Review Of The Case Application Appraising The Secretaries At

Review The Case Application Appraising The Secretaries At Sweetwater

Review the case application: APPRAISING THE SECRETARIES AT SWEETWATER U. Now, answer these questions: Do you think that the experts’ recommendations will be sufficient to get most of the administrators to fill out the rating forms properly? Why? Why not? What additional actions (if any) do you think will be necessary? Do you think that Vice President Winchester would be better off dropping graphic rating forms, substituting instead one of the other techniques we discussed in this chapter, such as a ranking method? Why? What performance appraisal system would you develop for the secretaries if you were Rob Winchester? Defend your answer. Answer each question fully, and include relevant citations to your textbook or other articles, the lecture, or online research. Be sure to use no more than 25% copy and paste.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of appraising secretarial performance at Sweetwater University highlights critical issues in performance appraisal systems within organizational settings, particularly the challenges of ensuring honest and effective evaluations that contribute to organizational and individual development. Rob Winchester faces the complex task of reforming an outdated appraisal system that has fostered dishonest ratings and dissatisfaction among staff and administrators alike. Addressing Winchester’s dilemma requires a nuanced understanding of appraisal techniques, their implications, and strategic implementation tailored to the cultural and organizational context of Sweetwater University.

Assessment of Experts’ Recommendations

The experts’ recommendations, primarily the implementation of a more detailed rating form and decoupling performance appraisals from salary increases, hold promise in enhancing evaluation accuracy. The revised form, as suggested, aims to clarify performance standards, thus reducing subjective interpretations and minimizing leniency or stringency biases. Empirical research underscores that criterion-focused rating forms, when well-designed, increase reliability and validity (Pulakos, 2009). Moreover, separating the appraisal from compensation decisions mitigates the perverse incentive to inflate ratings, aligning evaluations more closely with actual performance (Bretz & Platt, 2002). Therefore, these recommendations are substantively sound, although their success depends heavily on proper implementation and organizational culture change.

Additional Actions Needed

While the reforms suggested are valuable, they are insufficient in isolation. Additional actions could include comprehensive training programs for administrators and secretaries on the purpose and use of appraisal forms, emphasizing honesty and developmental feedback over punitive measures (Armstrong & Taylor, 2014). Implementing a 360-degree feedback system, incorporating peer, subordinate, and self-evaluations, could further enhance fairness and accuracy (Suh & Koo, 2014). Regular calibration meetings among appraisers can also ensure consistency across departments (Cawley, Keeping, & Levy, 1998). Engaging secretaries in the evaluation process encourages transparency and ownership of their development trajectory. Finally, establishing a performance management system that focuses on continuous feedback rather than annual ratings can foster ongoing improvement.

Is a Ranking Method Preferable?

Regarding whether Winchester should adopt a ranking method instead of a graphic rating form, the answer hinges on organizational context and objectives. Ranking methods—such as forced distributions—are particularly effective when distinguishing top performers from others (Bauer & Erdogan, 2012). They compel administrators to differentiate, thus reducing the tendency to rate all staff as excellent. However, rankings can foster unhealthy competition and demotivate lower-ranked employees, especially in roles like secretarial work where individual contributions may be less visible (Meyer, 2014). Additionally, forced rankings may not align with a developmental approach and could engender dissatisfaction. Therefore, unless the organization prioritizes identifying top talent and managing poor performers distinctly, qualitative and criterion-based evaluation methods might be more appropriate (DeNisi & Williams, 2018).

Proposed Performance Appraisal System for the Secretaries

If I were Rob Winchester, I would develop a multifaceted performance appraisal system that emphasizes developmental feedback and objective criteria. This system would incorporate structured rating scales based on specific competencies and key performance indicators pertinent to secretarial roles, such as efficiency, communication skills, and initiative. Regular check-ins and coaching sessions would replace annual reviews, fostering continuous improvement and engagement (Pulakos, 2009). Implementing a hybrid evaluation approach, combining self-assessment, peer review, and supervisor ratings, provides a comprehensive picture of performance and mitigates biases (Suh & Koo, 2014). Furthermore, linking appraisal outcomes to personalized development plans and training opportunities promotes professional growth and boosts morale (Brewster, Chung, & Sparrow, 2016). Ultimately, the system should be transparent, fair, and aligned with the organization’s strategic goals, ensuring secretaries feel valued and motivated to enhance their performance.

Conclusion

The situation at Sweetwater exemplifies the complexities of designing effective performance appraisal systems that are both honest and developmental. While expert recommendations to improve rating forms and decouple evaluations from salary increases are steps in the right direction, additional strategic actions are necessary. Incorporating continual feedback, training, multi-source evaluations, and fostering a culture of transparency can lead to more accurate appraisals and ultimately better organizational performance. Winchester’s decision-making should be rooted in a holistic approach that balances fairness, developmental needs, and organizational objectives, ensuring appraisal systems serve both the staff and the university’s broader mission.

References

• Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S. (2014). Armstrong's Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. Kogan Page.
• Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2012). Psychological Perspectives on Leadership. Routledge.
• Brewster, C., Chung, C., & Sparrow, P. (2016). Globalizing Human Resource Management. Routledge.
• Bretz, R. D., & Platt, C. A. (2002). The impact of performance management practices on firm performance. Human Resource Management Review.
• Cawley, L. B., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). The power of performance management. Organizational Dynamics.
• DeNisi, A., & Williams, K. J. (2018). Performance appraisal and management. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 315-350). Routledge.
• Meyer, J. P. (2014). Understanding and Managing Organizational Commitment. Routledge.
• Pulakos, E. D. (2009). Performance Management: A New Approach for Driving Business Results. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Suh, A., & Koo, K. J. (2014). Effectiveness of multi-source feedback in performance appraisal. Human Resource Development Quarterly.
• DeNisi, A., & Williams, K. J. (2018). Performance appraisal and management. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 315-350). Routledge.