Performance Management 227
Who Should Rate?
In most organizations, the employee ’ s immediate supervisor evaluates the
employee ’ s performance. This is because the supervisor is responsible for
the employee ’ s performance, providing oversight, disseminating assign-
ments, and developing the employee. A problem, however, is that super-
visors often work in locations apart from their employees and therefore
are not able to observe their subordinates ’ performance. Should supervi-
sors rate employees on performance dimensions they cannot observe? To
eliminate this dilemma, more and more organizations are implementing
appraisals referred to as 360 - degree evaluations. Employees are rated not only
by their supervisors but by coworkers, clients or citizens, professionals in
other agencies with whom they work, and subordinates. The reason
for this approach is that often coworkers and clients or citizens have a
greater opportunity to observe an employee ’ s performance and are in a better
position to evaluate many performance dimensions. Clients or citizens,
for example, are a more appropriate source for evaluating such dimensions
as the employee ’ s manner of performance, how the employee treated
them, or whether the employee answered their questions adequately.
Performance dimensions such as leadership, training and developing
employees, communicating agency policies, and delegating and assigning
work are responsibilities commonly found in supervisory or management
positions. Competence in these dimensions can best be assessed by sub-
ordinates who have frequent contact with the supervisor or manager and
can observe different aspects of their performance. The South Carolina
Department of Archives and History, for example, developed a subordi-
nate appraisal process as a tool for improved communication and feedback
between managers and staff. Employees were asked to rate their immediate
supervisors on thirty - seven items that fell under fi ve dimensions: communi-
cations, managerial support of employees, management skills, leadership,
and support of quality improvement (Coggburn, 1998).
Bernardin (1986) notes, however, that some caveats do exist with
subordinate evaluations. Like supervisors, subordinates often lack the
training necessary to evaluate their managers; ratings may be based on
political gains; subordinates may not tell the truth, fearing retaliation
from their boss; employees pushed hard may be strict in their ratings;
and subordinates may not have a chance to gain an awareness of the
larger picture by observing the manager in diverse situations. Despite
these diffi culties, Bernardin still believes that subordinate appraisals result
