CHAPTER 9: APPLICATION CASE

APPRAISING THE SECRETARIES AT SWEETWATER

U Rob Winchester, newly appointed vice president for administrative affairs at Sweetwater State
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 U. The main difficulty was that the performance appraisal was traditionally tied
directly to salary increases given at the end of the year. Therefore, 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 presidents memo met widespread resistance immediately from
administrators, who were afraid that many of their secretaries would begin leaving for more
lucrative jobs, 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
picketing outside the presidents home on the university campus. The picketing, caustic remarks
by disgruntled administrators, and rumors 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 current appraisal system had been set up when the university first opened 10 years
earlier. A committee of secretaries had developed it. Under that system, Sweetwater s
administrators filled out forms similar.

1
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 across-the-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 experts agreed to consider the problem, and in 2 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 instead a form like that in Figure 9-3. In addition, they recommended 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. The experts said that the way to get all the 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 form like that in Figure 9-3 for each
secretary at least once a year and then use this form as the basis of a counseling 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 the 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 compared with his original, preferred forced ranking approach. The experts second
recommendation to stop tying the appraisals to automatic salary increases made sense but raised

2
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 were not simply based on ivory tower theorizing. Questions: -

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?

2. 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 a
ranking method? Why?

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

ANSWER

1. I don’t feel that the experts’ recommendations will be sufficient to get most of the
administrators to fill out the rating forms properly. The managers would be pleased with
the recommendation to rescind Mr. Winchester’s forced ranking technique but would
definitely challenge the idea of not tying salary increases to appraisal forms because it’s
what they’ve always done and it is the only way they feel they can provide competitive
wages for secretaries. The issues of providing invalid feedback to each secretary…show
more content… Selection for such opportunities can be tied to effective performance
appraisals.
2. Vice President Winchester would probably like to continue using the graphic rating in a
revised form that assesses the secretary’s performance related to competencies essential
for the position and relevant job duties or objectives. He would probably change the
format for future use. As I stated in my previous response implementing a more effective
appraisal tool will take some time. Per the recommendations made by the experts, I agree
that salary increases should not be directly tied to the performance appraisal. The
appraisal should be a separate event from discussions of salary increases. Some
companies have the HR department to approve merit recommendation prior to any

3
 discussion between the administrator and his/her employee. This practice allows the
organization to assign merit increases within established budget constraints.

3. The main objective of a performance appraisal system is to develop good performance

from the employees and to raise production. Using a performance appraisal system
allows employees to see the level they are working at and managers are able to get
information from employees so they can help make their jobs more successful. These
appraisals should be consistent throughout the whole process and in a consistent timely
manner. There are several types of appraisals, some examples include; essay,
standardized scales, use of critical incidents, management by objectives, it is always
better to pick the right format for your organization. During an appraisal, the employee is
evaluated on job performances and is thought to improve job performance and show any
areas that are in need for improvement. Clear goals should also be established for this
appraisal system, so that it may be clear to every employee. These goals should be
achievable goals as well as the goals being adjusted to meet the needs of individual
employees so that there is a better chance of the employee achieving their goals. There
should be some sort of a reward system in place following these appraisals for the
employees that have exceptional performance or that have really shown improvement,
this will help the employee strive to achieve their goal in a manner in which they also can
be proud of their self. Having the employee be involved in their own appraisal is also a
great way to get the employees own views and opinions as to where he/she is strong and
weak, this helps them to see themselves grow or decline in their job performances, and be
involved a great deal more with the whole process.

End