CASE STUDY

Appraising the Secretaries of Sweet water University

SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

This case study is about the newly appointed vice president, Rob Winchester and about the difficulties he faced shortly after his university career began .Rob's boss, Sweetwater's president assigned him the first task of improving the performance appraisal system used to evaluate secretarial and clerical performance. In this case, the main difficulty is the performance appraisal which was directly tied to salary increases given at the end of the year. The graphic rating forms which were used to evaluate clerical staff were not efficient as these forms never gave the true evaluation of performance. So, to change the faulty performance appraisal system two Sweetwater experts gave their recommendations to solve the problem. The first recommendation was not to use graphic rating forms as this rating method did not provide any clear picture about the good or bad performance. The second recommendation was not to force administrators to arbitrarily rate at least half their secretaries as something less than excellent. The recommendations given by the experts were good and made sense but these recommendations created problems like efficacy of any graphic rating forms if it is compared to the original forced ranking approach used by Rob and what should be the basis of performance appraisal.

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE:

The job of Rob Winchester was to completely change the performance rating system of the university because the previous system was dealing with high staff turnover ratio and also the process didn’t look just. The initial performance appraisal form was filled by administrators. Administrators had to rate their secretaries on the basis of work they have done. The problem with this form was that every administrator used to rate their secretary as excellent so as to avoid staff turnover and on the other hand if the secretaries were not given hikes in their salaries they were moving to another job in the private sector as the private was giving them better salaries than Sweetwater U. According to the research the success of any performance appraisal system was directly related to the human response given to them by the staff. In this case, the response was not good as the staff that doesn’t get good appraisal leaves the university. Having new staff every year was also good not a good choice for the university. So it didn’t leave any choice for the administrators but to give most of the secretaries “excellent” to keep them on the job. The administrators were not given anything for the good work done by their staff or for ranking them

properly. Thus administrators were not much interested in what their secretaries are getting. So they started giving excellent to as much secretaries as possible to keep them away from leaving the job. With this thing one more problem came up with the system was that it was letting even the incompetent secretaries to enjoy the benefits like increments in the salaries. This subsequently led to the decrease in the overall quality of the work. The Appraisal form completely lacked procedural justice, as no one checked that whether the given ratings are on performance or not. Also the secretary given a very good rating is really worth it or not. Lack of transparency in the system was the basic flaw in this system. This flaw leads to another problem which was “Unclear Standards”. The form only consists of four levels on which the secretary can be graded i.e. “Excellent”, “Good”, “Fair” and “Poor”. Also the traits on which secretaries were to be marked were unclear. The given standards lacked in the clarity and hence these parameters used in the rating may be perceived differently by every person. Like, “Good” can be perceived by someone as “just next to excellent”, but any other person might perceive it as “just better than fair”. Therefore the administrator who is rating might not be happy with the work done by the secretary but the secretary might think that it was the best work done by him.( p. app1).By competition among secretaries, jealousy and race will reduce the efficiency of staff.The new appraisal system created by experts advised Rob not to relate salary hike with performance appraisal. This idea might be good when the appraisal system is not efficient. But salary hike is a big motivational force behind every employee working for a company. If the secretaries will not get salary hike for doing good work, then their interest in work might get affected and their efficiency will reduce. The new form created by experts suggests giving points to secretaries on different criteria. This might turn out to be good as numbers better describe performance than words. Performance Appraisal Of A Company Introduction The Vice President Winchester has been given the task of creating a new performance appraisal system for the secretarial and clerical staff of Sweetwater University as the current evaluation system does not satisfy a good performance appraisal system. The standards presently being used are very unclear and do not give a good view of how the job is being performed. Moreover the administrators are being very biased and are rating their employees above their real performance. Mr. Winchester has taken advice from performance appraisal experts who helped him address the issues. Validity of experts’ recommendations The experts have recommended that new more detailed rating forms should be used. This means that the job should be analysed so that the different aspects of the work done by secretaries are assessed, such as communication, typing speed, quality of the job done, initiative taken by the secretaries, creativity, integrity, team work, behavior and productivity.

