Brief for Joel Hardings, Manager. You are the manager of a team of five associates at a strategic consulting firm called Papa’s

You are the manager of a team of five associates at a strategic consulting firm called Papa’s

Strategies, Inc. Recently, you had a performance review meeting with one of

your associates,

Mark Slaughter. You feel that the performance review meeting, which has the potential to be

awkward or painful, went pretty smoothly. Mark did a relatively good job throughout the fiscal

year. Accordingly, you gave him an overall score of

3 out of 5, where the score of 3 at the firm

places Mark among the top 30 percent of employees. The meeting ended in a jovial atmosphere.

So, when you heard from HR a couple days ago that Mark had filed an appeal that challenged the

overall score you had g

iven him, you were rather surprised.

How could this be? Mark received a good score and shows much promise. Plus, he is a fellow

extrovert whom you expected to voice any concerns and complaints even if not explicitly asked

to do so. You strongly prefer tha

t you sit down with Mark face

to

face to solve this issue as soon

as possible to avoid feelings of awkwardness and resentment whenever you bump into him in the

hallway or interact with him for work

related purposes. Fortunately, the HR department offers

th

e option of having the two parties meet each other face

to

face in a room with an HR

representative to make sure heated arguments or other ugly things do not occur. You contact the

HR department immediately upon receiving the notification of the appeal. Th

e response is swift,

and a meeting is held that afternoon.

Before leaving your office to attend the meeting with Mark, you want to make sure that you have

written and organized all your points to make during the meeting. The following is the list you

have

for Mark:

We (i.e., Joel and Mark) agreed that each performance dimension you were rated on was

highly relevant to your job and career. So, the performance ratings could not have been

unfair for measuring irrelevant things.

We also agreed that the way in

which each performance dimension was defined and

understood by us was concrete, specific, and measurable. Accordingly, the ratings could

not have been made significantly inaccurate via poor understanding of each performance

dimension.

Sometimes you

were a little late with deadlines. This issue of deadlines was one of the

reasons that your overall scores were not higher than the 3 that I gave you.

During the performance review meeting, we went over each performance dimension

together, the score that I

assigned for each dimension, and how the overall score was

calculated based on the individual scores for the dimensions. In going over these details

just mentioned, you never raised any concern or complaint. In fact, you seemed to agree

rather wholehearte

dly with the details.

My ratings for the performance dimensions in your appraisal were accurate because the

scales used were sound and the items were appropriate, as we both learned during the

performance management training session that both of us attende

d. Also, the rater

(myself) had gone through extensive rater training to minimize any bias. Finally, I have

absolutely nothing to gain by describing a biased or inaccurate picture of your

performance.

I closely supervise you in the same office where I get

to observe your performance

regularly. My ratings for the performance dimensions in your appraisal were thus based

on accurate and thorough information.

I’ve been documenting Mark’s performance on a regular basis on a notepad. So once

again, my ratings are

based on accurate and thorough information collected over time.

Appeals Process Role Play

Subordinate

Brief for Mark Slaughter, Associate

You are an associate in a team of five associates at a strategic consulting firm called Papa’s

Strategies, Inc. Recently, you had a performance review meeting with one of your managers, Joel

Hardings. The performance review meeting, which has the potential

to be awkward or painful,

went pretty smoothly. You did a relatively good job throughout the fiscal year. Accordingly, you

were given an overall score of 3 out of 5, where the score 3 at the firm places you in the top 30

percent of employees. The meeting

ended in a jovial atmosphere. But this supposed happy

ending was only maintained because you had managed to keep your frustrations under complete

control.

Your frustrations do not really stem from the lower than initially expected overall score of 3.

Gran

ted, it would have been much more desirable to have received something like a 4. Also, you

do not really question Joel’s accuracy as a rater

he did go through extensive rater training

program, and you find it admirable that he would put in the extra effort

to better ensure accuracy.

The overall score you received was likely quite accurate.

The real source of your frustration is the insufficient future orientation in the current

performance management system. Last year when the performance review meeting en

ded, you

were disappointed that Joel did not a very thorough job in helping you set goals to achieve

over the remaining 11 or so months until the end of the fiscal year. Joel seemed to say some

things about specific, challenging goals and how they could

help you be more effective. He then

went over a couple of examples that pertain to your situation. But he seemed to be in a bit of a

rush to get done with the meeting and get back to his desk. Similarly, you feel that Joel did not

give you much of a devel

opmental plan. He once again went over one or two examples of how

you might create maintain your own coaching system. In turn, there was little (but not

nonexistent) ongoing goal setting/adjusting and coaching. Rather than helping his subordinates

achi

eve goals, Joel seemed to be more interested in evaluating how his subordinates were doing.

