1. After reviewing Exhibit 7.4.2, list what you regard as the major problems with the Darby appraisal system. Make specific recommendations about changing the system.
Several improvements to the appraisal system are necessary and are identified as follows:
1) The use of employee and supervisor social security numbers should be eliminated and replaced by an employee number or other appropriate identifier. Social security numbers are sensitive personal information and access to them should be strictly limited.
2) Darby employees perform various functions for the company representing several disciplines from engineers, computer systems analysts, administrative support, supervisors, and various field workers, etc. As it currently stands the evaluation form seems almost generic, the form includes rather limited space for supervisors to add comments, what about employee comments as well? The form does not include yet should, areas to identify the specific duties and responsibilities each employee has to the company. The employees’ title and the responsibilities tied to those titles/functions should hold a prominent place on the form. In addition, what is needed as a vital part of the performance appraisal system are documented, well outlined specific performance objectives tied to the objectives of the organization. At the individual level it should contain performance measures linked to job descriptions. These measures should be specific quantifiable target goals that compare to the actual results achieved by the employee.
3) Currently the same form is used for all employees. It would likely be best to use a different performance evaluation form for supervisory personnel as part of their effectiveness and contribution to the organization is how well they manage people and teams, budgets, and potentially various other high level strategic goals of the organization. It is possible that the same (revised) form could be used but it would need to contain a section for ‘those with direct reports’ in order to effectively evaluate this group of employees.
4) The new appraisal system should not include an evaluation of traits . Traits like appearance and job knowledge appear on the form and should be excluded from the evaluation. Personal traits or characteristics should not be used when evaluating past performance since these are not measures of actual performance.
5) Additional factors that should be incorporated into the appraisal process are a multi-rater system rather than the top-down approach that is currently used by Darby as research has shown that the single rater top-down approach is inferior to a multi-rater system where ratings are collected from several raters; in addition multi-rater systems are a high-performance work practice. The current system also uses ratings of low, average, and high rather than ratings of relative frequency, research on rating formats show that ratings of relative frequency are more reliable and focus on the record of outcomes.

2. What revisions to the rating form would you suggest? What particular methods (formats) discussed in Chapter 7 do you recommend? Do you recommend the same methods for all
Darby jobs?
The appraisal system and rating form should be revised to incorporate a method that, in addition to the necessary revisions discussed above [use of multi-rater, use of relative frequency, listing and measuring specific outcomes by job description, using quantifiable targets, comparison of actual results to goals, and removal of personal traits], incorporates mutually agreed upon goals and objectives. Taking these goals into account the Management by Objectives (MBO) method of performance and appraisal would be a good tool to utilize as it has been shown effective in improving performance as well as being a useful motivational tool.
With this system of appraisal is it vitally important to define criteria with strategic goals in mind.
When selecting criteria to include in the MBO system, the six primary measures of performance should be used. These are quality, quantity, timeliness, cost-effectiveness, need for supervision, interpersonal impact/contextual or citizenship performance. These criteria or some relevant subset of them are good measures of performance and when linked with the goals identified above and setting precise challenging goals, structured dairy keeping by supervisors, trained raters, a tight linkage between goal attainment and rewards, and removal
(as much as possible) of rater bias, the appraisal method would be far superior to what is currently in place at Darby.
The same method may not be useful for all Darby jobs. An alternative to the MBO system, for those instances where Darby would like to compare unit performance with the purpose of improving productivity, is the Productivity Measurement System (ProMES). ProMES has proven excellent in measuring aggregated performance as well as improving job satisfaction and reducing job stress. The system is developed by employees and feedback is used to help the work unit improve. Its design gives workers the performance information they need to perform more effectively while giving a sense of ownership and empowerment.
3. Suppose the firm wants to use the current form for employee feedback (i.e., to provide feedback to employees on their strengths and weaknesses). Do you think the instrument will be useful for this purpose? Why or why not? What, if any, revisions would you suggest so that the form can be used for employee development?
With some revisions, the graphic rating scale that is currently in use could be used to provide feedback to employees on their strengths and weaknesses. The revisions should include more specific measures and anchors. The revised graphic scale, called a behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS), would compare actual observed performance to expected anchors on the scale; the BARS approach to providing feedback is most effective at improving performance . An example of BARS for a Darby filed operator on communication may look like the following:
Behaviorally Achored Rating Scale
7 This operator could be expected to:
*check verbal instructions against written procedures

*always check to make sure he/she heard others correctly
*brief his/her replacement quickly and accurately, giving only relevant information
6 This operator could be expected to:
*inform superiors immediately if problems arise
*listen to others carefully and ask questions if he/she does not understand
*give information, instructions, etc., in a calm, clear voice
5 This operator could be expected to:
*always inform others of his/her location in the plant
*avoid discussing non-work related subjects when relating plant status to others
*inform others of all delays that took place on the shift
4 This operator could be expected to:
*give others a detailed account of what needs to be done, but not to establish priorities
*mumble when speaking to others
*not face the person communicating with him/her and act disinterested
3 This operator could be expected to:
*fail to relate all necessary details to those relieving him/her at break or shift change
*not seek information and only offer it when asked
* leave out information about his/her own errors when talking to others
2 This operator could be expected to:
*never ask for help if unsure of something or if errors are made
*refuse to listen to others
*continually yell at others and use abusive language
1 This operator could be expected to:
*not answer when he/she is called

