Results Evaluation

Uses the actual performance or accomplishment of the officer to evaluate him—the measures of achievement must be expressed numerically e.g. units produced, waste, turnover, volume sold or sales in KShs. The goals set in the organization must therefore be verified—i.e. an individual should know exactly what they are expected to do.

The evaluation or results is either periodic or continuous. Continuous evaluation i.e. on a day to day basis is very easy for line managers, especially in organizations that are computerized. Periodic evaluations are more common for staff managers e.g. legal officers, also used where long periods are required to accomplish results.

Advantages:

•    Helps accomplish the major objective of managing—achieve results or objectives, the best way to evaluate managers then is to see whether they have achieved the objectives.

•    At the end of each job—it’s the results that count not the effort, a manager may appear good, well behaved and know how to manage but not deliver what the organization requires (results).

Disadvantages:

•    Environmental factors external to management may affect achievement. A manager might therefore do his best and still not get results! (Weather, strikes, politics, economic events, etc) when they occur, attainment is impossible and such a manager should not be rated negatively. External factors could also make goal attainment easier and lead to a bias rating of the manager.

•    Internal factors beyond the scope of the manager may change. Such factors affects goal attainment either positively or negatively e.g. it is difficult for a production manager to get good results if he is given defective materials. Likewise a marketing manager cannot achieve goals of his department if the production manager gives him a defective product. Internal factors may also affect results positively—a new mode of production may reflect very positively on the production manager but does he deserve credit?

Note
A fair evaluation must show that the manager truly deserves credit or is truly responsible for the poor results. Results evaluation must therefore be flexible especially where there are changes in environmental factors.