Question no 01 :

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?

Answer:

No, I think the experts recommendations will not be sufficient to get most of the administrators to fill out the rating forms properly because:The administrators might be biased and convinced to rate "excellent". This will not improve ability and skills of secretaries and clerks. A Few administrators want to be unpopular to his subordinates and he will hesitate to rate the optimum marks. I think the following additional actions will be necessary: Managers may opt for generic dimensions such communications, team work, know-how and quality. Another option is to appraise performance based on the jobs actual duties. There should provide performance appraisal software so that the administrator can only put the data and the authority can only find the ultimate total score and can easily evaluate.

I don’t feel that the experts’ recommendations will be sufficient to get most of the administrators to fill out the rating forms properly.   The managers would be pleased with the recommendation to rescind Mr. Winchester’s forced ranking technique but would definitely challenge   the idea of not tying salary increases   to appraisal forms because it’s what they’ve always done and it is the only way they feel they can provide competitive wages for secretaries. The issues of providing invalid feedback to   each secretary has been a standing practice for quite some time, therefore it would be ludicrous to think that   a practice imbedded in the organization’s culture would simply cease to exist per a recommendation. Administrators must understand and value the new process. In order for the recommendations to be accepted and practiced Mr. Winchester will need to educate administrators on the new process and why it is necessary then provide training to improve the administrators’ appraisal skills and monitor the effectiveness of the new appraisal form to ensure that that they are operating in a manner that aides in the success of organizational goals. In order for appraisal techniques to be effective administrators must be made aware of potential problems that may exist during the appraisal process such as leniency/strictness, bias and central tendency. According to research by R. Murray, if people understand and believe in a program and see it as a means of helping themselves to accomplish their own personal desires through contributions to organizational goals, they will use it and feel committed to it

Question no 02 :

Do you think that Vice President Winchester would be better off dropping graphic rating forms, substituting instead one of the other technique we discussed in this chapter, such as a ranking method ? Why?

Answer

Yes, because using graphic rating forms have several problems such as unclear standards, halo effect, central tendency, leniency, bias etc. Instead, the ranking method is much better to get the desired result. Because in this system employees are ranked from best to worst on a particular trait. Alternation ranking method avoids central tendency.

Rob Winchester decided to put a hold bar on number of secretaries getting anything aboveaverage. This new forced ranking system was done because administrators were very lenient in ranking their staff. But forced ranking system is very strict and it is unfair for those who have a very good staff. New forced ranking method might create a very unhealthy, cut-throat competition among staff and it will damage the distributive fairness in the system. The distribution of the budget for appraisal should be fair to keep the staff satisfied.Staff satisfaction is a big criterion for any organization to work.

Question 3:

What performance appraisal system would you develop for the secretaries if you were Rob Winchester? Defend your answer.

Answer :

The main objective of a performance appraisal system is to develop good performance from the employees and to raise production. Using a performance appraisal system allows employees to see the level they are working at and managers are able to get information from employees so

they can help make their jobs more successful. These appraisals should be consistent throughout the whole process and in a consistent timely manner. There are several types of appraisals, some examples include; essay, standardized scales, use of critical incidents, management by objectives, it is always better to pick the right format for your organization.   During an appraisal, the employee is evaluated on job performances and is thought to improve job performance and show any areas that are in need for improvement. Clear goals should also be established for this appraisal system, so that it may be clear to every employee. These goals should be achievable goals as well as the goals being adjusted to meet the needs of individual employees so that there is a better chance of the employee achieving their goals.   There should be some sort of a reward system in place following these appraisals for the employees that have exceptional performance or that have really shown improvement, this will help the employee strive to achieve their goal in a manner in which they also can be proud of their self. Having the employee be involved in their own appraisal is also a great way to get the employees own views and opinions as to where he/she is strong and weak, this helps them to see themselves grow or decline in their job performances, and be involved a great deal more with the whole process.