DUE DATE WED 6/22 @ 5PM
Grading Rubric for Cases
Your grade is a combination of the following elements:
1. Appropriate length of answer. One paragraph per question answered. Individual question minimum of 3-4 well-structured sentences in 12 point font.
2. Identification of correct human resource or management topic.
3. Full quality answers which include research to determine how to apply standards, regulations, or laws covering human resources. These cases require you to research current federal employment law, regulations, and issues in order to answer them correctly. Review “Website resources” tab. Also you can google topics, laws, cases, etc.
4. Correct notation of sources listed at the bottom of each answered case. You should list the textbook and any websites or other resources you used; cite direct quotes from sources in parenthesis and put (author’s last name, page #).
Case #64, page 192-193. You will only rate whether the manager (E) was acting ethically and you must explain your answer fully. You may want to research each scenario and explain in 3-4 sentences why you rated the manager this way. Include if you think a law may have been violated or at least must be considered. Please utilize outside resources to answer these questions, if needed.
Your answer should be at least 2-3 pageS with references listed at the end of the document on page 4 and in MLA 7th edition format
****** QUESTIONS SHOULD BE LISTED AND NUMBERED WITH ANSWERS PROVIDED BELOW *****
Instructor’s Manual — Use only as an guide
64. EXERCISE: ETHICAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL ISSUES
1. To make you aware that many performance appraisal decisions involve ethical issues.
2. To familiarize you with some of the many ethical performance appraisal issues.
3. To familiarize you with various criteria that can be used to determine if an action is ethical.
4. To make you aware of some of the reasons why a manager may be tempted to act unethically when evaluating subordinates.
II. OUT-OF-CLASS PREPARATION TIME: 15 minutes
III. IN-CLASS TIME SUGGESTED: 20-40 minutes
IV. PROCEDURES: See Text
Much has been written regarding ethical issues that relate to selling, advertising, stock trading, accounting fraud, and executive compensation. However, little attention has been given to ethical issues related to performance appraisal. In many work organizations, managers are told to conduct annual performance appraisals with employees and are asked to be accurate in their appraisals. The importance of being ethical is not addressed. This exercise asks students to examine 10 different appraisal situations to determine if they pose any ethical issues. Each student group needs to determine: 1) Is the manager in the case acting in an ethical manner? 2) Would their group act in the same manner as did the manager?
In discussing this exercise, it may be helpful for the instructor to point out that there are two approaches to appraisal in practice. One of these, the rational perspective, suggests that the goal of performance appraisal should be accuracy. Each manager must evaluate employees objectively because these appraisals need to be used to make a wide range of administrative decisions (e.g., promotions, transfers, raises, bonuses, layoffs, selection, and training). They also need to be used to develop and motivate employees. Accuracy serves as a foundation for accomplishing these tasks. On the other hand, the second perspective-the political approach-suggests that the purpose of performance appraisal may be its utility in accomplishing either the manager’s or the organization’s goals. For example, the manager may want to encourage an employee who is struggling by giving her/him a higher than deserved evaluation. Likewise, a manager may want to punish an employee for being argumentative by giving him/her a lower than deserved evaluation. Thus, under this philosophy, appraisal is a means to an end and accuracy is not the primarily or only goal. The scenarios that follow all relate to the issue of whether these political goals are ethical and appropriate.
Debriefing the Exercise
In debriefing this exercise, the instructor may want to use a rotation system and call on different groups to answer each scenario. After each group has answered the two questions posed for each scenario, the instructor could ask students to justify their answers and ask them some or all of the following ethical questions:
a. Does the action involve intentional deception?
b. Does the action purposely benefit one party at the expense of another?
c. Is the action fair and just to all concerned?
d. Would you or the manager feel comfortable if the action was made public, or must it remain a secret?
e. Would you need to justify the action by telling yourself that you can get away with it or that you won’t need to live with the decision consequences?
f. Would you recommend the action to others?
g. Will the action build goodwill and better relationships?
1. A supervisor has an employee who is an outspoken homosexual. The supervisor does not like homosexuals. As a result, the supervisor purposefully rates her lower than deserved on her performance appraisal form.