The fact that Joel did not exert a lot of effort in working with his subordinates (including

yourself) in setting goals, creating developmental plans, and coaching

his subordinates really

bothered you whenever you overheard how other associates under different managers were

getting some rather good help in goal

setting, development plan creation, and coaching. You feel

that this discrepancy will later hurt your perfo

rmance in the long run.

Despite your extroverted personality, you have been rather afraid to bring up this topic to Joel,

who is so task

oriented and always busy. But Joel needs to be taught a lesson. So you made the

decision to file an appeal form to the

HR department about the appraisal you got recently.

Specifically, your claim is that your overall score should be higher than 3 in order to make up for

the lack of development/coaching efforts from Joel. Moreover, the score increase should take

into accou

nt the fact that if you had received proper development/coaching benefits from Joel,

you would have performed better and thus would have received a higher overall score. If this

score increase is not given, you feel that associates working under other mana

gers will get

promoted before you, such that you will later be disadvantaged in future promotion decisions.

Meanwhile, you still find it pretty difficult to raise your frustrations with the lack of help in goal

setting, creating developmental plans, and co

aching. In a sense, he intimidates you and comes off

as an ultimately cold, aloof person.

Most recently, the HR department has notified you that you and Joel would meet each other face

to

face in a room with an HR representative to make sure heated argume

nts or other ugly things

do not occur. You soon leave your cubicle to attend the meeting with Joel.

Brief for Observer

(Human Resources Dept Member)

When an appeals process is in place, employees have the ability to question two types of

issues: judgment

al and administrative. Judgmental issues center on the validity of the

performance evaluation. Administrative issues involve whether the policies and

procedures were followed. How much of Joel’s points center around judgmental issues

versus administrative

issues? How much of Mark’s points center around judgmental

issues versus administrative issues?

Judging from the discussions that Joel and Mark have had, do you think that a self

appraisal opportunity was given to Mark? How important is a self

appraisal?

Did Joel make the mistake of interpreting Mark’s extroverted personality as an excuse

not to explicitly ask for any concerns and complaints that he might harbor inside? Or, is it

the case that Mark made the mistake of not taking a pro

active role in commun

icating his

concerns with his supervisor Joel?

Did the performance review meeting, which took place before the appeals meeting, go

over any of Mark’s developmental plans?

Were goals set at the end of the performance review meeting?

Were Joel and Mark engag

ed in a coaching relationship? If so, to what extent was there

coaching involved?

What seems to be Mark’s top concern?

How would you make a decision? Can a compromise be made, if one is desirable?

Any other observations?

Direction for the

Supervisor

:

How

will you start this meeting?

What

are the positive things

that

you can say to

Mark

about his

performance?

What are the negativ

e things

that

you can say to

Mark

about his

performance?

How will you go about getting your “points” across to establish your inn

ocence?

It says that

Mark is a fellow extrovert. Yet, he was not completely open in expressing his

frustrations, about which you thus know little about. How do you expect this ironic

behavioral aspect of Mark to affect the discussions in the meeting?

What

seems to be Mark’s top concern? Do you believe that he is telling you his real

complaints?

Direction for the

Subordinate

:

How

will

you play this role? Are you able to be an extroverted, engaging person who

nonetheless can become rather reserved and uncoop

erative with certain issues, making

the supervisor work hard to bring out those issues to the surface? (Bear in mind, some

people do not

like

having to play

a role in this way but others relish it. If the

subordinate

is willing to play the role in this man

ner, then encourage it. It will give the

supervisor

the

opportunity to

practice

the skills of drawing

out even an extrovert to speak out on certain

issues that the extrovert feels uncomfortable with

. If the

subordinate

s are reluctant

to play

the role

and

thus instead

go for a more forthcoming and assertive style

when it comes to

uncomfortable issues, it is

not a problem and

will not

alter the overall effectiveness of the

case study.)

What

are the positive things

that

you can say to

Joe

l about his managerial competence?

What are the negativ

e things

that

you can say to

Joel about his managerial competence?

How will you go about getting your “points” across to establish your innocence?

It says that

Joel is a fellow extrovert. Yet, he is ra

ther task

oriented and distant. How do

you expect this ironic behavioral aspect of Joel to affect the discussions in the meeting?

What seems to be Joel’s top concern? Do you believe that he is telling you his real

complaints?

Brief for

the Observer:

How

effectively

does

the

supervisor build rapport?

Does the

supervisor create

an atmosphere that is conducive to having a frank and

open

discussion? If so, how? If not, why?

Does the supervisor exhibit behaviors and word

s

that are

con

structive? How?

Does t

he

supervisor raise issues? How?

Does

the

supervisor use

questioning techniques effectively,

perhaps writing down

examples of good questions and questions that

need rephrasing

Calculate your order
Pages (275 words)
Standard price: $0.00
Open chat
1
towriteessays.com
Hello 👋
Thank you for choosing our assignment help service!
How can I help you?