Performance Appraisals Affect Raises, Promotions, Training ✓ Solved

Performance appraisals affect raises, promotions, training o

Performance appraisals affect raises, promotions, training opportunities, and other personnel actions. If a manager is inept or biased in making the appraisal, how can promotion decisions that stem from the appraisal be defended? Steps to ensure appraisals are legally defensible include: base duties and criteria on job analysis; communicate performance standards in writing; use separate ratings for each performance dimension with formal weighting rather than a single overall rating; include an employee appeals process; ensure no single appraiser has absolute authority; document all information in writing; and provide rater training or written instructions.

To conduct effective appraisal interviews: prepare by reviewing job description and previous appraisals; give employee at least a week's notice; schedule adequate private time; use objective work data and examples; avoid personal criticisms and comparisons; encourage the employee to speak and listen; end with a specific action plan with steps and timeline. Handle defensiveness by recognizing it, not attacking, postponing action if needed, and recognizing your limits. Criticize privately and constructively with examples and ongoing feedback. Written warnings should identify standards, show awareness, specify deficiencies, and document opportunity to correct. Given this guidance, what would you tell Phyllis that she did wrong in appraising Gladys, and what should she do differently?

Paper For Above Instructions

Overview and central recommendation

Phyllis’s appraisal of Gladys appears to violate multiple widely accepted best practices for defensible and effective performance management. My central recommendation is that Phyllis must redesign her appraisal process and interview behavior to be evidence-based, dimension-specific, documented, and corrective rather than subjective or comparative. This involves corrective steps before, during, and after the appraisal interview, plus system-level safeguards to prevent biased outcomes (Aguinis, 2013; Pulakos, 2004).

What Phyllis likely did wrong

  • Relied on a single overall rating: Courts and HR practice reject vague single-number summaries because they conceal the basis for decisions and allow bias to influence outcomes (Cascio & Bernardin, 1981). If Phyllis used a single overall judgment, that undermines defensibility.
  • Failed to base ratings on a job analysis and written standards: If Gladys was terminated after being ranked at the bottom, and standards were not communicated in writing or linked to the job, the decision is vulnerable (EEOC guidance; Pulakos, 2004).
  • Lacked objective, documented evidence: Employment actions must be supported by contemporaneous documentation (written records, performance metrics, warnings). The case described (younger supervisor vs. older subordinate) suggests documentation was insufficient, allowing discriminatory motive to appear influential (Barrett & Kernan, 1987).
  • Used comparison rather than criteria-based evaluation: Comparing Gladys to others (“rankings”) rather than measuring each dimension (quality, quantity, timeliness) invites bias and discourages corrective coaching (Aguinis, 2013).
  • No multi-rater or review process: Allowing one appraiser to determine outcomes creates risk; Phyllis should not have unilateral authority over termination decisions (SHRM legal best practice).
  • Poor interview technique: If Phyllis did not prepare, failed to provide notice, used vague or personal statements, or did not produce an action plan, she missed opportunities to coach and correct performance (London, 2003).

What Phyllis should do differently—concrete steps

The recommended corrective actions fall into three categories: process design, appraisal execution, and post-appraisal follow-up.

1. Redesign appraisal system and documentation

  • Base duties and appraisal criteria on a current job analysis that specifies essential tasks and measurable performance dimensions (Aguinis, 2013).
  • Adopt separate ratings for key dimensions (e.g., quality, quantity, timeliness, teamwork), assign formal weights, and compute a transparent summary score if needed. Avoid a single ambiguous overall rating (Cascio & Bernardin, 1981).
  • Publish and distribute written performance standards at the start of the review period so employees know expectations (Pulakos, 2004).
  • Institute multi-rater reviews, manager calibration sessions, or HR review panels for high-stakes actions (promotions, terminations) to reduce single-rater bias (London et al., 2004).
  • Train raters on the appraisal system and provide simple written instructions and examples of objective evidence to cite (Milkovich et al., 2013).

2. Execute appraisal interviews using evidence-based practices

  • Prepare in advance: review job description, prior appraisals, objective performance data, and specific incidents to discuss (Pulakos, 2004).
  • Notify the employee in writing at least a week ahead so they can prepare; schedule a private, uninterrupted meeting of sufficient length (London, 2003).
  • Use objective work metrics and documented examples rather than personal judgments or co-worker comparisons. Frame feedback against standards (e.g., “Reports should be completed within 10 days; your average is 18 days”) (Aguinis, 2013).
  • Encourage two‑way dialogue, ask open questions, and actively listen. Restate and summarize the employee’s points to ensure mutual understanding (Harvard Business Review on feedback).
  • Conclude with a written action plan that lists specific performance targets, development steps, resources, responsible parties, and measurable timelines. Secure employee acknowledgment and documentation (Pulakos, 2004).

3. Protect legal defensibility and fairness after the interview

  • Issue progressive written warnings when performance is deficient. Each written warning must reference the standard, show the employee knew the standard, document deficiencies, and offer a clear opportunity and resources to improve (EEOC; SHRM guidance).
  • Maintain an appeals process that allows the employee to comment and seek review. Preserve all notes and evidence in personnel files to demonstrate consistency and nondiscrimination (Barrett & Kernan, 1987).
  • Ensure personnel actions are reviewed by HR or a cross-functional committee before termination or promotion to corroborate the decision and remove sole discretion (Aguinis, 2013).

How these changes would alter Phyllis’s handling of Gladys

If Phyllis had followed these steps, her appraisal of Gladys would be grounded in documented standards and objective evidence, discussed in a constructive interview with a clear improvement plan, and supported by progressive written warnings if necessary. Multiple reviewers or HR oversight would reduce the appearance of age bias. Even if termination became necessary after documented, unsuccessful remediation, the organization would have a defensible record showing legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the action (Cascio & Bernardin, 1981; Pulakos, 2004).

Conclusion

Phyllis’s appraisal process should shift from subjective rankings and unilateral decisions to a structured, documented, and corrective system. Implementing job‑based criteria, dimensioned ratings, objective evidence, rater training, multi-rater review, and documented action plans/warnings will improve employee development outcomes and protect the organization from legal exposure (Aguinis, 2013; EEOC). For Gladys, these changes increase fairness, transparency, and the likelihood of performance improvement or, if necessary, produce a legally defensible termination pathway.

References

  • Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance Management (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  • Pulakos, E. D. (2004). Performance Management: A Roadmap for Developing, Implementing and Evaluating Performance Management Systems. SHRM Foundation.
  • Cascio, W. F., & Bernardin, H. J. (1981). Implications of performance appraisal litigation for personnel decisions. Personnel Psychology.
  • London, M. (2003). Job Feedback: Giving, Seeking, and Using Feedback for Performance Improvement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • London, M., Mone, E., & Scott, J. (2004). Performance management and assessment: Methods for improved rater accuracy and employee goal setting. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 319–336.
  • Barrett, G., & Kernan, M. (1987). Performance appraisal and terminations: A review of court decisions. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 489–504.
  • EEOC. (n.d.). Performance Appraisals and Discrimination. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov
  • Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). (2016). Legal Issues in Performance Management. https://www.shrm.org
  • Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M., & Gerhart, B. (2013). Compensation (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Buckingham, M., & Goodall, A. (2015). Reinventing Performance Management. Harvard Business Review.

Related Assignments