Appraising the Secretaries at Sweetwater University

Case Study Analysis

Submitted by

Chandni, Roll No.48

Section Q1608
 Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
2.0 Case Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 3
3.0 Question No.1 ......................................................................................................................................... 4
4.0 Question No.2 ......................................................................................................................................... 5
5.0 Question No.3 ......................................................................................................................................... 5
1.0 Introduction
This contextual analysis is about the recently selected VP, Rob Winchester and about the
challenges he confronted not long after his college vocation started. Rob's manager,
Sweetwater's leader allotted him the primary assignment of enhancing the appraisal
examination framework used to assess secretarial and administrative performance. For this
situation, the principle trouble is the appraisal evaluation which was straightforwardly fixed to
the salaries given toward the end of the year. The graphics based rating forms which were
utilized to assess administrative staff were not proficient as these frameworks never gave the
genuine assessment of appraisal. In this way, to change the faulty appraisal evaluation
framework two Sweetwater experts’ gave their proposals to tackle the issue. The principal
suggestion was not to utilize salary based rating frameworks as this rating strategy did not give
any reasonable picture about the great or poor performance. The second proposal was not to
drive administrators to forcefully rate in any event a large portion of their secretaries as
something less than excellent. The suggestions given by the experts’ seemed good and made
sense; however, these proposals presented different issues in front of Rob. First, what is the
efficacy of the graphics rating form in contrast to the traditional forced ranking approach that
was being used by him? And what should be the basis of appraisal evaluation?

2.0 Case Analysis

The activity of Rob Winchester was to totally change the performance rating evaluation of the
college on the grounds that the past framework had high staff turnover ratio and furthermore
the process didn't look justified. Initially, the appraisal form was filled by administrators.
Managers needed to rate their secretaries based on work they have done. The issue with this
frame was that each head used to rate their secretary as ‘excellent’ in order to dodge staff
turnover and then again if the secretaries were not given raise in their compensations they
were moving to other jobs in the private sectors as the private sector was giving them preferred
salary over and Sweetwater U. As indicated by the examination, the accomplishment of any
appraisal evaluation framework was specifically identified with the human reaction given to
them by the staff. For this situation, the reaction was bad as the staff that doesn't get great
examination leaves the college. Having new staff consistently was additionally great not a
decent decision for the college. So it didn't leave any decision for the managers yet to give the
vast majority of the secretaries "excellent" to keep them on the job. The administrators were
not given anything for the great work done by their staff or for ranking them legitimately. Along
these lines, administrators were very little inspired by what their secretaries are getting. So
they began offering more compensation to secretaries as could be expected to keep them far
from leaving the job. With this thing, one more issue which concocted the framework was that
it was letting even the clumsy secretaries to take advantage of excellent rating, thereby
resulting in increased compensation. It prompted the reduction in the general quality of the
work. The appraisal framework totally lacked procedural equity, as nobody cared whether the
given appraisals are based on performance or not. The absence of straightforwardness in the
framework was the fundamental blemish in this framework. This imperfection prompts another
issue which was "Misty Standards". The form as it was comprised of four levels on which the
secretary can be evaluated, i.e. "Brilliant", "Great", "Reasonable" and "Poor". Likewise, the
qualities on which secretaries were to be checked were misty. The given norms needed lucidity,
and henceforth these parameters utilized as a part of the rating might be seen distinctively by
each individual. Like, "Great" can be seen by somebody as "only alongside incredible", however,
some other individual may see it as "simply superior to reasonable". Along these lines, the head
who is appraising may not be content with the work done by the secretary yet the secretary
may feel that it was the best work done by him. By rivalry among secretaries, desire and race
will diminish the proficiency of staff. The new examination framework made by experts’
exhorted Rob not to relate compensation raise with the salary increment of the secretaries.
This thought may work fine if the evaluation framework isn't efficient. However, compensation
raise is a major motivational power behind each representative working for an organization.
Thus, if the secretaries won't get compensation raise for doing great work, at that point their
enthusiasm for work may get influenced, and their proficiency will diminish. Hence, a
compensation structure is required which will not only reward the performers within the
budget but also prevents the underperformers to take the undue advantage of the system.

3.0 Question No.1

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?

Solution: No, I figure the experts’ proposals won't be adequate to get the majority of the
administrators to fill in the rating forms appropriately because the administrators may be one-
sided and persuaded to rate "excellent". This won't enhance capacity and abilities of secretaries
and assistants. A few directors who won’t want to be unpopular among their subordinates, will
deliberately avoid poor rating. Hence, as per my opinion, the accompanying extra components
will be important: Directors may settle on non-specific measurements such as communication
skills, collaboration, technical know-how and quality of work. Another alternative is to evaluate
the appraisal form as per the job responsibilities. For instance, there should be an in-house
programming software, which would ask different questions as per the occupation and
responsibilities that the employee has and thus, based on that it would automatically evaluate
and give the final relative score as output for appraisal.
4.0 Question No.2
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?

Solution: Yes, as utilizing graphic rating forms have a few issues, for example, vague guidelines,
corona impact, predisposition and so on. The ranking strategy is quite useful to get the desired
outcome. Since in this framework workers are ranked from best to worse on a specific feature.

Rob Winchester chose to put an upper limit on number of secretaries getting anything above
mean. This new constrained ranking framework was proposed because administrators were
extremely lenient in ranking their staff. However, constrained ranking framework is extremely
strict and it could be unreasonable for the directors who have a decent staff. New constrained
ranking technique may provoke rivalry among staff and may harm the equitable distribution in
the framework. The fair distribution of budget for appraisal should be done so as to keep the
employees satisfy. As satisfied employees are important for any organization.

5.0 Question No.3

What performance appraisal system would you develop for the secretaries if you were Rob
Winchester? Defend your answer.

Solution: The principle goal of an appraisal evaluation framework is to increase the

performance of the workers and thereby increase production. Utilizing an appraisal
examination framework enables representatives to see the level they are working at and
directors can get data from representatives, so they can help make their jobs more effective.
These appraisals should be consistent throughout the process. There are many types of
appraisals. Hence, it is better to pick the correct format for your firm. During appraisal, the
worker is assessed on work quality and is expected to increase his performance. He should also
express areas where he needs to develop his skills. Clear objectives should likewise be set up
for this appraisal framework. These objectives should be achievable and in addition the
objectives being achieved should address the issues of individual workers so that there is a
higher possibility of the workers accomplishing their objectives. There should be a type of a
reward framework set up following these appraisals for the employees that have extraordinary
appraisal or that have truly indicated change. This will encourage the workers to accomplish
their objective in a way in which they can be satisfied with their work. Having the worker be
engaged with their own appraisal is additionally an extraordinary method to get the employees
possess perspectives and feelings as to where he/she is strong or powerless. This causes them
to stay engaged with not only the individual activities, but the process as a whole.