Reference no: EM133941560

EXERCISE: ETHICAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL ISSUES

I. OBJECTIVES:

To make you aware that many performance appraisal decisions involve ethical issues.
To familiarize you with some of the many ethical performance appraisal issues.
To familiarize you with various criteria that can be used to determine if an action is ethical.
To make you aware of some of the reasons why a manager may be tempted to act unethically when evaluating subordinates.

DISCUSSION

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 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

Review and answer each scenario. After completing the two questions posed for each scenario, justify your answers based on selecting and answering one or two of the questions in (a-g).

Does the action involve intentional deception?
Does the action purposely benefit one party at the expense of another?
Is the action fair and just to all concerned?
Would you or the manager feel comfortable if the action was made public, or must it remain a secret?
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?
Would you recommend the action to others?
Will the action build goodwill and better relationships?

CASE SCENARIO

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. Get the best assignment help from top tutors.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A manager wants to help a subordinate get promoted, so she gives her a higher evaluation than deserved.