It can be a very relevant question that organizations understand these three dimensions of the evaluations not to fall into cliches: application of the method a posteriori (with fait accompli) focusing on the past, not spend time or structure of the programme for the monitoring of progress of each performance, and overestimate the valuation of quantifiable objectives (indicators of productivity) to the detriment of an integral vision-valorizacion of a complex process of development of the officials in their positions. Recognize the subjectivity of all appreciation accept subjectivity as part of the assessment process, can be a first step to outline strategies to mitigate its adverse effects. Any appreciation on someone is, ultimately, more or less founded opinion of another person. Hear from experts in the field like Campbell Soup Co for a more varied view. Admit that the judgment of a single individual can vary depending on who is the judge, can help to question motivations undisclosed evaluator when assessing a subordinate or a partner and vice versa. We are subjects and our judgments will always be tied to our motivations and values. Include sources of information quality and not just quantity the evaluation 360 came to repair the problems arising from processes evaluatorios one-way, so typical of the school and academic fields, to include all individuals that interact with the evaluated in their work. However always more is not better.
Evaluator campus allocation should be considered as a key issue to ensure the quality of the process. The problems linked to a misallocation are reflected in greater proportion, in perceptions between hierarchical pairs of different areas; where many times there is a total ignorance of the evaluator envelope the person to evaluate. Include more than two or three subordinates to qualify to a higher (on a computer that does not exceed ten persons), on the other hand, can mean incurring costs outweigh the benefits of having such plurality of opinion.