Appraisal System at Sweetwater University

Evaluating and Transforming the Appraisal System at Sweetwater University
Name
Institution

Abstract
This paper adopts a question and answer format. It is a review of the performance appraisal process at Sweetwater University. After a new vice-president, Rob Winchester, takes office, he is charged with the responsibility of transforming the performance appraisal system at the university. This paper, therefore, answers questions after a critical evaluation of the old, current, and proposed performance appraisal systems at Sweetwater University.
Keywords: performance appraisal, performance appraisal methods, effective performance appraisal

Evaluating and Transforming the Appraisal System at Sweetwater University
a. Do you think that the experts’ recommendations will be sufficient to get most of the administrators to fill out the rating forms properly? No
b. Why not?
The experts recommended substituting the ranking system for the graphic rating system. In addition, they recommended using other methods as a basis for salary increment (“Application Case,” n.d.). Apparently, the experts did not highlight the need for conducting the appraisal. Hence, the rating process could be jeopardized further because the reason for conducting the appraisal is unknown. As a result, the administrators will not appreciate filling out the rating forms, and will consider the rating as a waste of time.
c. What additional actions (if any) do you think will be necessary?
The intention of filling out the graphic rating forms was not to victimize any staff but to enhance the reputation of the university through the provision of top-notch services.

Unfortunately, the administrators did not seem to be aware of this; hence, their shoddy ratings. Rob, therefore, needs to hold separate meetings with the concerned parties: administrators and employees’ delegates. He will need to align the graphic rating system with the university’s vision and mission statements. Rob has to be categorical on the importance of the appraisal system while addressing the administrators. In order to accord the appraisal process the seriousness it deserves, random counter-checks will be conducted to ensure that the ratings given to the employees are valid and reliable. In addition, more than one rater will be used to avoid biases as indicated by Lussier and Hendon (2012).
a. 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 the ranking method? No
Why?
No one appraisal system is better than the other; it depends on the organization’s purpose (s) for the appraisal. Hence, there is nothing wrong with the graphic rating forms. Instead of substituting the graphic rating method, it would be ideal to incorporate the ranking method as a means to enable the secretaries to gauge themselves against their colleagues. The ranking system will help to determine the best secretary of the year. Rob should include the employees in the ranking process because they can also become aware of the attributes that deem one as the best employee of the year. This participatory approach will promote transparency and create a feeling of trust among the employees; hence, issues such as picketing and high turnover rates will be precluded. Other than money, employees appreciate a friendly working place where they are all treated as equals.
However, the current graphic rating method needs to be improved based on the suggestions by the experts. It is necessary for the rating forms to be specific about measurable and objective indicators, and this is a domain that Lussier and Hendon (2012) have given importance. A new tool that is accepted by all the involved parties should be developed. Rob could consider using the behavioral anchored rating scale, which is more objective. Therefore, there is a need to meet with the respective delegates to deliberate on an ideal and standard performance appraisal tool that is in line with the institution’s objectives. Rob will need to be categorical about the fact that the rating forms were merely tools to enhance quality development. In addition, the tool would be used as a basis to enhance career development by identifying prevailing gaps in performance; hence, seek personal development strategies, for example, through training and refresher courses.
What performance appraisal system would you develop for the secretaries if you were Rob Winchester? Defend your answer.
I would recommend the use of multiple appraisal methods because each appraisal method has a certain intended purpose. However, the overall appraisal system will be synchronized with the university’s mission and vision (Merkowitz & Earnest, 2009). In addition, the appraisal process should be an interactive process between the employees and their administrators. The appraisal process is considered to be the avenue through which the employees can table their grievances and state their impediments to expected/high productivity. Customer feedbacks should also be incorporated into the appraisal process to instill customer trust and loyalty, but not to victimize any staff. The multiple appraisal methods should fulfill various purposes, including evaluating the behaviors and outcomes of each employee in relation to his/her responsibilities.
The two consultants could have been ivory tower theorizing because a performance appraisal is paramount when it comes to promotions and salary increment. No one appraisal method is better than the other, it all depends on the objective of the appraisal. The ranking system would be employed based on the other appraisals to determine the best secretary in different units as guided by the job descriptions. The best secretaries of the year in different units should be eligible for promotion, in the event of an open position. But, only the secretary with exceptional performance should get the promotion. Salary increment should be tied to these promotions. The appraisals, nonetheless, should determine whether secretaries got bonuses commensurate with their performances and overall revenue generated. The bonuses could be in the form of vouchers or gift hampers.

References
Application Case: Appraising the Secretaries at Sweetwater University. (n. d.). Class Material.
Lussier, R., & Hendon, J. (2012). Human Resource Management: Functions, Applications, Skill Development. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Merkowitz, E., & Earnest, G. (2009). Effective performance Appraisal. The Ohio State University. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://extensionhr.osu.edu/resources/codir/guides/gs9.htm.