The University of Lahore

Lahore Business School

Class Participation
Human Resource Management
Master of Business Administration

Submitted to: Saadia Qaiser

Submitted by: Aqib Latif (70073860)

Page 1 of 8
Case
The Self-Appraisal Problem

Question-1: What action should Leroy Washington take in response to Carol McCalmont’s
and Janet Weber’s actions? Should McCalmont be granted a raise even though she had not
completed her self-evaluation?
Answer: Carol needed to complete her self-appraisal on time. Likewise, Janet must demand that
Carol finishes the performance review process. Both of these individuals have to follow
company policies. Their actions border on being insubordinate. Leroy Washington should return
Janet’s evaluation of Carol and take disciplinary action against Carol because she was given
adequate amount of time to fill in the self-appraisal report but she failed to do so. Every
supervisor is aware about the company’s policy that each supervisor needs to complete self-
evaluation report and turn it to immediate manager by specified date. So, in my opinion
Washington should hold up Carol’s raise until she turns in her self-evaluation report and ask her
about the delay and should warn Carol that her raise would not be granted until she turns in the
self-evaluation report and such things should not happen in future.

Question-2: Evaluate the firm's self-appraisal system. Should it be changed to make it more
effective? Is it too time consuming?
Answer: The self-appraisal system used by Engel Products is very well thought and effective.
They have had a good experience with it; otherwise it would have been changed. The self-
evaluation itself is quite comprehensive which is both its’ strength and weakness. The more
comprehensive an evaluation system is, the more likely it is to accomplish its goals. Likewise,
comprehensive systems take more time to complete.

Question-3: Should the firm eliminate the self-appraisal portion of its appraisal system?
Answer: Yes, I think the firm should eliminate the self-appraisal from its appraisal system. I
don’t think that Self Appraisal is a good idea. It’s a deceptively attractive technique. An
employee’s self-appraisal and rating should give the manager valuable data on the quality of an

Page 2 of 8
individual’s performance. It looks like an all-around good idea. It’s not. It’s a bad idea and needs
to be stomped out.
When you ask an employee to write a self-appraisal, it creates a false impression of what
“performance appraisal” is. When he’s asked to write a self-appraisal, particularly when the
company’s appraisal form is used, it’s easy for an employee to assume that the structure of the
performance appraisal process is that both the individual and the boss separately write their
appraisals of the individual’s performance. They then get together, share each other’s documents,
and come to a common agreement on the final appraisal.
In my humble opinion a performance appraisal is a record of a supervisor’s opinion of the quality
of an employee’s work. The review meeting is a discussion, not a negotiation. So, when you ask
the individual to write a self-appraisal, it encourages misunderstanding by both parties.
Individuals may be notoriously inaccurate in assessing their own performance, and the poorer the
performer, the higher (and more inaccurate) the self-appraisal. The most accurate rater of
performance by far is the immediate boss.
It is clear that those who are incompetent performers are also incapable of assessing difference
between good and bad performance. When people are incompetent in the strategies, they adopt to
achieve success and satisfaction, they suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach erroneous
conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to
realize it. Instead, they are left with the mistaken impression that they are doing just fine.”
So, I think not only this firm but everyone should eliminate the Self Appraisal from their
appraisal system.
There’s a better way. Dick Grote (a management consultant in Dallas, Texas, and the author of
How to Be Good at Performance Appraisals, published by the Harvard Business Review Press).
says: “If company policy dictates that employees be asked or ordered to write self-appraisals;
company policy must be followed. But a manager can prevent much of the mischief just
described by explaining exactly what the purpose of the self-appraisal is (a way to gain
information from the employee’s point of view) and how it will be used (as one of many data
sources the supervisor will use to prepare the actual performance appraisal). It’s wise to ask the
employee to submit the self-appraisal to the supervisor well in advance of the performance
appraisal discussion so that the supervisor can use the data as an input to the official appraisal
and not wait until the review meeting to find out what the employee has written. Finally, it helps
to refer to the document the employee is preparing as a “self-assessment” while the document
produced by the supervisor is the “official performance appraisal.”

Page 3 of 8
A more effective approach is for the supervisor, at the start of performance appraisal season, to
ask each direct report to send him an informal list of his or her most important accomplishments
and achievements during the appraisal period. The list can be emailed or written on a blank piece
of paper — there’s no official form. And nothing needs to be said about any problems or
shortcomings or improvement needs. The manager’s sole purpose is to make sure that none of
the employee’s successes are overlooked. This “good stuff” list will provide the same value as a
formal self-appraisal, and it just may remove some of the stress and negativity felt about the
performance appraisal process itself.

