Introducing Multi-Rater (360°) Performance Appraisal in UNAIDS
What’s the context?
As part of a broader initiative within the United Nations system to simplify and clarify job evaluation and build linkages to other HR processes, UNAIDS agreed to participate in a pilot project to link job evaluation and performance management criteria. Through such a linkage of job grading and performance measures, it was intended to assess how individual staff serving at the same grade level could be consistently evaluated. Taking such an approach, it was also decided to test the possible use of a multi-rater (360°) framework.
What was the challenge?
The approach to performance appraisal within United Nations agencies is determined by each agency; however, all agencies generally use a method known as MBO—Management By Objectives—based on cascading objectives from the organization to the individual. The structure of the objectives is not linked to the grade of the job, nor is there any process to align objectives across grade levels. This results in a discrete performance assessment for each individual, which can only be completed by the immediate supervisor, limiting the perspectives in performance assessment.
What was the solution?
For the pilot, UNAIDS adopted a new performance management solution that changed the basis of assessment from MBO to using the standards of job evaluation, which provide consistent criteria by grade level. The UN classification standards are based on a simplified and transparent table of values against four factors of classification. A set of corresponding values to measure performance was established to provide clear and consistent measures. The new measures also enabled the testing of the 360-degree feedback, since the standard was easy to understand and relied solely on the evaluators' experience working with the individual being assessed.
The nomination of peer evaluators was left to each staff member following criteria defining a good cross-section of evaluators, while supervisors reviewed and approved the list on a strictly confidential basis.
Another change under the pilot program was the introduction of a four-point rating scale, replacing the existing five-point scale. The new rating scale was introduced to align more closely with the focus of the assessment, which emphasizes the confirmation of achieving the expectations of the incumbent’s grade level. Using grade-level-specific measures, evaluators were asked to answer three questions:
Did the staff member display competence in the subject area of work?
Did the staff member listen and take into account perspectives from the team and the client?
Did the staff member deliver the needed services/outcome, meeting expectations in terms of timeliness and quality?
An online platform was created for capturing performance data with a review timeframe of five weeks established for the conduct of the exercise.
What was the outcome?
The exercise covered some 400 staff serving in 80 country offices, including staff at UNAIDS headquarters in Geneva. Within five weeks, more than 2,000 evaluations were completed, covering eighty percent of the staff. Examination of the ratings showed a broad correlation between supervisor and peer assessment, validating the multi-rater approach. Participants also indicated the pilot system was generally easily understood and accessible across the user community.
As a comparison, the prior system used by UNAIDS achieved just a six percent completion rate over twelve months.
What’s the takeaway?
Linking performance to the same factors used to evaluate jobs and anchoring them to what makes their job level distinct simplifies performance management. A simple performance standard facilitates 360° feedback.
You can learn more about Community™ Performance here.