NOTE: This action is designed to benefit the supervisor at the expense of the subordinate and the firm. It is not fair to the employee because she may not get a raise or a desired promotion. It will not build goodwill and improve relationships. It involves purposeful deception because the supervisor is not providing an accurate assessment of the employee’s performance.
2. A firm has recently been charged with discriminating against minorities. The firm denies the charges but asks all supervisors to make sure they do not discriminate. In order to avoid any possible discrimination charge, a manager rates one poor performing minority employee higher than deserved on the performance appraisal form.
NOTE: This action is designed to benefit the manager and perhaps the firm (in the short run, at best) at the expense of the employee. The employee is not receiving accurate performance feedback and is led to believe that he/she is performing better than she/he really is. This builds up false hopes and may be harmful to the employee in the long run. It is not fair to other employees because they may lose out when promotion time arrives.
3. A manager has a male subordinate who is married with three children. This employee is a known womanizer and has been spotted by several employees hanging out with women other than his wife, including prostitutes. The supervisor does not believe this is appropriate and rates the employee lower than deserved on the performance appraisal form.
NOTE: This action is designed to punish the employee based on the supervisor’s moral judgments. The firm probably loses out and so does the employee. The employee does not know the real reason for the low appraisal which is unfair. The firm may lose out because a potentially good employee will be classified as a poor one.
4. A female employee who recently had a baby negotiated a change from full-time to part-time status with the HR department. Her supervisor, also a working mother, resents the fact that she is able to spend more time at home with her child. The supervisor rates her lower than deserved on the performance appraisal form in an attempt to force her to switchback to full-time status or quit.
NOTE: This action is designed to benefit the manager but is harmful to both the employee and the firm. The employee is being denied an accurate evaluation which in the long run is unfair to her because it may affect raises and promotion opportunities. The firm is losing because it may lose the services of a good employee and need to hire a new person.
5. A firm has a 360-degree performance appraisal system that includes asking all subordinates to rate and evaluate their boss. A manager wants to be promoted so he gives all employees higher performance evaluations than they deserve in hopes that they, in turn, will rate him higher.
NOTE: This action is designed to help the manager. It is also unfair to employees because they are being given false information regarding their job performance. The firm loses because it believes that the employees are all performing well when, in fact, they may not be.
6. A manager realizes that an employee’s attendance is so poor that she is likely to get terminated within the next few months. So, in order to build a more solid case against the employee and further justify the inevitable termination, the manager rates the subordinate lower than deserved on the performance appraisal form.
NOTE: This action is designed to help the manager at the expense of the employee. The employee is being treated unfairly because he/she is led to believe that her/his performance is poor.
7. A manager wants to get promoted in order to get a substantial raise. He believes that he will be judged, in part, in terms of how effective he has been at developing high performing subordinates as evidenced by his subordinates’ performance appraisal scores. In order to enhance his promotion chances, he rates his employees higher than deserved.
NOTE: This action is designed to benefit the manager who wants a raise. The employees lose in the long run because they are not being given accurate feedback so they do not know how to improve themselves. The firm also loses because it is being told that all employees are performing much better than they really are.
8. A manager wants to give one particular subordinate a big raise in order to keep her from accepting a job elsewhere. However, there is limited raise money available, and it is based on merit. So, he rates another employee lower than deserved, thereby reducing this person’s raise, in order to be able to give the other a larger raise.
NOTE: This action is designed to help one employee and the manager at the expense of another employee. It is unfair to the employee who is being evaluated lower than deserved.
9. A manager wants to get rid of a disliked subordinate, so she rates the employee lower than deserved in hopes that the employee will quit.
NOTE: This action is designed to help the manager at the expense of the employee. It is unfair to the employee.
10. A manager wants to help a subordinate get promoted, so she gives her a higher evaluation than deserved.
NOTE: This action benefits one employee but probably at the expense of some other employees who are more deserving of a promotion. It is not fair to these other employees. The firm may lose out too because it may promote a person who is not as well qualified as some other employee.