Page 4 of 8
Case
Mills Paper Company: Performance Management or Age
Discrimination:

Question-1: Evaluate Mills management of Carpenter's performance. What are the

strengths and weaknesses of their approach to performance appraisal (i.e. management by
objectives)?
Answer: Objectives were set for Carpenter's performance upon his employment with the
company. He received feedback on his performance on those objectives and also an improvement
plan was developed when required. However, one has to question the awarding of a 7 percent
raise to him when his performance had been inadequate. This creates several problems. The raise
may have led Carpenter to put less weight or attach less seriousness to the rating he received.
Strengths:
Motivation and Encouragement
One of the strengths of appraisal system of the company is the motivation and encouragement
effect it has on employees. Since the objectives to be achieved are set prior to beginning of the
employment, the employee is able to use them as a driving force while doing his job.
Thus, the strength of the method is manifested by the fact that employees are motivated with the
knowledge that they will be rewarded if they achieve the set goals.
Identification of underperformers
The appraisal method applied by Mills Company also aids the company to identify
underperformers and eliminate them. An employee like Carpenter who is always showed such
poor performance might not have been identified had it not been for the appraisal method. With
the appraisal method, the company was able to know that Carpenter was not achieving the
objectives set for him.
This is an advantage to both the company and the employee since any possible losses by the
company are minimized. On the other hand, the employee is able to note his or her weak points
and find ways of improving on them.

Employee growth and development

Page 5 of 8
The appraisal method facilitates employee growth and development. The Mills Company sets
and outlines the expectations and objectives of positions into an agreement before
commencement of employment. This can be a growth and development factor as it helps
employees strive to reach their full potential. This is a positive implication for both the employee
and employer since the former develops professionally while the latter succeeds in its general
plan and objectives.

Weaknesses
Discouragement of Employees
In my opinion, one of the main weaknesses the approach has is discouragement of employees.
While some other employees might be encouraged to work more and more to achieve their goals,
others like Carpenter might just end up being discouraged due the unpleasant experience of
having to be supervised always and being forced to work hard to achieve set objectives.
This is due to the fact that some employees just like doing their job at their own peace and
pleasure, which is very harmful to the company’s performance. Discouragement can also be very
harmful to the company because with discouraged employees the company is sure to have poor
performance.
Stressful environment
In my opinion, the company’s approach might also have created a stressful environment for some
of the employees, like Carpenter. With every time being reminded that he still wasn’t improving
in his work and having a negative report being produced about him every time and again might
also have contributed to his poor performance.
Biasness
Mill Company’s approach is subject to biasness to the fact that it is based on human assessment.
Take for example Carpenter’s supervisors, Henry and Crane. The two, with no other
consultation, prepared all Carpenter’s reports and assessments. Though not necessary, the
supervisors might just have been biased towards Carpenter. This is a very serious weakness of
the system since it can lead to lay off innocent employees.
Time Consuming Process
The approach is also time consuming and tedious, a feature that reduces its effectiveness. Take
for example when Carpenter was being recruited in the company. A lot of time was spent while
Carpenter and his supervisor then, Henry, agreed on the objectives and performance metrics of
Carpenter’s position.

Page 6 of 8
When carpenter was demoted to a lower position, still more time was spent while forming his
new objectives and performance standards. A lot of time is also required to assess the employee’s
performance and write down his report. This can also be very costly to the company due to the
many meetings that have to be held to assess the employee’s performance.
Question-2: Do you agree or disagree with Lance Amato’s observation that Carpenter
should have been terminated earlier?
Answer: Yes, I do agree with Lance Amato’s observation that carpenter should have been
terminated earlier. This is because according to the record, carpenter never made any
improvement since he joined the company. He was just so poor in his work. Note that not even
once did he get a positive remark from his supervisors. In my opinion, it was just out of pity that
the company continued employing him while he was generating no good service to the company.
This is because though pardoned many times and not terminated, Carpenter still made no
improvement. In my opinion, since the company was keeping all his records, it should have
studied his performance from the start and noted how his graph was moving. After noting that it
was just a falling graph, Carpenter should have been given just one opportunity to make an
improvement, after the failure of which he should have been terminated immediately.
Probably had he been dismissed earlier the company could have been saved from experiencing
some losses and poor performance, though we are not told that such occurred.
Question-3: Review Exhibit 3.7, which lists employment laws relevant to performance
appraisals. Do you think that Carpenter prevail in his charges against Mills? Why or why
not? What are the elements of a legally defensible performance appraisal system?
Answer: I think that Carpenter will not prevail in his charges against Mills. This is because the
charges that he filed are null, void, and do not hold according to the legislation relevant for
performance appraisals. To begin with, he claims unfair performance appraisal. This is not true
since Mills appraisal was formulated according to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which states that
proper appraisals should be documented, and there should be a consistent application of
performance standards.
His claim of age discrimination will also not succeed because Carpenter was not discriminated
by Mills in any way. The Age Discrimination Employment Act states that for this claim to
succeed, an employee must have been discriminated because of his/her age with respect to any
term of employment. Such include, hiring, firing promotion, layoff, and benefits among others.
None of these happened to carpenter, thus all are false allegations.

Page 7 of 8
His claim on negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress will fail because there
might have been emotional distress inflicted. It might as well have been self-inflicted since the
same appraisal system was being used on all other employees and such complains had not been
raised by any other employee.
The only Carpenters claim that might succeed against Mills is that of lack of an appeal process
for employees against the appraisal approach. Take for example in the case of Bob crane, the
second supervisor of Carpenter. He just formulated the objectives on his own and brought them
to carpenter. In my opinion, Carpenter should have also been given a chance to contest the
objectives, which he thought were too difficult for him to achieve.

Page 8 of 8