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 didnt 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 doesnt
get good appraisal leaves the university. Having new staff every year was also good
not a good choice for the university. So it didnt 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. 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 analyzed 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 dont 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. Winchesters forced ranking technique but
would definitely challenge the idea of not tying salary increases to appraisal forms
because its what theyve 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 organizations 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 above average. 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.