Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, May 16, 1993                   TAG: 9305140407
SECTION: BUSINESS                    PAGE: D4   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: PAT BUTLER KNIGHT-RIDDER/TRIBUNE
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Long

MORE WORKERS BEING REVIEWED BY PEERS, NOT BOSSES

But from factory floors to office suites, workers increasingly are being reviewed by a jury of their peers instead of their bosses, who may not be in a position to observe the employees' work as closely.

And, many management experts believe, these so-called "peer reviews" are fairer to employees and more effective for employers.

"I'm there on the floor working with my peers eight hours a day," said David Bell, a machine set-up operator at the Square D electronic controls plant in Columbia, S.C., which began to carry out peer reviews in 1989. "They're the best ones to tell me how I'm doing.

"If it were coming from my supervisor, he's not really on the floor working with me."

And, many management experts say, evaluations that come from supervisors are less effective.

Workers are more likely to change their behavior when the suggestions for improvement come from the people who work at the next weaving loom or the next computer terminal, those experts say.

"You want evaluation procedures that encourage people, encourage teamwork and boost morale," says Edgar Hickman, professor of management science and statistics at the University of South Carolina. "Many systems that we've used in the past have been very bad on morale."

Traditional, top-down evaluations "have led to everybody guarding their own behind, trying to run down what everyone else is doing so they'll look better," Hickman adds.

While that type of behavior may escape a supervisor's notice, it doesn't get past peers, managers say.

In a recent study by the Wyatt Co., a nationwide consulting firm, 15 percent of the companies surveyed said they used peer evaluations.

In addition, 26 percent have workers evaluated by customers and 12 percent have supervisors evaluated by subordinates.

Taken all together, it's a process that has become known as the "360-degree evaluation."

But peer review is not without its dangers.

Managers and workers agree that workers sometimes are reluctant to be honestly critical of their peers, especially at the beginning of the process.

At Square D, studies have shown that peer reviews have resulted in a "central norming effect" - almost everyone averages a "good" on his or her evaluation, said Chip Drant, manager of human resources.

While several Square D workers said they like peer review better than the old system, they agreed that some workers undermine the process by going too easy on their peers.

"It's hard for a lot of them to write what they see," says David Scott, a test associate in the low-voltage section. "If they're a close friend, they'll be afraid to write a review honestly.

"You have sort of a buddy-buddy system - `I'll help you, you help me.' "

At Square D, a worker due for a review chooses two peers and the supervisor chooses two others to perform an evaluation.

Those four people, along with the supervisor, evaluate the worker in writing, rating the person on such things as productivity, attendance, team spirit and quality of work.

For some workers, the peer review is used to determine the size of their pay raises.

"You have to be careful who you ask to review you, especially where there's money involved," said Gayle Walton, an assembler and expediter. "But I think most here are fair and honest."

The five scores are averaged, and the supervisor goes over the review with the worker, never indicating which peer said what.

Anonymity is one way to keep the system honest; another is training.

At Square D, all employees have had training on how to do an honest, critical evaluation, how to rate skills and fill out forms, and how to give constructive feedback, Drant said.

The latter is especially important because, in addition to the anonymous reviews, team members frequently talk to each other about how they're doing, in formal meetings or informal conversations.

"If we see a problem, we'll have a group meeting with that person and discuss it," said assembler Roberta Huston. "We'll talk to that person at least twice before taking it to a supervisor."

Supervisors still play a key role in evaluations, experts said. But the ranks of supervisors have thinned in recent years, and managers are no longer paid to simply watch over drones.

"There will always be a need for a manager," said Ron Bridges, human resource manager at Union Camp Corp., paper mill in Eastover, S.C., which employs about 850. "If the manager has some concerns about a peer appraisal, he has a right to discuss it with the team: `I've observed this, but the team hasn't noticed the same thing.' "

At Union Camp, some teams are beginning to evaluate their supervisors as well. Sanchelli, for one, is looking forward to it.

"If we're going to evaluate them on their performance, then I think it's healthy for us to get it, too," he said.

Every workplace with peer review handles it differently.

At Union Camp, team members and the supervisor sit in a group and discuss a worker's performance while that worker waits outside.

When a consensus is reached, the worker returns to the room, and the facilitator goes over what was said, without identifying who said what.

The worker has a chance to respond and to ask questions. If the team can't reach a consensus, the supervisor steps in, something that happened frequently at the beginning of the process but happens rarely now, Sanchelli said.

If the worker receives a "needs improvement" rating in any area, the team is responsible for coming up with an action plan for correcting the problem.

Many companies use peer review as a component of their Total Quality Management programs, the philosophy developed by workplace guru W. Edwards Deming.

Deming believes that workers should have the power to solve their own problems instead of relying on managers. Ironically, though, Deming has not been a proponent of peer evaluation, believing the entire evaluation process is destructive to the team concept.

But most companies want to keep some type of formal review process, for legal reasons if nothing else.

"If you fire someone, you've got to have documentation that they have not been doing a good job," said the University of South Carolina's Hickman.