Numbers, Words, Labels, Performance Appraisals, Ratings, Oh My
It’s scary. Just plain scary. A person who’s identity I have removed - a an HR person/trainers said about employee rankings and ratings:
On 11 May 2004 at 21:23, edllarena wrote:
The use “words” or “numbers” (or both) in evaluating or “rating a performance” is very common. Some people find “words” to be more accurate in describing performance than “numbers”. However, when a system uses a more complex system in appraisal, the use of “numbers” tend to be more accurate because one can draw “averages” from the scores. The essence of a good “rating tool” is in its capability to objectively (versus subjectivity) describe the “overall performance of the ratee”.
I’m really sorry, but the above is just plain wrong, and destructive. Numbers don’t mean accurate and they don’t mean objective.
Is a football player with a number 99 on his back 99 times better than one with a 1 on his back?