Peer Assessment as a Tool to Reward Deserving Workers

0
50

Managers always struggle with motivating workers and improving employee engagement. The problem is that the workplace consists of diverse personalities and characters who respond to different stimuli.

 

One invaluable tool used by companies and organizations is the peer assessment review. It might look like the coward’s way out, as they delegate the difficult task of rating an individual’s contribution to the team.

 

You can find peer assessment or peer-to-peer recognition software products as Redii when you scour the Web. However, in simple terms, it is a process where employees are asked to provide their inputs concerning their co-workers. More than the contribution to the organization’s financial bottom lines, the parameters are subjective in nature. They are asked for their opinions on the attitude, perceived skills, and performances of their colleagues.

 

Positive or Negative Feedback?

A 2014 survey by Zenger/Folkman of almost 1,000 workers yielded surprising results. For instance, more than 9 in 10 of the respondents thought that negative feedback would generate more positive results. However, they also added one more qualification–only if the comment was delivered correctly. In contrast, only about 57% of the employees respond better to constructive criticisms. Nevertheless, 7 in 10 of them agreed that feedback would improve their performance.

 

Ultimately, some people respond well to pressure and some do not. It does not diminish their contributions to the team. It is not up to the managers to harness the strengths of each worker and work to improve their weaknesses. The success of the endeavour still depends on how management will curate the results.

 

The Value of Peer-to-Peer Reviews

Employees and employers are almost always working in constant friction. While probably have the same goals, the journey is littered with roadblocks, potholes, and blind spots. For instance, if management will conduct a performance review across different departments, it likely would not have the same effect as intended.

 

A survey by GloboForce showed that 6 in 10 workers do not think highly of management-initiated reviews as they do not indicate true performance. For the most part, supervisors only remember the end result, not each of the team members who contributed to the finished product. A peer review would address that gap. In that same survey, for example, 8 in 10 workers think that peer-to-peer reviews are more representative of what is happening inside the workplace.

 

The process also makes it easier for workers to accept rewards and recognition because they go to deserving employees. For example, the Redii software will develop a culture of appreciation within your company as it empowers employees to recognize co-workers for their contributions. In any organization, field workers are often left out in the cold. They are hardly consulted with anything that occurs within the office setting. With the peer-recognition software, their inputs are as important as anybody. As a result, they feel more connected to the team.

 

In the end, if you decide to implement peer assessments in the company, everybody should be clear with the intent. It is up to you whether or not to reveal the results, but you should communicate the parameters and criteria at the outset to avoid any miscommunications later on.