20. ↑ See Nerdinger (2005), p. 102 ff.
21. ↑ See Voltz (1998), p. 65 f.
22. ↑ See Nerdinger (2005), p. 104
23. ↑ See Voltz (1998), p. 61 ff.
24. ↑ See Voltz (1998), p. 67
25. ↑ See Felfe (2000), p. 41
26. ↑ See Domsch / Ladwig (1995), p. 34f.
27. ↑ cf. Martin (2001), p. 117
28. ↑ See Domsch / Ladwig (1995), p. 27f .; Nerdinger (2005), p. 102
29. ↑ Voltz (1998), p. 124
30. ↑ cf. Koehler (1995), p. 59; Nerdinger (2005), p. 106
31. ↑ cf. Voltz (1998), p. 25ff.
32. ↑ cf. Nerdinger (2005), p. 104
33. ↑ cf. Eber / Krell (1991), p. 17f.
34. ↑ cf. Bahners (2003), p. 9; Krug / Kuhl (2005), p. 41
35. ↑ Christian Bahners: Supervisor assessment using 360 ° feedback , 2003, p. 59 f.
36. ↑ Karsten Hofmann / Ralf Schönsee / Anja Blandfort / Friedhelm Köhler: Results of an Evaluation of the Different Phases of Superiors Assessment , in: Hofmann / Köhler / Steinhoff (ed.): Superiors Assessment in Practice, 1995, pp. 97 ff.