Reference no: EM133041737

Read the case study "APPRAISING THE SECRETARIES AT SWEETWATER UNIVERSITY" and Then conduct a analysis of the case and then develop some recommendations from the perspective that you are part of a HR consulting firm.

CASE STUDY - APPRAISING THE SECRETARIES AT SWEETWATER UNIVERSITY Rob Winchester, newly appointed Vice President for Administrative Affairs at Sweetwater University, faced a tough problem shortly after his university career began. Three weeks after he came on board in September, Sweetwater's President Rob's boss, told Rob that one of his first tasks was to improve the appraisal system used to evaluate secretarial and clerical performance at Sweetwater University. Apparently, the main difficulty was that the performance appraisal was traditionally tied directly to salary increases given at the end of the year. So most administrators were less than accurate when they used the graphic rating forms that were the basis of the clerical staff evaluation. In fact, what usually happened was that each administrator simply rated his or her clerk or secretary as "excellent." This cleared the way for all support staff to receive a maximum pay increase every year. But, the current university budget simply did not include enough money to fund another "maximum" annual increase for every staffer. Furthermore, Sweetwater's President felt that the custom of providing invalid feedback to each secretary on his or her year's performance was not productive, so he had asked the new Vice President to revise the system. In October, Rob sent a memo to all administrators telling them that in the future no more than half the secretaries reporting to any particular administrator could be appraised as "excellent." This move, in effect, forced each supervisor to begin ranking his or her secretaries for quality of performance. The Vice President's memo met widespread resistance immediately - from administrators, who were afraid that many of their secretaries would begin leaving for more lucrative jobs in private industry; and from secretaries, who felt that the new system was unfair and reduced each secretary's chance of receiving a maximum salary increase. A handful of secretaries had begun quietly picketing outside the President's home on the university campus. The picketing, caustic remarks by disgruntled administrators, and rumours of an impending slowdown by the secretaries (there were about 250 on campus) made Rob Winchester wonder whether he had made the right decision by setting up forced ranking. He knew, however, that there were a few performance appraisal experts in the School of Business, so he decided to set up an appointment with them to discuss the matter. He met with them the next morning. He explained the situation as he had found it: The present appraisal system had been set up when the University first opened 10 years earlier; and the appraisal form had been developed primarily by a committee of secretaries. Under that system, Sweetwater's administrators filled out forms similar to the one in Figure 1.0. Figure 1.0 Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Quality of Work Quality of Work Creativity Integrity This once a year appraisal (in March) had run into problems almost immediately, since it was apparent from the start that administrators varied widely in their interpretations of job standards, as well as in how conscientiously they filled out the forms and supervised their secretaries. Moreover, at the end of the first year it became obvious to everyone that each secretary's salary increase was tied directly to the March appraisal. For example, those rated "excellent" received the maximum increases, those rated "good" received smaller increases, and those given neither rating received only the standard acrossthe-board, cost-of-living increase.

Since universities in general - and Sweetwater in particular - have paid secretaries somewhat lower salaries than those prevailing in private industry, some secretaries left in a huff that first year. From that time on, most administrators simply rated all secretaries excellent in order to reduce staff turnover, thus ensuring each a maximum increase. In the process, they also avoided the hard feelings aroused by the significant performance differences otherwise highlighted by administrators. Two Sweetwater School of Business experts agreed to consider the problem, and in two weeks they came back to the vice President with the following recommendations. First, the form used to rate the secretaries was grossly insufficient. It was unclear what "excellent" or "quality of work" meant, for example. They recommended a form with more measurable criteria and standards with explanations (as in Figure 2.0). In addition, they recommend that the Vice President rescind his earlier memo and no longer attempt to force university administrators to arbitrarily rate at least half their secretaries as something less than excellent. The two consultants pointed out that this was, in fact, an unfair procedure since it was quite possible that any particular administrator might have staffers who were all or virtually all excellent - or conceivably, although less likely, all below standard. Figure 2.0 Criteria: Communication Below Expectations Even with guidance, fails to prepare straightforward communications, including forms, paperwork, and records, in a timely and accurate manner, products require minimal corrections.

Meets Expectations With guidance, prepares straightforward communications, including forms, paperwork, and records, in a timely and accurate manner; products require minimal corrections.

Role Model Independently prepares communications, such as forms, paperwork, and records, in a timely, clear and accurate manner; products require few, if any, corrections.

Even with guidance, fails to adapt style and materials to communicate straightforward information.

With guidance, adopts style and materials to communicate straightforward information.

Independently adapts style and materials to communicate information.

The experts said that the way to get all administrators to take the appraisal process more seriously was to stop tying it to salary increases. In other words, they recommended that every administrator fill out a comprehensive appraisal form for each secretary at least once a year and then use this form as the basis of a counselling session. Salary increases would have to be made on some basis other than the performance appraisal, so that administrators would no longer hesitate to fill out the rating forms honestly. Rob thanked the two experts and went back to his office to ponder their recommendations. Some of the recommendations (such as substituting a new rating form for the old) seemed to make sense. Nevertheless, he still had serious doubts as to the efficacy of any graphic rating form, particularly, if he were to decide in favour of his original forced ranking approach. The experts' second recommendation - to stop tying the appraisals to automatic salary increases - made sense but raised at least one very practical problem: If salary increases were not to be based on performance appraisals, on what were they to be based? He began wondering whether the experts' recommendations weren't simply based on ivory tower theorising.

1. List 10-15 key facts that are related to the problem

2. List 1-3 Assumptions you are making about this Case Study

3. Describe the Problem(s)/Issue(s) for the Case Study

4. What are your recommendations to solve the problem(s)/issue(s)?