Different appraisal weightings for managers and the shop floor

"Managers should be judged mostly on their numbers. The shop floor should be judged mostly on behaviour and discipline. One appraisal form cannot do both."

What is really being asked

Two different forms, applied automatically to the right people, on one cycle. That is exactly what the system does, and the piece that nobody guesses is where the binding happens: not on the cycle, and not on the employee. On the position.

So this page is one template per population, each named on the positions that belong to it.

What you need in place first

• Evaluation Metric - every competency and behaviour you intend to score. These are shared between templates; you do not need a manager copy and a worker copy of "Teamwork".
• KPI - the measurable targets, if the client's numbers come from the system rather than being typed.
• Position - every position must exist, because this is where the template is named.
• Performance Target Entity - who is appraised at all. See a man joins on the fifteenth for how membership is arrived at.

Do this

1. Build the management template. Open Evaluation Template, code TPL-MGMT, name "Management appraisal".

   Add a section per block of the form, each with a weightage. Then add the metrics inside each section, each with its own weightage.

2. Make the three weightage sums add up. All three. This is where every first attempt fails, so know them before you type:

   1. The section weightages across the template add to 100.
   2. The metric weightages inside one section add to 100 - not to the section's own weightage. Each section is its own hundred.
   3. Where a section is split between company-set and self-set objectives, the Company Weightage plus the Self-Set Weightage must equal that section's weightage.

   The screen checks all three and names the section that is wrong. Read the message rather than guessing; it tells you which of the three sums failed.

3. Build the second template the same way, code TPL-NONMGMT, name "Non-management appraisal", with a different split between the sections. Same metrics are fine; different weightages are the point.

   Here is a worked example split, clearly labelled as an example - take the real numbers from the client's HR policy, never from this page:

   Section	TPL-MGMT	TPL-NONMGMT
   Objectives and KPIs	60	30
   Competencies and behaviour	30	50
   Discipline and attendance	10	20
   Total	100	100

   Get this signed off by the client in writing before you build it. It is the number people argue about at payout time, and a template that has been used cannot be quietly re-weighted.

4. Set the Scoring Basis on each metric line. There are two, and only two: Based on Target, where a number is compared against a target, and Score Band, where the appraiser picks a band. A behaviour metric is a band. A sales figure is a target. Nothing else exists, so if the client describes a third kind of question, it has to become one of these two.

5. Bind each template to its people, on the position. Open Position and name TPL-MGMT on every management position and TPL-NONMGMT on every other. This is the binding. It is per position, which is why a man who is promoted gets the new form automatically on the next cycle and nobody has to remember.

6. Name a fallback on the target entity. On Performance Target Entity, name one template. It is used only for a man whose position names none. Treat it as a safety net, not as the mechanism: a client who relies on it gets one form for everybody, which is the thing he asked you to avoid.

7. Run one cycle and look at the forms. Open Evaluation Cycle, Activate, then Generate Sheets. Then open Employee Goal for one manager and one operator and compare the two sheets side by side.

Two things on this screen that do nothing

Say these before the client finds them, because both read as promises.

• Allow Target From Employee is on the template and is read by no code. Whether an employee may propose his own target is decided by the Self-Set Weightage being non-zero, not by this tick.
• Allow Tracking-Only Metrics is likewise inert. A metric is tracking-only because its weightage is zero, which is a thing you type on the line.

Neither is a feature you can switch on. Do not design a client's process around either.

Where two clients differ

	Management	Non-management
Template	TPL-MGMT	TPL-NONMGMT
Where it is bound	On each management position	On each non-management position
Heaviest section	Objectives and KPIs	Competencies and behaviour
Typical scoring basis	Mostly Based on Target	Mostly Score Band
Self-set objectives	Usually some	Usually none
Who appraises	The line manager, then the function head	The supervisor, then the manager

How you prove it worked

1. Generate sheets on a test cycle and open one manager's and one operator's Employee Goal. The two sheets must carry different sections and different weightages. If they are identical, the position is not naming a template and the target entity's fallback caught everybody.
2. Add up the section weightages on each generated sheet. 100, both times.
3. Add up the metric weightages inside one section. 100, not the section's own number.
4. Find a man whose position names no template and confirm he got the fallback. Then go and name a template on his position.
5. Score one metric in a heavy section and one in a light section with the same band, and confirm the overall score moves more for the heavy one. That is the only test that proves the weightings are actually doing work. Work the expected movement out from the maths first.

What will go wrong

• The template is named on the target entity only and everybody gets the same form. The commonest cause of "we built two templates and both populations got the manager's".
• The metric weightages are made to add up to the section's weightage rather than to 100. The screen will refuse it, and the message is the thing to read.
• A template is re-weighted after sheets have been generated. The existing sheets keep the old weightages, so two men appraised in the same half are scored on different forms. Decide the split before the first cycle.
• A promotion is expected to change the form mid-cycle. It changes the form on the next cycle, because the sheet was generated from the position he held when it was generated.
• The client designs a question type that is neither a target nor a band. There is no third kind. Reshape it into one of the two at the design stage, not after the form is built.