Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Appendix B-121
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
Appendix B-122
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
CHAPTER 7 – CHAPTER EXERCISES
Chapter Exercise 7.1
Performance Appraisal Feedback: A Role-Play Exercise
Sharon L. Wagner, Richard G. Moffett III, and Catherine M. Westberry
IM Notes prepared by Joyce E. A. Russell
Objective. This exercise requires the student to be able to utilize the chapter information to review a
performance appraisal form and make corrections or improvements in it.
Description. This exercise requires about one hour of out-of-class preparation time to review Exhibits
7.1.1, 7.1.2, and 7.1.3. The student is also required to provide a one-page critique of the performance
appraisal form.
A role-play that should last about 40 minutes is described below:
In class, the students are set up into teams of three (by the professor) and each person is given one
role: as the feedback giver, recipient, and observer of the feedback. Give students about 10 minutes
After students have read and prepped their roles, they will role-play the exercise for about 15
minutes. This will involve a one-on-one session by "Chris" and "Jesse" and the observer will be taking
notes. After the role-play is completed, the observer will provide his/her feedback to "Chris". This
should take about 5-10 minutes. Remind observers that they should be providing both positive and
constructive feedback to "Chris". The person who played the role of "Jesse" can also give "Chris"
Appendix B-123
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Following the role play, the professor can lead a class discussion on the types of behaviors that the
observers or others saw that were effective when "Chris" was giving "Jesse" feedback. Professors can
summarize this discussion of effective feedback-giver behaviors.
FEEDBACK TO BE GIVEN:
The feedback giver should be sure to address the positive aspects of Jesse's performance such as
interpersonal skills, and quantity of work (acceptable). The unsatisfactory parts should also be
addressed including Jesse's job knowledge, work quality, and reliability.
Exercise 7.1
Additional Information for Class Discussion
EFFECTIVE BEHAVIORS OF FEEDBACK GIVERS
Some of the behaviors that should be described in the class discussion for effective behaviors by
feedback givers include the following:
1. Develop an atmosphere of trust by establishing rapport.
2. Provide specific, descriptive feedback, not general, evaluative feedback.
7. Encourage the subordinate to ask questions or offer comments.
8. Allow the subordinate to respond fully without cutting him/her off.
Appendix B-124
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
12. Use reflecting or mirroring and probing responses to learn more about the
subordinate's views.
VALUE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FEEDBACK SESSIONS
The professor could discuss with the class the value of performance feedback sessions which includes:
1. Allows managers to communicate what is expected of employees and clarifies
any misunderstandings about requirements for the job.
improvement.
5. Assists employees in career planning and development.
6. Satisfies employees' interpersonal needs (i.e., needs to be informed by the
supervisor).
Appendix B-125
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
Chapter Exercise 7.2
The Heartland Greeting Cards Consulting Problem
Esther J. Long
IM Notes prepared by Joyce E. A. Russell
Objective. This exercise builds from Chapter 6 (Personnel Selection) and Chapter 7 (Performance
Management and Appraisal) to enable students to enhance their skills in refining a company's
selection and performance appraisal systems.
Description. In the first part of the exercise, students conduct an individual analysis by reading the
background information provided in Exhibits 7.2.1 and 7.2.2. Following this, students should complete
Forms 7.2.1 and 7.2.2. This individual part should take students about one hour in out-of-class
preparation.
In the second part of the exercise, students work in class in small groups (about 4-6 per team). They
should discuss their completed Forms 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 and reach consensus on the appropriate
selection tools and performance appraisal system to be used. This should take students about 20-30
minutes for this discussion.
The professor can open the discussion up to the entire class by soliciting responses to Forms 7.2.1 and
7.2.2. The discussion may take about 20 minutes.
Appendix B-126
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
Responses to Form 7.2.1
Design of a Selection Instrument
Identify at least one selection method that could be used to assess whether a candidate possesses
each of the job specifications listed below. Refer back to Chapter 6 for guidance and the material
presented in Exhibits 7.2.1 and 7.2.2.
Job specifications (minimum qualifications)
1. Mathematical ability to carry out calculations involving addition, subtraction, multiplication,
and division of three digits or more including fractions and decimals. Note: Mathematical
computations must be carried out when checking in merchandise or completing inventory.
Calculators may be used.
Assessment method:
2. A 12th grade reading level in English. Note: The service manual is written at the 12th grade
reading level.