*refuse to brief his/her replacements
*give person relieving him/her inaccurate information deliberately
(Adapted from Google Search: Behavorially Anchored Rating Scales)
4. Suppose Darby had used this form to both promote people and make merit pay adjustments. Suppose also that Darby has been informed that six African Americans have claimed discrimination based on promotion and pay policies. What (if any) advice can you give the company? What specific data should Darby evaluate in the context of these claims?
The current form as it currently stands could be considered excessively subjective and a weakness when analyzed by the courts in this case. The form should be changed to ensure specific goals and measures related to the job function are included. The evaluation should be completed by multiple raters. Of utmost importance in evaluating employees is to aviod violating the 80 percent rule. The Supreme Court ruled that adverse impact such as the 80 percent rule can be used [in Title VII and ADEA cases] where performance appraisal was used to make decisions regarding promotion and pay policies. Darby should audit personnel decisions stemming from performance appraisals to make certain there is not prima facie (presumed to be true unless proven otherwise) evidence of discrimination. In addition, the PA process should be equal across all genders, races, national origins, religions, ability level, and ages.
Communication should be precise and specific as it relates to all employees. There should be a formal system in place of review and appeal for situations in which the rated individual disagrees with a rating.

5. Based on the survey data and what you know about performance appraisal, what areas are most important for a rater training program? Are there any particular rating errors or biases clearly in need of attention based on the survey data?
Frame of reference training (FOR) would help eliminate unconscious, unintentional errors by the raters .
It will allow them to practice making ratings and then receive feedback on their ratings. In reviewing the survey data in Exhibit 7.4.3 there is quite a disparity in the way managers and employees view several of the training needs of supervisors.
(those measures with 40%+ difference in manager vs. subordinate opinion)
Solution: The organization should establish minimum feedback guidelines and managers should provide timely feedback as situations arise rather than waiting for the annual review. This should be simply be a matter of training raters during the FOR sessions and communicating and evaluating supervisors on this organizational expectation.
Solution: Positive employee engagement and reward systems should be incorporated into the organiazational culture. These should be discussed with input from both managers and employees. Implementation of any reward system will be systematic and unbiased based on formal outlined rules.
Solution: Use of a performance constraint matrix where discrepancies in perceptions that impact job performance are made known and goals are set for supervision to remove some or all of the constraints.
Solution: Unintentional bias should be greatly reduced by FOR training. Other bias could be reduced by using a multi rater system and prior agreed upon specific, measurable, quantitative goals.
6. Self-ratings with this form average almost two points higher than supervisory appraisals.
Should supervisors review self-appraisals before they evaluate performance? Explain your answer based on possible rating errors.

Supervisors should evaluate performance before they review self-appraisals. Supervisors can be inappropriately affected by the subordinates’ initial self-ratings. They should assess employees based on specific outcomes that were exhibited and the objective quantitative frequency of the outcomes rather than being influenced by pre-conceived notions. Training can help to remove the impact of anchoring which is the tendency to resist being moved from an initial starting point by additional subsequent information even when the additional subsequent information warrants movement.
7. Steve just read a Jack Welch book (former CEO of GE), where he noticed that Jack previously used “forced distributions for ratings.” What should you tell Steve aout this rating method? How does it work and what is the “track” record?
Forced distribution is a system that eliminates leniency which is a tendency to rate employees at the high end of the scale regardless of actual performance of the raters. It is a system that was embraced by Jack Welch to differentiate between employees and help ensure that the most important positions in the organization are occupied by the very top performers. The forced distribution system forces managers to put a certain percentage of subordinates into a low performance category and to move those low performers out of key and/or vital management positions. Under this sytem only the most elite performers will hold top positions within the company. Research reveals that this method results in a lower overall evaluation of the appraisal system compared to other approaches. Supervisors are often offended that no matter how much they do what is expected of them,they are forced to comply with the forced distribution. Furthermore GE and other large companies that once used the system no longer use it and it has been a factor in discrimination litigation. One method used to combat the leniency problem is self-efficacy training for raters. It involves coaching on how to conduct an appraisal discussion and results of self-efficacy show more positive perceptions of procedural fairness, and more agreement between raters and performers.
8. Should the managers be formally evaluated? If so, describe the system you recommend.
Yes the managers should be formally evaluated just as other employees are evaluated.
Research shows that the MBO system of evaluation is a good tool for appraisal of managers. It has been shown effective in improving performance as well as being a useful motivational tool.
With this system of appraisal is it vitally important to define criteria with strategic goals in mind.
When selecting criteria to include in the MBO system, the six primary measures of performance should be used. These are quality, quantity, timeliness, cost-effectiveness, need for supervision, interpersonal impact/contextual or citizenship performance. Not unlike evaluating other employees a multi-rater system should be used as well. Included in the appraisal of managers should be ratings by internal and external customers as well as superiors and subordinates.
9. A performance appraisal “guru” said to use ratings of “relative frequency.” What does this mean? Give an example.
A rating of relative frequency is focused on how frequently the person being evaluated performed a specific defined goal, reached a certain level of performance, or achieved a

targeted outcome within the context of all the times the person being evaluated had the opportunity to achieve the specified goal. For example, company supervisors are required to
“give quarterly feedback to employees rather than waiting on the annual review.” When evaluated on this dimension the supervisor would get a 100 percent if they conducted a quarterly feedback session for each of their direct reports.

Bernardin, H.J., & Russell, J.E.A. (2013). Human Resource Management: An Experiential
Approach ( 6 th ed.). Boston: Irvin McGraw-Hill.