Eight sure ways to fail at technician performance evaluations

Performance evaluations supply information that can be very useful in fostering good employee relations and achieving high performance. Few managers or supervisors enjoy doing performance evaluations, however. They take time, they can be uncomfortable and they can lead to poor morale if not done correctly.

Nevertheless, if done correctly they can be a valuable tool to improve not only the technicians, but also the facility itself.

A key point to the success of the process is that your technician needs to know what criteria is being used to evaluate him/her. Standard criteria can include:

- Time used to complete assigned tasks.

- Percentage of productive versus non-productive time.

- Demonstrated level of knowledge.

- Level of training and certification.

- Materials and supplies used.

- Quality control issues discovered during work verification.

- Rework required of the technician’s work.

- Other technicians required to assist or complete the technician’s assignments due to lack of training or experience.

- Complaints from supervisors and/or coworkers.

- Incidents of superior performance.

- Self-improvement efforts over the previous year.

It is up to you to decide what is the best way to perform these evaluations for your managers and technicians.

A performance evaluation is an opportunity to provide feedback to the employee, receive feedback from the employee and to agree on a path forward. However, if not done correctly, performance reviews can turn from a positive situation for both the employee and the company, to a defensive, bitter and contentious event.

Here are eight situations that can cause the performance evaluation to take a wrong turn.

1. Winging it.

2. Postponing until further notice.

3. The evaluation is a monologue.

4. The session creates a defensive mindset.

5. Failing to communicate.

6. Sparing feelings.

7. All this negativity.

8. “This is the first I’ve heard of it.”

These pitfalls should be avoided in order to make the performance evaluation experience a positive one for all. Let’s take a look at each one in detail and discuss how to avoid them.

1. WINGING IT

A performance evaluation should not be done off the cuff. The person who is assigned to evaluate the technician needs to have an understanding of the tasks and projects the technician works on, detailed information on the technician’s performance and what was on last year’s evaluation.

One mistake that gets made, even though it is well intended, is to have a “neutral party” conduct the review, such as the human resources department at a larger company. The problem is, when questions come up about specific issues raised in the review, the person conducting it needs to know how to address them.

Also, whoever is doing the evaluation must take the time to review the technician’s previous reviews. This way, progress – or lack of it – will be evident.

It’s more than checking boxes on a form and writing a few comments. The person conducting the review needs to be able to focus on the individual’s performance; address questions, concerns and issues; and discuss continued development from year to year.

Another problem with winging it is that consistency will become an issue. One problem every manager should want to avoid is technicians discussing their evaluations, only to discover that one got “in trouble” for doing the same thing that the other was doing.

2. POSTPONING UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE

Technicians usually expect an evaluation by a specific date, typically linked to the date of hire, transfer or promotion. In many instances, the review is a basis for a merit or annual raise.

Being late with the review can be viewed by the technician as the company being indifferent. Being late can also lead to a hostile technician coming into the review – obviously not an ideal situation.

Being prompt with reviews, especially if they are tied to annual or merit raises, eliminates issues in these areas.

3. THE EVALUATION IS A MONOLOGUE

A performance evaluation is not supposed to be a monologue. It should be a dialogue between management and the technician. The individual performing the evaluation should ask open-ended questions to draw out feedback from the technician.

As a general practice, the person conducting the interview should draw the technician out and have the technician discuss all aspects of the evaluation and the job itself. This frank discussion may help address performance issues. 

4. THE SESSION CREATES A DEFENSIVE MINDSET

Along with drawing the employee out and discussing job-related issues, the performance evaluation should be a time for the technician to offer suggestions to the organization, including how supervisors could do their jobs better.

When a technician does this, it sometimes is viewed as a criticism of the supervisor. If the supervisor becomes defensive, the dialogue will end and any ideas to better the organization will be stifled.

On the other hand, the person doing the review needs to remember to not overpromise. Having the discussion and listening intently to any suggestions is the starting point, and the technician needs to understand that not all ideas are going to be acted on.

5. FAILING TO COMMUNICATE

Not everyone is a natural-born communicator, including supervisors who conduct performance evaluations. They may know their “stuff” and what technicians are supposed to be doing, but they may not be good at communicating in this environment.

However, when conducting an evaluation, the supervisor must clearly lay out the information he or she wants to convey. If this is not accomplished, the technician may leave the evaluation without a clear understanding on how to improve his/her performance and what the expectations are going forward.

For example, if you require or want the technician to improve or develop further, and take this into consideration during the performance review, it is up to you to communicate and provide the means necessary for the technician to take action.

One option is allowing the technician to develop his/her own personal goals for next year, based on what the company needs to see in the area of improvement or development, and then including completion of those goals in the evaluation. Examples could be attending a manufacturer training session in a specific area to gain additional knowledge, adding to the individual’s certifications, attending an outside class to improve specific topics or skills or mentoring or being mentored within the shop.

6. SPARING FEELINGS

It’s hard being the “bad guy.” Many bosses are reluctant to offer constructive criticism or correction to their employees even when it is warranted. Motives often include people-pleasing or a concern that it will appear on someone’s permanent record, affecting his or her career path.

This is especially true if the supervisor conducting the evaluation sees the employee as a peer. This may occur if the supervisor has worked his/her way up through the ranks. However, in a maintenance facility that is working on commercial vehicles, it could result in a catastrophe.

Personal feelings must be set aside and discussions of performance and areas of improvement must be brought to light, backed by solid observation and documentation.

7. ALL THIS NEGATIVITY

Beginning the evaluation with sub-par performance issues rather than positive accomplishments sets a negative tone. Ending with a negative tone leaves the technician with a bad feeling about the session.

An evaluation should have some focus on the things that are being done well or were done properly.

Even though a performance evaluation is a time to address problem areas, a supervisor must also leave the technician with at least a reason to want to remain at the employer.

Ideally, you want the technician to leave the review with a clear understanding of his/her performance, and where development can be undertaken or where improvement is necessary. A good model to follow is to start with a positive, cover the negative, discuss improvements and personal development and end with a positive.

One issue to be aware of is the “I remember most what happened last” syndrome. If you have a technician that generally does excellent work, but the morning of the evaluation made a serious error, you need to remember to treat the mistake the same as any other.

It will need to be factored into the evaluation, but it should not be a focal point. It will be too easy to “concentrate” on the one mistake due to it being so recent.

8. “THIS IS THE FIRST I’VE HEARD OF IT”

While there are many supervisors who provide feedback throughout the year, there are also many who do not. Regularly discussing the technician’s performance, successes and shortcomings allows the technician to make improvements over the course of the year.

A supervisor should be careful not to just keep a record of mistakes to bring up at the evaluation. Instead, any problems should have been addressed when they happened. A technician cannot work on or correct areas of weakness if he/she is unaware of your expectations.

In other words, performance management must be a year-round activity, not a once-a-year activity. The once-a-year activity should be only a review of an aggregate of all the “mini performance reviews” that took place during the year. This way, the evaluation is looking at the long-term trend, not an accumulation of incidents.

KEEP THE OVERALL GOAL IN MIND

Performance evaluations need to let the technicians know how they’re doing, what they can do to improve or develop and provide an opportunity for recognizing good performance.

The evaluations should also be communication tools used to identify employee strengths and weaknesses. In addition, they can be used to communicate goals and recognize the reaching of achievements.

Finally, they can serve as a feedback mechanism by allowing the technician to provide ideas that could improve the operation. The information can help the technician, and thereby the organization, be more productive, which is the main goal of the evaluation.