In the world of theoretical physics there is an old joke:
A farmer is having issues with one of the cows on his dairy farm producing milk, so he asks for help from a top physicist from the nearby University. The physicist visits the farm, takes notes, observes the cow, takes more notes, and leaves. Six months later he calls the farmer and says: "I have I have a solution to your problem. First, let's assume a spherical cow...."
If you've recently been promoted into a management role, you might think your primary goal is to manage the functions within your particular department, whether it is operations, marketing, production, or some other area within an arts organization. Presumably you were put in the role because you possess the requisite expertise in a given area and have the training or education to show for it. However, while you may have been promoted because of your expertise, your job has markedly changed. It now matters less what you know about your area of expertise than whether you have developed the requisite skills to manage the people who work for you. This is particularly true if you hope to advance your career in the arts. As you move up the organizational chart you'll be managing people with areas of expertise that you do not possess. And this is where problems can arise, both for the manager and the organization. A manager that is otherwise a competent worker becomes the manager that has been promoted to a "level of respective incompetence," otherwise known as the Peter Principle. Without fully developed people management skills, the organization has created the recipe for bad managers in the workplace.
Unfortunately, some organizations spend little effort in training managers to be good at managing people. Instead, the fine folks in Human Resources strive to create systems that seek to systematize how to manage people through various rules, policies, and procedures. This is particularly evident when it comes to employee evaluations. HR people prefer evaluation criteria that favors objective and measurable outcomes, because they are concerned with inequities or inconsistencies in how managers across the organization evaluate their employees. But taking a cookie cutter approach across an entire organization is fraught with problems. For example, if the performance of a porter is measured on how often they empty a trash can, then other aspects of their work may suffer if they focus on just that one thing in order to get a successful rating. Similarly, if a manager is held to a specific performance goal, what does that look like when the balance of their job is to promote creativity and collaboration within their team?
Despite the goals of the average HR department to level the playing field, I maintain that there is no "one size fits all" employee. When it comes to employee evaluations, it can be tempting to make assumptions or rely on stereotypes, such as assuming that all employees with a certain degree or background are equally skilled. Relying on assumptions can result in unfair evaluations and missed opportunities to recognize individual strengths and areas for improvement. Therefore, it's important to approach employee evaluations with an open mind and gather data on each individual's performance to make informed assessments.
In the absence of organizational management training, it is incumbent on you to develop good people management skills. In short, always keep in mind that there are no round cows.