Performance Assessment: When Good Reviews Go Bad

According to Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright (2010) performance management systems must help the organization meet its' business objectives and serve as "a basis for developing employees' knowledge and skills" (p.251). Performance Multiplier and Rypple help the organization meet its' business objectives by keeping employees on track on a regular basis. Performance Multiplier has employees set Library Solution - BrainMass 11/6/15, 7:16 AM https://brainmass.com/student/library-solution?sgr_id=3939039 Page 3 of 3 Poor Great weekly and quarterly goals, an important function in making sure employees are working toward organizational objectives. Performance Multiplier would help employees understand what is specifically expected of them and help them adjust their behavior to meet these expectations. Rypple allows regular feedback so that employees can shape their behavior in an ongoing manner. In this way, the tools fit with strategy and validity. However, there is concern that Rypple's feedback, while specific, may be anonymous. This may mean the feedback is more direct but it is also important for managers and employees to communicate directly, without the guise of a 140-character limit or anonymity. As a result the reliability, acceptability and actual specific feedback come into question. These methods would tend to measure irrelevant aspects of performance, as well, depending upon how often/much the employees uses the tools. In addition, it is unlikely that the appraisals would be consistent among raters and over time, particularly due to the frequency of the interaction and ability for many to weigh in. These tools are effective in giving frequent, regular feedback so they would be helpful in giving strategic feedback. Administratively, these systems do little to help "provide information for day-to-day decisions about salary, benefits, and recognition programs" (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2010, p. 226) other than to have a general idea of which employees are succeeding and should continue with the organization. These tools however would be helpful in developing employees, giving them feedback and guidance to shape their activities. In the event my employer introduced Performance Multiplier or Rypple into the workplace, I would be happy. Currently there is very little feedback after tasks are turned in. I would like to know the reaction of the manager who requested the task thought of my work and ways for improvement. The appraisals in this case fulfill developmental purposes by telling the employees where they stood in terms of skills and knowledge. The appraisals also partially involve administrative purposes and strategic purposes. In the case of Bostjancic, she was told about the downsizing effort (although a replacement was hired shortly afterward, causing concern over the organization's true intentions). Li was also informed of "restructuring". However, the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi case does not state the reasons for the lay offs. There is some information in the case of employee moves for strategic reasons (pay doubling based on value to company, shifting to revenue generating job) but in general not enough information is provided to accurately answer this question. In order to minimize the likelihood of disputes arising over whether employees are continuing to perform at the same level it is important for the performance management system to follow the five criteria outlined in the text: performance measures must measure all aspects of performance (and not measure irrelevant aspects). Performance measures must be consistent among employees and raters. The measures must be acceptable to those involved and they should "specifically tell employees what is expected of them and how they can meet those expectations" (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2010, p. 251). It is important to provide examples and give checkpoints to employees

so they understand how they are doing in between reviews. In the event I had been in the HR departments of the companies described in this case, it would be important to review each incident against these criteria. It would be important to measure each woman's performance against others in a consistent, fair manner, perhaps utilizing an impartial reviewer with an absence of personal details (e.g. their maternity leaves). It would be difficult to go back and resurrect the facts, however. It might be more prudent to ensure that going forward all processes are fair and equitable.