Politics of Performance Appraisal
Contents
Synthesis 2 Point of View 2 Statement of the Problem 2 Statement of Objectives 3 Areas of Consideration (Analysis and Assumptions) 3 Alternative Courses of Action 8 Recommendation 12 Evaluation of Alternative Courses of Action 13 Implementation Plan 15 Learning Points 17 References 18
Synthesis
The case revolves around four friends Max Steadman, Jim Coburn, Lynne Sims, and Tom Hamilton. The group are accustomed to having an after work get-together to relax, to exchange latest office gossip, and share advice on job-related dilemmas. They are management employees at the manufacturing division of Eckel Industries, a Minneapolis-based manufacturer of arc-welding equipment and employer of about 2,000 people. Their group is a bit at the extremes when it comes to their work tenure with Tom at his novice year and Max steadily at his twelfth. Nonetheless, the friendship has been well-grounded with Lynne, Jim and Max having attended undergraduate course on business at the same university and all four of them as participants of an Eckel Management seminar a year ago.
The week’s topic of discussion was about the recent annual review process at the company wherein each of them, as managers, evaluated and discussed with their subordinates the rating they have given for their performances for the past year. Each of them has some words about the performance appraisal method (graphic rating scales) being employed throughout the plant. Tom, having his baptism of fire into the process, expressed difficulty especially when one’s personal biases get in the way of the process. Jim spoke about concerns on performance recall and that fine-tuning appraisal could be motivating for one’s subordinates. Lynne, on the other hand, wanted to be objective as much as possible but is also a little comfortable with inflating ratings if it meant showing empathy for one’s people. Max had an even more interesting observation on the topic
Synthesis 2 Point of View 2 Statement of the Problem 2 Statement of Objectives 3 Areas of Consideration (Analysis and Assumptions) 3 Alternative Courses of Action 8 Recommendation 12 Evaluation of Alternative Courses of Action 13 Implementation Plan 15 Learning Points 17 References 18
Synthesis
The case revolves around four friends Max Steadman, Jim Coburn, Lynne Sims, and Tom Hamilton. The group are accustomed to having an after work get-together to relax, to exchange latest office gossip, and share advice on job-related dilemmas. They are management employees at the manufacturing division of Eckel Industries, a Minneapolis-based manufacturer of arc-welding equipment and employer of about 2,000 people. Their group is a bit at the extremes when it comes to their work tenure with Tom at his novice year and Max steadily at his twelfth. Nonetheless, the friendship has been well-grounded with Lynne, Jim and Max having attended undergraduate course on business at the same university and all four of them as participants of an Eckel Management seminar a year ago.
The week’s topic of discussion was about the recent annual review process at the company wherein each of them, as managers, evaluated and discussed with their subordinates the rating they have given for their performances for the past year. Each of them has some words about the performance appraisal method (graphic rating scales) being employed throughout the plant. Tom, having his baptism of fire into the process, expressed difficulty especially when one’s personal biases get in the way of the process. Jim spoke about concerns on performance recall and that fine-tuning appraisal could be motivating for one’s subordinates. Lynne, on the other hand, wanted to be objective as much as possible but is also a little comfortable with inflating ratings if it meant showing empathy for one’s people. Max had an even more interesting observation on the topic
References: Gürbüz, S. andDikmenli, O. (2007). Performance appraisal biases in a public organization: An emprical study. KocaeliÜniversitesiSosyalBilimlerEnstitüsüDergisi (13) 2007 / 1 : 108-138. Retrieved February 10, 2013. http://kosbed.kocaeli.edu.tr/sayi13/gurbuz-dikmenli.pdf Koenig, D.How to eliminate bias in performance appraisal.Retrieved February 10, 2013. Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B., and Wright, P. (2010). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B., and Wright, P. (2008). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage Thornton, S. Objectives of performance appraisal.Retrieved February 10, 2013.