Review The Case Application Appraising The Secretaries At SW ✓ Solved

Review The Case Application Appraising The Secretaries At Sweetwater

Review the case application: APPRAISING THE SECRETARIES AT SWEETWATER U at the end of Chapter 9 of your textbook. 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.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The effectiveness of performance appraisal systems is crucial for fair employee evaluation and organizational development. In the context of Sweetwater University, the traditional graphic rating scale system for secretarial staff has proven problematic, motivating the exploration of alternative methods recommended by experts. This paper assesses whether these recommendations are sufficient, considers additional actions necessary, evaluates the potential of alternative appraisal techniques like ranking methods, and proposes a comprehensive performance appraisal system suitable for the secretaries at Sweetwater University.

Assessment of Experts’ Recommendations

The experts’ suggestion to replace the existing vague graphic rating form with a more detailed, specific form appears to be a constructive step. Clear criteria and defined standards are essential for accurate performance evaluations (Pulakos, 2009). However, whether this alone will ensure honest and accurate ratings from administrators is questionable. The primary challenge is the ingrained tendency among supervisors to rate all staff as ‘excellent’ to secure maximum salary raises (Bretz & Milkovich, 1990). Therefore, while better forms can improve the quality of ratings, they may not eliminate biases driven by organizational incentives.

Additional Actions Necessary

To enhance the effectiveness of the appraisal process, additional actions are essential. First, removing the linkage between appraisals and salary increases is critical to foster honest feedback. Decoupling performance ratings from compensation ensures managers evaluate employees based on merit rather than strategic rating inflation. Furthermore, training supervisors in performance management can help reduce subjectivity and increase consistency (Aguinis, 2013). Implementing a 360-degree feedback system can also provide broader insights, minimizing individual rating biases and promoting fairness (Lepsinger & Lucia, 2009).

The Use of Alternative Appraisal Techniques

Replacing graphic rating scales with ranking methods, such as forced distribution or paired comparison, might mitigate central tendency bias and rating inflation (Grote & Bock, 2008). Ranking methods force supervisors to differentiate performance levels more distinctly, which can be more accurate and facilitate more meaningful feedback (DeNisi & Smith, 2014). However, these techniques also have limitations, such as potentially demotivating employees ranked lower and creating unhealthy competition. Choosing an appropriate method depends on organizational culture and the desired outcomes of performance management.

Proposed Performance Appraisal System for Sweetwater Secretaries

If I were Rob Winchester, I would develop a multi-faceted performance management system rooted in clarity, fairness, and developmental feedback. It would include:

• An objective-based evaluation framework focusing on specific, measurable goals aligned with organizational objectives.
• A hybrid appraisal approach combining self-assessment, supervisor evaluation, and peer feedback to reduce biases and increase validity.
• Regular informal reviews to supplement annual assessments, promoting continuous performance improvement.
• Separate compensation decisions from appraisal ratings to encourage honest evaluations without fear of immediate financial repercussions.

This system would facilitate transparent, fair assessments, align individual efforts with university goals, and foster professional development among secretaries.

Conclusion

In summary, while the experts’ recommendations mark a significant improvement, they are unlikely to be fully sufficient without other strategic actions. Decoupling appraisal ratings from compensation, implementing supervisor training, and adopting a more comprehensive evaluation framework are crucial to achieving a fair and effective performance appraisal system at Sweetwater University. The combination of objective criteria, multi-source feedback, and ongoing development initiatives can enhance the credibility and utility of employee evaluations, ultimately benefiting both staff and organizational performance.

References

• Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed.). Pearson.
• Bretz, R. D., & Milkovich, G. T. (1990). Costly evaluations: The effects of appraisal method, bias, and reward allocation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 261–268.
• DeNisi, A. S., & Smith, C. E. (2014). Performance appraisal, performance management, and firm-level performance: A review, a framework, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1295–1318.
• Grote, D., & Bock, M. (2008). Real performance management: Changing the way we manage performance. Harvard Business Review.
• Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, A. D. (2009). The art and science of 360-degree feedback. Pfeiffer.
• Pulakos, E. D. (2009). Performance management: A new approach for driving business results. Wiley-Blackwell.