Review The Attached Appraising The Secretaries At Sweetwater

Review the attached Appraising the Secretaries at Sweetwater U case

Review the three questions at the end of the case. Think about how you might answer those questions. 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. Include your own opinions, thoughts, examples, and experiences as support for your ideas.

Paper For Above instruction

The case "Appraising the Secretaries at Sweetwater University" presents a scenario where the effectiveness of performance appraisal systems significantly impacts administrative efficiency and employee morale. It highlights common challenges in employee evaluation processes, especially the tendency for rating forms to be filled out inaccurately or inconsistently. Analyzing the questions raised in the case provides insight into the feasibility of recommended strategies, alternative appraisal techniques, and the design of a suitable performance appraisal system tailored to the secretaries' needs.

Effectiveness of Experts’ Recommendations in Ensuring Proper Form Completion

The first question concerns whether the experts' recommendations will sufficiently motivate administrators to properly complete rating forms. Typically, recommendations such as training sessions, clear guidelines, and prompts aim to improve the accuracy and consistency of evaluations (Cascio, 2018). However, their success largely depends on the administrators’ understanding of the evaluation process, their commitment to fairness, and the organizational culture that promotes accountability. For instance, if administrators perceive the rating forms as bureaucratic exercises with little consequence, they might still fill them out perfunctorily, regardless of the recommendations (Kuvaas, 2006). Additionally, if the recommendations do not address underlying issues—such as biases, time constraints, or lack of clarity—they are unlikely to be sufficient.

Additional actions that might bolster proper form completion include implementing a system of accountability where ratings are reviewed by a supervisor or HR personnel, offering incentives for accuracy, and providing ongoing training that emphasizes the importance of fair and objective evaluations (Pulakos, 2009). Incorporating 360-degree feedback could also mitigate biases and facilitate more comprehensive assessments (Lepsinger & Lucia, 2009). Ultimately, the success of the recommendations hinges on their integration into a broader system that values and enforces accurate appraisal practices.

Consideration of Alternative Appraisal Techniques

The second question evaluates whether Vice President Winchester should abandon graphic rating forms in favor of alternative methods such as ranking. Graphic rating scales, while simple and easy to administer, have notable limitations, including susceptibility to leniency bias and difficulty in distinguishing between performance levels (Baird & Sweeney, 2007). Ranking methods, on the other hand, force evaluators to prioritize employees relative to each other, providing clearer differentiation of performance (Appelbaum, 2016).

However, ranking also has drawbacks, including potential issues with fairness and motivation, especially if employees perceive the process as highly competitive or subjective (Cardy & Dobbins, 2011). In this context, Winchester might benefit from considering more comprehensive techniques such as Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) or Management by Objectives (MBO). These methods not only address some limitations of graphic scales but also link performance to specific behaviors or measurable goals, promoting fairness and clarity (Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). Ultimately, selecting an appraisal technique should consider the organizational culture, the nature of the work, and the preferences of both managers and employees.

Designing an Effective Performance Appraisal System for Secretaries

If tasked with developing a performance appraisal system for the secretaries at Sweetwater U, I would advocate for a hybrid approach combining elements of BARS and goal-based evaluations. This system would include specific performance criteria aligned with the secretaries' roles, such as organizational skills, communication effectiveness, and adaptability. Incorporating BARS ensures that appraisals are based on observable behaviors with clear rating anchors, reducing ambiguity and bias (Smith & Kendall, 1963).

In addition, setting specific, measurable goals through Management by Objectives (MBO) would motivate secretaries by linking evaluation to tangible outcomes (Drucker, 1954). Regular feedback sessions, both formal and informal, facilitate continuous improvement and reinforce accountability (London, 2003). Training managers and supervisors in delivering constructive feedback is crucial to foster a developmental climate that emphasizes growth rather than punitive assessments.

Furthermore, integrating self-assessment and peer review components can broaden perspectives and increase employee engagement (Davis, 2012). This participative approach promotes fairness and ownership of the appraisal process, which can enhance performance and job satisfaction. Overall, the system I propose aligns with best practices in performance management, emphasizes fairness and clarity, and supports development tailored to the secretaries’ roles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while expert recommendations are a valuable starting point, their effectiveness depends on holistic implementation that considers organizational culture, training, and accountability mechanisms. Transitioning to alternative appraisal methods like ranking or behavioral scales can address some limitations of graphic rating forms if carefully integrated. Developing a comprehensive, behaviorally anchored, and goal-oriented appraisal system tailored to the secretaries at Sweetwater U will likely yield the best results in motivating accurate ratings, fostering development, and improving overall performance.

References

• Appelbaum, S. H. (2016). Human Resource Management. Sage Publications.
• Baird, B. N., & Sweeney, P. D. (2007). Performance appraisal: Traditional, modern, and innovative approaches. Journal of Management Development, 26(4), 359-372.
• Cascio, W. F. (2018). Managing Human Resources. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (2011). Performance Management: Concepts, Skills, and Exercises. Routledge.
• Davis, S. (2012). Employee Engagement and Organizational Performance. Business Expert Press.
• Drucker, P. F. (1954). The Practice of Management. Harper & Brothers.
• Kuvaas, B. (2006). Work performance, affective commitment, and work motivation: The roles of pay administration and pay level. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 365-385.
• Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, A. D. (2009). The Art and Science of 360 Degree Feedback. Pfeiffer.
• London, M. (2003). Job Feedback: Giving, Seeking, and Using Feedback for Performance Improvement. Routledge.
• Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1991). Performance Appraisal: An Organizational Perspective. Allyn & Bacon.
• Pulakos, E. D. (2009). Improving performance management: A time for change. Human Resource Management, 48(2), 179-186.