A Comparative Performance Appraisal System Essay

The forced-ranking is frequently used in performance-based management because of the focus on talent. The use of forced-ranking of recruiters allowed DaVita to score the recruiters as well as employees recruited through the agency.

Employees were rated with respect to others unlike the old system where there was absolute ranking.

In my organization, performance is measured by different parameters for different departments. The performance of the sales department team is measured by the number of sales made and the amount of revenue generated. For cabin crew members, performance is weighed through a number of ways and primarily through frequent on-board appraisals. These appraisals are often conducted by senior cabin crew members and are measured against certain standard factors such as interaction with passengers and colleagues and general activities carried out on the flight. This appraisal system applies to all cabin crew members, however seniors in the company have an additional way through which they are appraised where junior cabin crew members have the equal opportunity to rate their seniors as well making the performance evaluation processes two- way. Another way performance is measured is through attendance. Points are deducted for absenteeism and lateness and anyone with a good track record of attendance is considered a good performer.

An objective performance rating is based on the measuring of actual results from employees. Although the Department of Corrections does not produce a product, or make sales that can be tracked, they are responsible for maintaining a safe and secure environment to protect the public, fellow staff, and the inmates. These

Helping performance raters avoid bias is an important factor in creating a legally sound performance management system (Aguinis, 2013). All people leaders will be required to attend yearly and bi-yearly training to help manage the performance of employees. They will also be required to justify their ratings to their direct leader. Once the leader approves the rating, the performance review will be made available to the employee. The employee will be able to leave feedback and sign the performance review. Once signatures have been received the performance review will not be

The measurement of employee’s performance is only internal. A good performance appraisal should have multiple raters, both internal and external.

The performance appraisals process is flawed in many ways. Lack of preparation, time, training, and professionalism are a few examples of how the system is flawed. The individual completing the application often has many tasks that supersedes taking the appropriate time necessary to accurately keep notations of an employee's performance throughout the year. The lack of time leads to an employee receiving a performance review on the most recent accounts of his or her job performance instead of his or her performance throughout the entire year. Lack of professionalism can also hurt the appraisal process. An employee should be rated by his or her job duties instead of the personal opinion or feelings the manager or supervisor completing the form. All

Rating against a standard permits a supervisor to classify employee performance independently from that of other employees. Both supervisor and employee have a reference point for accurately looking at an employee’s long-term performance growth.

Work rated as Equivalent – where two different jobs have the same grading within a grading structure or when evaluated and when each component is broken down the jobs

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?

The earliest appraisal systems, despite focusing on just one measure; quantity output, could perhaps be viewed as the most objective of all. Employees on a production line could be accurately rated on 'piece rate' or have their simple repetitive movements timed. As managers recognised the quality of work produced also affected an individual's impact on the organisation, and work output gradually shifted from directly-measurable physical activity to more complex tasks requiring the application of greater skill, knowledge and ability, more elaborate performance standards became necessary. Early performance management was highly subjective, allowing rating officials far too much personal latitude. It often included a supervisor's assessment of personality and character traits such as loyalty, honesty, attitude, initiative, cooperation, resourcefulness and ambition (Pratt 2001).

Performance evaluations should focus on the individual’s job performance and not the individual. The four managers all have the same goal when it comes to their perspectives on performance appraisals and that is, they want to do what is best for their subordinates to motivate them to perform in their department’s best interest. Tom has a top priority to provide true and accurate feedback so employees know exactly where they stand. While I agree that evaluations definitely need to have a base of accuracy, I like Max’s view that most of good management is psychology. To know to act to do what is in the individual’s and department’s best interest, a manager needs to understanding people’s strengths and faults, and know how to motivate and reward employees. If that means a little fine-tuning, then so be it. Lynne, on the other hand, contaminated one of her workers evaluations by considering the individuals personal issues and inflated her rating to encourage and support her. Personally I don’t think it should have been a consideration in the evaluation however, supporting and encouraging the employee in other ways may be a more

Some managers rotated the highest ranking between their employees from one year to the next. So the objective of developing new evaluation system was unfulfilled.

“Performance appraisals can enhance employee performance as well as advance the mission and goals of an organization. There are many advantages of performance appraisals if they are applied fairly, consistently and objectively. Performance appraisals not applied fairly can be counterproductive and even destructive to

Firstly, the old system was prone to central tendency error. It had 13 rating levels and lacked a described evaluation criteria. As one can understand, if the rating scale is large and the different levels are not sufficiently explained, the evaluators will be more likely to evaluate less accurately. In the case, one can read that managers gave almost to everyone a B or a C,