Individual and Team Performance Assessment

Name:

School:

Course:

Instructor:

Date:

Individual and Team Performance Assessment

Performance assessment is necessary in any aspect of human life. The fundamental purpose for conducting performance assessments is to improve the overall performance. It gives a detailed review of the progress being made in any project. With it, managers are able to identify the drawbacks and strong points in any organizational structure and hence come up with the necessary corrective measures. In the past, performance evaluation was primarily on an individual basis. The performance evaluation processes were based on the on the individual job description and work standards. With time, there has been a need for comprehensive team-based performance assessments. This need is due to the inherent flaws following individual performance assessment, which tends to discuss the person’s skills, abilities, talents, functional expertise, physical agility and some elements of the person’s interrelation skills. The whole process however fails to measure the overall performance in terms of value (Argyris, 1957).

In the assessment of a given team’s performance, the approach shifts from the duties, effectiveness or functions performed by an individual to the outcomes of the team. The main criteria used in assessing the team’s performance are the team’s quality and quantity of the output, or the goods and services produced. The individual effort is however, not entirely neglected as the team’s overall performance is directly dependent on the individual performance of the team members. The process for effective assessment of team performance involves first identifying the expectations, goals and objectives of the given team. The performance levels can then be graded in accordance with the team’s achievements of their expectations, goals and objectives. A rubric is best for this action. The levels of accomplishment can be graded on a scale of either one to ten or A to D.

Once the above achievement ranges have been established, regular meetings are to be arranged to measure the progress being made, and the strict meeting of deadlines. Since the whole process is aimed at improving the overall performance and efficiency of the team, the shortcomings of the team are to be identified and the relevant corrective measures executed.

The assessment of both individuals and group output and behavior depends mainly on the underlying problems and challenges facing the individual or team in performing their main tasks, meeting their goals and keeping the set standards. Although this process has its own inherent limitations, the assessment in terms of output criteria is mainly used. In order for the management or relevant person to conduct effective assessment of a group’s effectiveness in terms of its output, the main goods and services produced by the group ought to be identified as well as their output quality and quantity over a clearly specified period.

As an illustration, to assess or measure the quantitative output of a team existing in a given security department, Luthans, (1998) used the criteria and method of taking account of the insecurity claims processed by intake and processing units, potential employees taken in by the placement department, and the staff counseled by the relevant counseling staff. The example above shows that assessment of the output of the group or team was based on the products and services produced by the given team. There are however difficult situations whereby a given team is charged with complex tasks. This is evident in assessing administrative and professional teams whose complex responsibilities are intricate to assess. These include assessing the output of teams responsible for coming up with solutions to problems like increasing an organization’s market share, those in the planning sector like planning for AIDS education in the schools, and those concerned with coordinating the functions and performances of other teams (Berry, & Parasuraman, 1991).

In assessing individual output, the criteria observed is the individual’s efforts in his or her job duties, the individual’s level of personal initiative, interaction with other employees, commitment to the organization, absenteeism and punctuality. This is however, conducted in view of how the given individual is satisfied with the conditions exposed to him or her in the workplace setting (Nadler & Lawler 1983). This goes a long way in contributing to the individual’s material and psychological well-being and hence overall performance. The conditions taken into account are the job security of the individual, the fairness and adequacy of pay, the working conditions the individual is exposed to, the interpersonal relationship in the working environment and the meaningfulness and challenge of work. The overall working conditions can be obtained through questioning the employees or taking observations and judgments of the working site. Objective or subjective pointers to the concerned persons’ health and well-being can also be established.

There are various differences between assessment of performance factors in individual and group output and behaviors. One of the factors involved in the assessment of an individual’s output is one’s functional proficiency. This involves the physical skills and expertise the individual is endowed with. On the other hand, when taking a team’s assessment of its output, the member contribution is taken into account. Additionally, when assessing an individual’s performance, the technical competence of the individual is taken into account as opposed to the role fitness of the individual when assessing the team’s performance. Individual performance is more concerned with the process activity as opposed to the team’s outcomes for their performance (Babakus, & Mangold, 1992).

Reference

Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization: The conflict between system and the individual. New York: Harper & Row.

Babakus, E., & Mangold, W. G. (1992). Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to clinical care. Health Services Research, 26(6), 767-786.

Berry, L. L, & Parasuraman, A. (1991). Marketing services: Competing through quality. New York: The Free Press.

Luthans, F. (1998). Organizational behavior. (8th ed). Chicago: Mosby.

Nadler, D., & Lawler, E. (1983). Quality of work life: Perspectives and directions. Organization Dynamics, 11(4), 20-30.