Additional Case 7.2
As an HR manager at a publishing firm, you are reviewing performance appraisals for a
report to the CEO regarding manager performance. The CEO wants to know not only
how employees are doing, but also how well managers are evaluating their employees.
Matt, Madeline, and Edward are the firm’s key managers.
Reading through Matt’s evaluations, you note that he tends to rate all of his subordinates
in the middle of the scale. You recall a conversation during which Matt commented that
his subordinates were overall satisfactory but not excellent. Matt would like to get them
more training and institute an incentive program for motivational purposes.
Madeline’s employee evaluations of her team range from excellent to poor. You are
startled to see that Madeline has rated Juan rather low. Pulling Juan’s file, you note that
he has always had very high ratings until this time. You remember a meeting two
months ago when Juan vehemently disagreed with Madeline in front of the CEO, who
agreed with Juan’s opinion to Madeline’s embarrassment.
Edward’s employee evaluations have very little justification. Gary, the CEO’s
son-in-law, is typically an average performer, but Edward gave him a very high rating.
Jenny, another average performer, has a very low rating. You recall a comment from
Edward that Jenny needed motivation to work harder.
Refer to Additional Case 7.2. You could most likely draw the conclusion that Matt’s
evaluations exemplify:
A) a halo effect error.
B) the influence of liking.
C) a problem with organizational politics.
D) a frame-of-reference error.
Andrew, the plant manager, is talking with the OSHA representative about compliance
with a new OSHA regulation. Andrew explains that his plant cannot meet the
compliance deadline due to financial and contractual considerations, so he asks for a
one-year delay. Andrew is most likely requesting a(n) ________ from OSHA.