Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM
Transcript of PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM
COMMON RATING ERRORS
1. ERROR OF LENIENCY
THE ERROR OF LENIENCY IS BY FAR THE MOST COMMON OF ALL IN THE RATING OF PERSONNEL.
2. ERROR OF PERSONNEL BIAS
RATERS OFTEN TEND TO RATE HIGHER THAN IS JUSTIFIED THOSE PERSONS THEY KNOW WELL AND LIKE OR THOSE WHO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SAME PLATFORM ASTHE SUPERVISORS.
3. ERROR OF CENTRAL TENDENCY
ALL TOO OFTEN RATERS WILL GROUP THEIR RATINGS NEAR THE CENTER OF THE RATING SCALE,WITH FEW RATING AT THE BOTTOM OR TOP.
4. HALO EFFECT
THE TENDENCY OF RATERS TO RATE IN TERMS OF A VERY GENERAL IMPRESSIONS RATHER THAN ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIC TRAITS IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE HALO TENDENCY.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM
A performance evaluation system is administered for the uniformed members of the philippine national police (PNP). it is administered based on rules and regulations and a code of professional conduct and ethical standards approved by the national police commission (NAPOLCOM) for the members of the police organization in order to assess and measure individual efficiency.
SCOPE AND FREQUENCY OF RATING
it is used to assess the performance of individual police personnel in terms of his contributions to the attainment of peace and order in his area of responsibility, and in terms of skills competencies and attitude towards work.
sensitivity and concern for human rights
2. performance evaluation for non-supervisors
punctuality and attendance
refers to achieve presence in the place of work and a display of favorable attitude toward time lost from work.
refers to initiation of efficient action,that is taking opportunities to offer practical suggestions and constructive criticism.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR SUPERVISORS
measures the necessary coordination of work that directly involves other employees, sections, divisions or departments, including such factors as pre-planing, timing and consistent excellence of work judgement.
knowledge of work
refers to the technical knowledge required of police work, which includes consistent compliance with policies.
MORAL VALUES AND ETHICAL STANDARDS
THIS INCLUDES OBSERVANCE OF MORAL VALUES AND ETHICAL SATNDARDS AS SET FORTH IN THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS.
COMPUTE FOR THE WEIGHTED SCORE (WS)
MULTIPLY THE NUMERICAL WEIGHT OF THE PERFORMANCE INDICATOR BYTHE NUMERICAL EQUIVALENT FOR THE MARKED COLUMN (MC) IN SECTION A.
EX. RATEE - INDICATOR -COORDINATION
COMPUTE FOR WEIGHTED AVERAGE (WA)
DIVIDE THE WEIGHTED SCORE (WS) BY THE NUMBER OF ADJECTIVAL RATINGS IN SECTION A.
EX. USING THE PREVIOUS EX.
_ = 3
this referes to the degree to which a police officer observes concern for human rights. democratic principles and ideals, and his ability to proceed to wards organizational goals and objectives.
the ability to make decisions and to develop solutions to the problems which may crop up.
IN THIS SECTION THE RATEES PERFORMANCE JOB STRENGTH AND PROGRESS ARE RECORDED.
IN THIS SECTION THE TARGETED GOALS OR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS WHICH POLICE OFFICER NEEDS TO UNDERTAKES DURING THE NEXT EVALUATION PERIOD SHALL BE INDICATED.
IN THIS SECTION OBSERVED PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES OR JOB BEHAVIOR THAT REQUIRE IMPROVEMENT OR CORRECTION ARE RECORDED.
IN THIS SECTION THE NUMERICAL AS WELL AS THE ADJECTIVAL RATINGS ARE RECORDED.
3. COMPUTE FOR THE TOTAL POINT SCORE (TPS)
ADD THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE (WA) FOR ALL INDICATORS. THE TOTAL POINT SCORE (TPS) IS THE SUM OF THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE (WA)
TOTAL POINT SCORE 7
REGARDLESS OF HOW SOPHISTICATED THE RATING PROCEDURE OR HOW IMPORTANT THE PROGRAM. IT WILL BE SUCCESSFUL ONLY IF THE RATERS OR THOSE RATED REALLY WANT IT TO SUCCEED.
FAILURE TO TRAIN RATERS
THE SYSTEM DEVISED TO PROVIDE A MEANS OF ASSESSING EMPLOYEES WILL ORDINARILY NOT SURVIVE, UNLESS TRAINING IS PROVIDED FOR THOSE WHO ARE TO DO THE RATING.
RATING SYSTEM ARE BOUND TO FALL INTO DISREPUTE IF PERSONNEL RATED COME TO LOSE CONFIDENCE IN THEM BECAUSE OF ABUSE BY MANAGEMENT.
RATING REPORTS OFTEN AFFECT A PERSON ENTIRE CAREER. THOSE MADE CARELESSLY MAY HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCEES.
A PERSONNEL EVALUATION SYSTEM WORHTY OF THE COST SHOULD NOT BE COMPROMISED BY SHORCUT METHODS. EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT ABBREVIATED VERSIONS OF RATING SCALES DEVISED TO ECONOMIZE ON TIME AT THE EXPENSE OF ACCURACY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR A HIGH DEGREE OF FILURE.