The score system integrates data from the scores given in the daily sign-off feature to give managers a clearer picture of the staff they are working with. In the corner of a staffer profile picture a number and a small chart is displayed. The number is an overall score for the staffer and the chart shows the number of recommendations the staffer has received.
Here is what staffer cards now look like. Some staffers will have a score and some will not.
The score aggregates data from the daily sign-off feature, but is not just an average. The number is calculated using a weighting system, meaning scores of 1- or 2-stars have a strong effect on the overall number. A person who has been rated 1-star, 3-stars and 5-stars across three jobs will not get an overall score of 3, it will be much lower.
In addition to the score, the chart shows how many times a staffer has been given a score, and what those scores were. The higher the bar, the more times the staffer has been rated at that score.
In this example the staffer on the left has been given a score of 3-stars on more occasions than the staffer on the right, meaning you can have confidence in the staffer with plenty of 3-star scores, and the staffer with just a few ratings needs to be given more time to see how they perform.
A staffer with a tall bar of 3-stars and 4-stars is someone who has been consistently rated highly, and they compare favourably with someone who has had just one rating of 3 or 4 so far. The higher the bars for good scores, the more confidence you can have in them as a worker.
The separate ranking of scores is also useful to spot inconsistencies with a staffer. If someone has a few 5-stars but also some 1-star rankings, something is inconsistent with their performance and would benefit from investigation.
Consider the following example:
Both of these staffers have a score of 4, however one of them has earned a 4-star score consistently on many occasions. The other staffer with a score of 4 has many instances of a 5-star score, but also has almost as many for 1-stars. The number of times they have scored a 1 or 2 outnumbers their 5-star performances. This is staffer is far more inconsistent, behaving poorly as much as they behave exceptionally.
The scoring system can also be useful for staff whose scores look almost the same at first glance.
We can see the employee on the left has been rated a good 3-star worker and lots of the time also achieves 4-stars, giving him an average of 3.8. The employee on the right has a few 3- and 4-star ratings and plenty of 5 stars. They are somewhat of a rockstar, and have a high average of 4.2. The staffer on the left, however has been rated more times in total and always delivers a 3 or 4 star performance, so they can be considered very dependable.
The scores in our examples have been exaggerated to highlight the features of the system, in reality the new scoring system should be used carefully. 3-stars is considered a good mark and if an employee has performed well, this is what they should be given. 4-stars would be used when an employee has gone “above and beyond” the call of duty in some way, and 5-stars is truly exceptional.
Similarly, a rating of 2-stars indicates a fairly serious problem and a 1-star would be used for atrocious circumstances. To illustrate: if a staffer with a score of 3.0 is given just a single 1-star rating, they will have to earn a 3-star rating on ten subsequent occasions before they return to an average of 3.0. Alternatively, it will take five occasions of being rated a 4-star person to get back to average.
By comparison, if a worker with an average of 3.0 under performs and is given a 2-star rating, they will have to achieve two more ratings of a 3-star to get back to average. A 2-star should be used for underperformance and a 1 star for extreme or serious problems.
The scoring system is a powerful but simple tool with a informative graphics that convey a wealth of information. When the scoring system is used effectively by your managers in daily sign off, the data Watu now provides will be an invaluable resource for assessing staffer performance.