Assessment Of Water Divisions Performance Management System

1234 Words5 Pages
Given that Dickson was unsure about what would be an appropriate and fair way to carry out the merit pay issue, she decided to ask her employees what they believed would be the best option. After discussing numerous options with her employees, they decided that a vote, based on some general criteria would be the most objective and fair solution to the dilemma. It was decided that the top four names voted on by the employees would then receive the nomination for a merit raise. After the vote had concluded, both her list prior to the vote and the list accumulated by the employees themselves were relatively the same, just ranked in different positions on the lists. However, upon Dickson’s arrival to the meeting with her boss, she had been…show more content…
Clearly there were issues in the current performance management system that had led to these employee issues. One distinct and apparent issue with Water Division’s current system is the rater form and its ability for managers to write objective appraisals. According to Naff et al., “…Supervisors have a great deal of difficultly writing useful and objective performance reports. They submit appraisals that tend to be subjective, impressionistic and non-comparable to the reports of other raters” (2014, p. 276). For example, how could a supervisor objectively judge and compare one employee’s imagination and initiative in comparison to others? On what criteria or scale is the supervisor able to make an unbiased judgement about their employee’s imagination? The answer is simple, you can not. The current system allows supervisors the ability to be very subjective and base their rating on their sole interpretation of what the criteria may mean. The criteria of the rating form is very broad as the it is not detailed and is incomparable to other raters as there is no latitude of choice for the rater to choose given the absence of a scale. A second issue with Water Division’s current system is how immeasurable the government work they are conducting is. According to Naff et al., “…The preponderance of government work is not readily measurable in terms of outcomes. The government is not in the business of producing products, but rather
Open Document