Qat Work
Evaluating Performance Evaluations
In the given scenario, an engineer was hired two years ago at a mid-sized manufacturing plant. The engineer is a bright, detail-oriented person and a hard worker who has suggested changes at the plant that resulted in considerable savings on manufacturing energy costs and eliminated a significant safety hazard that had been overlooked by the previous engineer. Even with all of this, some co-workers resent the engineer because of clashing personalities, and they often play practical jokes on the engineer.
It is time for the engineer’s second annual performance review. The plant manager is considering skipping this review because the first annual review ended with the engineer angrily exclaiming that, as the only trained engineer in the company, there was no one—including the manager—who was qualified to evaluate the engineer’s work. The engineer had little confidence in the company’s overall approach to performance evaluation and was particularly upset that most of the rating scales focused on personal characteristics and relationships with co-workers. After learning about the 360-degree evaluation method, the plant manager wonders if a 360-degree approach might be a good way to handle the engineer’s review.
Using the plant’s current performance evaluation form, the plant manager starts to make some tentative decisions on how to rate the engineer this year. The first item is friendliness. The manager gives a medium rating on that scale because the engineer seems standoffish with co-workers. The next item is neatness of workspace. The engineer’s desk is always cluttered and sometimes piled high with papers or memos, so a low-medium rating seems justified. It is more difficult for the manager to give a rating on attitude. The engineer always seems to complete important tasks as needed, and they are usually done well; however, the engineer frequently demonstrates a poor attitude toward co-workers and does not pay close
In the given scenario, an engineer was hired two years ago at a mid-sized manufacturing plant. The engineer is a bright, detail-oriented person and a hard worker who has suggested changes at the plant that resulted in considerable savings on manufacturing energy costs and eliminated a significant safety hazard that had been overlooked by the previous engineer. Even with all of this, some co-workers resent the engineer because of clashing personalities, and they often play practical jokes on the engineer.
It is time for the engineer’s second annual performance review. The plant manager is considering skipping this review because the first annual review ended with the engineer angrily exclaiming that, as the only trained engineer in the company, there was no one—including the manager—who was qualified to evaluate the engineer’s work. The engineer had little confidence in the company’s overall approach to performance evaluation and was particularly upset that most of the rating scales focused on personal characteristics and relationships with co-workers. After learning about the 360-degree evaluation method, the plant manager wonders if a 360-degree approach might be a good way to handle the engineer’s review.
Using the plant’s current performance evaluation form, the plant manager starts to make some tentative decisions on how to rate the engineer this year. The first item is friendliness. The manager gives a medium rating on that scale because the engineer seems standoffish with co-workers. The next item is neatness of workspace. The engineer’s desk is always cluttered and sometimes piled high with papers or memos, so a low-medium rating seems justified. It is more difficult for the manager to give a rating on attitude. The engineer always seems to complete important tasks as needed, and they are usually done well; however, the engineer frequently demonstrates a poor attitude toward co-workers and does not pay close
References: Robbins, S. & Judge, T. (2007). Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall. pp. 618-625