Question

ABC Electronics Corporation Ltd. recently diversified its activities and started producing computers. It employed personnel at lower level and middle level. It has received several applications for the post of Commercial Manager-Computer Division. It could not decide upon the suitability of the candidate to the position, but did find that Mr. David is more qualified for the position than other candidates.

Now the Corporation has created a new post below the cadre of General Manager i.e. Joint General Manager and asked Mr. David to join the Corporation as Joint General Manager. Mr. David agreed to it viewing that he will be considered for the General Manager's position based on his performance. Mr. Henery, the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation and one of the candidates for General Manager's position was annoyed with the management's practice. But, he wanted to show his performance record to the management at the next appraisal meeting. The management of the Corporation asked Mr. Smith, General Manager of Televisions Division to be the General Manager in-charge of Computer Division for some time, until a new General Manager is appointed. Mr. Smith wanted to switch over to the Computer Division in view of the prospects, prestige and recognition of the position among the top management of the Corporation. He viewed this assignment as a chance to prove his performance.
The Corporation has the system of appraisal of the superior's performance by the subordinates. The performance of the Deputy General Manager, Joint General Manager and General Manager has to be appraised by the same group of subordinates. Mr. David is a stranger to the system as well as its Modus Operandi. Mr. Smith and Mr. Henery were competing with each other in convincing their subordinates about their performance and used all sorts of techniques for pleasing them like promising them a wage hike, transfers to the job of their interest, promotions etc. However, these two officers functioned in collaboration with a view to pull down Mr. David. They openly told their subordinates that a stranger should not occupy the 'chair'. They created several groups among employees like pro- Henery group, pro- Smith group, anti- David and Smith Group, anti- Henery and David group.
Mr. David has been watching the proceedings calmly and keeping the management in touch with all these developments. However, Mr. David has been quite work-conscious and top management found his performance under such a political atmosphere to be satisfactory.
David's pleasing manners and way of maintaining human relations with different levels of employees did, however, prevent an anti- David wave in the company. But in view of the politicisation, there is no strong pro- David's group either.
The management administered the performance appraisal technique and the subordinates appraised the performance of all the three managers. In the end, surprisingly, the workers assigned the following overall scores. David: 560 points, Smith: 420 points; and Henery: 260 points.
Questions
a) How do you evaluate the workers' appraisal in this case?
b) Do you suggest any techniques to avert politics creeping into the process of performance appraisal by subordinates?
(c) What measures would you like to suggest in dispensing with such an appraisal system?

Answer 1

Step-by-step explanation:

a) Evaluation of Workers' Appraisal:

Based on the workers' appraisal scores, it is evident that they have rated Mr. David the highest with 560 points, followed by Mr. Smith with 420 points, and Mr. Henery with 260 points. This indicates that the workers perceive Mr. David's performance as the most satisfactory among the three managers. Despite the political atmosphere and the collaboration of Mr. Smith and Mr. Henery to undermine Mr. David, his work-conscious approach and pleasing manners have helped him maintain a favorable impression among the employees.

b) Techniques to Avert Politics in Performance Appraisal by Subordinates:

To prevent politics from creeping into the performance appraisal process by subordinates, the following techniques can be suggested:

1. Anonymous Appraisal: Implement an anonymous appraisal system where subordinates provide feedback without revealing their identities. This will encourage honest and unbiased feedback, reducing the influence of favoritism and office politics.

2. Clear Performance Metrics: Define clear and objective performance metrics for each manager, ensuring that the criteria for evaluation are transparent and measurable. This reduces ambiguity and subjectivity in the appraisal process.

3. Training and Awareness: Conduct training sessions to educate subordinates about the importance of fair and impartial appraisal. Raise awareness about the negative impact of office politics on the overall work environment and the organization's success.

4. 360-Degree Feedback: Involve feedback from multiple sources, such as peers, subordinates, and superiors, in the appraisal process. This comprehensive approach provides a more balanced view of the manager's performance and minimizes the influence of any single group.

5. Appraiser's Training: Train the individuals responsible for conducting the appraisal to be impartial and fair in their assessment. They should be educated on recognizing and avoiding bias in their evaluations.

6. Performance Improvement Plans: Implement performance improvement plans for managers who receive consistently low scores. This encourages them to focus on areas of improvement and fosters a culture of continuous development.

c) Measures to Dispense with the Appraisal System:

If the current appraisal system continues to be affected by politics and bias, the organization may consider alternative methods to evaluate managerial performance:

1. Competency-Based Evaluation: Adopt a competency-based evaluation, where managers are assessed on specific skills and behaviors required for their roles. This approach focuses on actual job-related capabilities rather than subjective opinions.

2. Achievement of Objectives: Evaluate managers based on their ability to achieve set objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs). This approach aligns performance with organizational goals and removes personal bias from the equation.

3. Performance Reviews by Higher Management: Have the performance reviews conducted by higher-level management or a neutral third party to ensure fairness and objectivity.

4. Peer Reviews: Introduce a peer review process, where managers are assessed by their colleagues in different departments or divisions. This can provide a broader and less biased perspective on their performance.

5. Employee Engagement Surveys: Use employee engagement surveys to gather feedback on managers' leadership styles and effectiveness. These surveys can help identify areas where managers excel and areas for improvement.

6. Continuous Feedback: Encourage regular, ongoing feedback from employees to managers. This allows for immediate course correction and helps in addressing issues before they escalate.

By implementing these measures, the organization can aim to create a more fair, transparent, and effective performance appraisal system, free from the negative influence of office politics.