For comparative purposes, particularly when tit is necessary to compare people who work for different supervisors, individual statements, ratings or appraisal forms are not particularly useful. Instead, it is necessary to recognize that comparisons involve when overall subjective judgment to which a host of additional facts and impression must be some how be added. There is no single form or way to do this.
Comparing people in different units for the purpose of, say, choosing a service supervisor or determining the relative size of salary increases for different supervisors, requires subjective judgment, not statistic. The best approach appears to be a ranking technique involving pooled judgment. The two most effective methods are alternation ranking and paired comparison ranking.
Alternation ranking: In this method, the names of employees are listed on the left hand side of a sheet of paper, preferably in random order. If the rankings are for salary purpose, a supervisor is asked to use, “Most valuable” employee on the list, cross his name off, and put it at the top of the column on the right hand side of the sheet. Next, he selects “least valuable” employee on the list, crosses his name off and puts his name on right hand column. The ranker then selects the “most valuable” person form a remaining list, crosses his name off and enters it below the top name on the right hand list, and so on.
Paired comparison ranking: This technique probably just as accurate as alternation ranking and might be more so. But with large number of employees it becomes extremely time consuming and cumbersome.
Comparing people in different units for the purpose of, say, choosing a service supervisor or determining the relative size of salary increases for different supervisors, requires subjective judgment, not statistic. The best approach appears to be a ranking technique involving pooled judgment. The two most effective methods are alternation ranking and paired comparison ranking.
Alternation ranking: In this method, the names of employees are listed on the left hand side of a sheet of paper, preferably in random order. If the rankings are for salary purpose, a supervisor is asked to use, “Most valuable” employee on the list, cross his name off, and put it at the top of the column on the right hand side of the sheet. Next, he selects “least valuable” employee on the list, crosses his name off and puts his name on right hand column. The ranker then selects the “most valuable” person form a remaining list, crosses his name off and enters it below the top name on the right hand list, and so on.
Paired comparison ranking: This technique probably just as accurate as alternation ranking and might be more so. But with large number of employees it becomes extremely time consuming and cumbersome.