Question

Your company is fairly progressive and has started to use peer-evaluations in the performance evaluation process with the idea that nobody knows team members’ behaviors better than the team. Each individual completes a self-evaluation and then one evaluation on each member of the team. The overall average is used to calculate performance grades for each team member. Dave, one of your teammates is not fond of Sherry; in fact it’s fair to say he’d rather work with anyone but Sherry. They are both good performers but Dave confides in you that he’s afraid she will give him poor ratings. Anticipating this likelihood, Dave tells you that he feels like he has no other choice but to provide Sherry with lower ratings so as to counteract the effect of her lower ratings of him. Which of the following actions would be most helpful to Dave in promoting an ethical choice?

a. Ask Dave to consider other potential options regardless of whether he is right or wrong about Sherry.
b. Tell Dave that although you appreciate his candor, you now have no other choice but to contact your boss about the situation.
c. Tell Dave that lying is never the answer especially since he doesn’t know for sure that Sherry will behave as he fears.
d. Call your company’s confidential ethics hotline to inform senior management that people are abusing the performance management system.

Answer 1

The answer is C. You have to directly tell him that since he can't "read Sherry's mind", he can't lie in the evaluation process.

Step-by-step explanation:

Teams achieve more than individuals! we know this. and Teams make it easier to do a task and it is less time consuming.

Moreover, an array of different talents and expertise is mingled during a team work. This allows for the individual development of skills and experience along with benefiting the entire organization.

Scenarios such as these are common. Because teams are diverse, each member has a different and unique personality and characteristics. So, "Conflicts" are "super" normal in a team.

What we must do is to make certain that these conflicts eventually be constructive rather than destructive. Because it is a well known fact that constructive conflicts and criticism is a vital part of organization development in the long run.

Certain things to do in a scenario like this,

1. Tackling the issue head on and have a friendly chat with both members who are having a conflict.
2. Making the team processes more transparent (such as the evaluation process)
3. In this case, we can put on something like this. If a team member gives a good or a bad evaluation, just saying it is not enough. They have to state "Why" they are saying this. such a policy can prevent scenarios like this where members give poor grades just because "they don't like each other".