Employees judge superiors

In the meantime, it is a matter of course that superiors are evaluated by employees, but it only makes sense if the feedback is followed by a change in those being evaluated and not everything remains the same. While tested products are improved and further developed, there are no marginal changes in the behavior of criticized superiors. Employees who do not like the management are more likely to look for another job than the superior will do so.

Feedback is an essential aid in determining one's own position. Most superiors assume that there is not much wrong with their leadership. They are only interested in positive feedback and still ignore critical evaluations. Not even all superiors take part in an assessment.

Questions and scaling
Questions must be formulated briefly and should leave as little room for interpretation as possible. Questionnaires that take more than ten minutes to complete will be rejected by the employee. The questionnaire should not contain more than ten questions, which find place on a DIN A4 side. The evaluation will only be meaningful if many questionnaires are handed in. The response rate should reach 80 percent. In the introductory phase, 100 percent participation is rarely to be expected.

«Questions must be briefly formulated and should not leave any room for interpretation.»

All topics related to leadership behavior are assessed, not only the topics that the supervisor prefers. The questions that are easy to answer are at the beginning. In addition, a weighting can be installed after each question, the assessor can mark the priority and importance of the question between the numbers 1 and 3. Alternatively, exclamation marks are used to indicate which topics are particularly important to the assessor, and this also provides a weighting.

There are various options for scaling. The grading scale 1 to 5 is not common everywhere. The scale of 5 to 1 is often used, with the highest value on the left and the lowest value on the right. Each scale should have at least three and at most five levels. Smileys have not become generally accepted. Currently, the scale is based on percentages (degree of fulfilment).

In order to achieve a positive image effect with the survey, the design of the questionnaire is also of central importance. An unprofessionally designed, unclear and not chronologically structured questionnaire does not motivate.

Evaluation as a challenge
The real problem is the evaluation. Every supervisor wants to look good in front of the management, which also has a great interest in the survey. In the case of negative evaluations, the supervisor fears criticism from the top boss. For the employees it is particularly important that the evaluations remain absolutely anonymous. Otherwise there will be no objective ticking off. That is why handwritten comments are pointless, because superiors identify the employee through the writing. The number of feedback sheets makes it easy to see if someone is missing, but because of the anonymity it remains unclear who it is.

Employees with less than six months of service will not be asked to participate, nor will those who have already been terminated. The new supervisor in the induction phase is also exempted from the assessment. If job profiles are available for the supervisor, he or she can prepare for the assessment. Only topics on leadership behaviour should be included which managers have to be measured against and which are part of their profile. Successful superiors show the ability to take criticism; after all, they also demand this from their employees. Those who see opportunities for improvement in the criticism of their employees have understood what is important. The goal is to initiate improvements; on the other hand, the team cannot expect everything to be "in the green" in a short time. Changes require patience and a time cushion.

Limits and thresholds
There is no experience about minimum values, about limits in grading that a supervisor would have to reach in order not to be disqualified like in football where the coach is fired after an unsuccessful season. A 2.5 average in grading should be the limit to still "stay on board." The supervisor who has achieved good business figures will care less about the assessment, profits and market success are more important.

An alternative to systematic assessment by grades is an "open assessment culture". Employees have the courage to speak openly about what they like and dislike. The previous assessment by multiple choice, and anonymously at that, does not correspond to the openness that is part of the corporate culture. Superiors assess their employees in a discussion, why doesn't it work the other way round? This would break down the old hierarchies to a certain extent.

Possible observation errors
Assessments are a process of perception for the employee and require good judgment and comparison over time. Various errors occur in the process. One speaks of the "outshining effect" when the appraiser concludes from a conspicuous characteristic of the leadership to the overall picture of the superior. A single observation of great importance outshines all other perceptions. The "recency effect" is when the last impressions before the feedback is given strongly influence the employee and overly shape the overall impression. The "sympathy effect" means that sympathetic superiors are judged generously and positively, while higher expectations are placed on less sympathetic ones. The "hierarchy effect" says that people with a lot of responsibility, with titles and status tend to be upgraded. Perceptions are then glossed over.

The lenient evaluator looks generously over mistakes, he is concerned with harmony, he evaluates positively. Strict appraisers take the ideal state of leadership as a yardstick and expect perfect leadership. Critical employees expect an immediate change of the negatively marked topics.

Practical tips
The following tips are helpful for companies that plan to have employees evaluate their supervisors:

• Give the questionnaire to all employees with at least 6 months affiliation and set a deadline (3 to 5 days) for its return.
• Be sure to ensure anonymity. Do not search for the addressee in the event of a bad evaluation.
• Ask only questions about collaboration, delegation and leadership.
• In the event of a negative response, you must not react in an offended manner. For you, planning a course correction is the order of the day.
• Evaluate the feedback forms promptly, ideally two to three weeks after the deadline.
• Do not ask more than ten to twelve questions. Also accept questionnaires where some questions are not answered.