Use Your Module Readings To Respond To The Following
Use Your Module Readings To Respond To The Following
Use your module readings to respond to the following: Do you think all the competencies listed in your module readings are realistic benchmarks to expect from every employee? Why or why not? Choose an appraisal system that did not work well in your experience. According to the descriptions in your textbook, how would the system be categorized? Why? Explain why you think the system did not work well in that particular company. Write your initial response in a minimum of 300 words. Apply APA standards to citation of sources.
Paper For Above instruction
The question of whether all competencies outlined in module readings serve as realistic benchmarks for every employee is multifaceted. Competencies such as communication skills, teamwork, problem-solving, and adaptability are often considered universal; however, expecting every employee to meet these benchmarks uniformly can be unrealistic due to diverse roles, individual abilities, and contextual factors. For instance, a frontline customer service representative might need exceptional communication skills, while a data analyst's core competency centers on analytical thinking. Therefore, although these competencies are valuable, expecting them to be equally emphasized across all roles can overlook specificity and individual differences (Robbins & Judge, 2019). Furthermore, organizational culture and job design influence the feasibility of such benchmarks. Unrealistic expectations can demotivate employees and hinder performance, emphasizing the importance of tailoring competencies to job requirements and individual capacities.
In examining appraisal systems that may not function effectively, the traditional ranking and forced distribution system often comes to mind. In my experience, a company implemented a forced ranking system that categorized employees into predetermined performance tiers, compelling managers to rate a specified percentage of staff as low, average, or high performers. According to the textbook, such a system would be categorized as a "comparative" appraisal method because it evaluates employees relative to one another (DeNisi & Smith, 2014). The primary issue with this approach was its failure to recognize individual performance standards and contextual factors; it encouraged unhealthy competition and demotivation among employees rather than fostering collaboration and development.
The system did not work well because it created a toxic work environment where employees felt constrained by the rigid benchmarks, leading to decreased morale and engagement. Managers felt pressured to fit performance into the forced distribution, often ignoring actual performance nuances. Employees who were rated as average or below were unfairly penalized, and high performers might have been undervalued if the distribution quotas were unmet. Moreover, the system's focus on comparisons rather than individual improvement discouraged intrinsic motivation and personal growth (Cascio & Boudreau, 2016). Thus, the lack of flexibility and emphasis on relative performance rather than absolute achievements contributed to the system’s ineffectiveness in the company.
References
- Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. (2016). The search for global competence: From international HR to talent management. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 589–601.
- DeNisi, A. S., & Smith, C. E. (2014). Performance appraisal, performance management, and firm-level performance: A review, a proposed model, and new directions. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1549–1574.
- Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational Behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.