Assessment method:
3. Ability to attend to details. Note: To minimize the in-store inventory, the company blueprint
for each display must be followed precisely. Each set of cards has a pocket where it is supposed
to be displayed (the numerical codes on the back of the cards must match the codes on the
pocket labels).
Assessment method:
Appendix B-127
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
A work sample can be used where individuals are timed or tested on appropriately displaying the
inventory. In addition, a clerical ability test or relevant portions of it could be used to assess
attention to details (Minnesota Clerical Test).
4. Ability to carry out company procedures while adapting to situational needs. Note: A person
must have the ability to make snap decisions on the sport.
Assessment method.
5. Ability to resolve customer (i.e., store manager) complaints while maintaining good will.
Assessment method:
6. Basic body mobility (e.g., ability to bend, reach, lift) and ability to stand for up to three hours at
a time. Note: A person with a disability (in a wheelchair) could be accommodated.
7. Ability to work alone with no supervision for weeks at a time.
Assessment method:
Appendix B-128
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Personality tests such as the CPI or the Sixteen PF Questionnaire could be used to assess the degree
to which an individual would be comfortable working on their own. Also, previous work history could
be assessed via a situational interview to determine whether or not individuals had ever
worked without supervision in past jobs.
8. Must provide own transportation to all stores.
Assessment method:
Using an interview, applicants could be asked whether they could find their own means of
Appendix B-129
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
Responses to Form 7.2.2
Design of a Performance-Appraisal System
1. Who should be responsible for evaluating the greeting card merchandiser's performance?
Store managers would be one good source of performance appraisal data (using rating forms) since
2. What rating format(s) will allow you to incorporate the job performance criteria identified in
the job analysis directly into the rating form? Explain your answer. Prepare a sample rating
form. Write one rating item. Be sure to include the complete rating scale.
A rating form should be used and raters could include both the supervisor and the store manager (for
relevant dimensions).
Dimensions to be assessed include:
Inventory management - keeping inventories at the appropriate levels (see Exhibit 7.2.2).
Appendix B-130
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
3. What techniques do you recommend to ensure that the greeting card merchandiser is
provided with accurate and timely feedback concerning his or her performance. Explain
your answer.
The merchandiser should receive formal feedback at least twice a year from his/her immediate boss.
4. What other components of the PA system will help make it more legally defensible? Explain
your answer.
Professors should review material in the chapter on legally defensible performance appraisal systems,
found on page 146. Some issues that should definitely be addressed for this case are given below:
1. The raters should be trained.
6. An appeal system should be put into place so that employees can appeal ratings.
7. Employees should see the rating form, and sign off that they have received the feedback.
Appendix B-131
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
Chapter Exercise 7.3
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
Objective. The purposes of exercise 7.3 are twofold: (1) to acquaint students with an important U.S.
Supreme Court case related to performance appraisal; and (2) to allow students to consider the
implications of this case as they relate to appraisal system development, implementation, and
administration.
Description. Students will assume the role of an outside consultant engaged by Price Waterhouse to
design a performance assessment system that is valid and legally defensible. Therefore, the students'
efforts should be directed toward developing expertise about: the specifics of the Hopkins case (see
Exhibit 7.3.1), performance appraisal issues (Chapter 7), and the relevant EEO issues (Chapter 3).
As consultants to Price Waterhouse HR senior management, students will be challenged to give
constructive criticism about the firm's present staffing (especially promotion) systems. The
background case information includes the specifics of a lawsuit filed against Price Waterhouse by a
female manager (Hopkins), who was rejected as partner candidate. The basis for the former litigation
is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Students should be aware that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 is an amendment to Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The former overruled a 1989 Supreme Court decision. Under the 1989
Price Waterhouse ruling, the Supreme Court allowed the defendant an opportunity to present a
"mixed motive" argument. The "mixed motive" argument states that setting aside the "motivating
factor," the Company would have made the same personnel decision. The Company was thus given
an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it relied on valid reasons in making
absence of any discriminatory motive becomes relevant only in the remedial phase of the litigation
Appendix B-132
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
(e.g., determination of damages, back pay, reinstatement, and promotion). If the defendant can
out-of-class Individual Analysis can be completed in about one hour. The Group analysis can be
completed in one class session.
PROCEDURE FOR CHAPTER EXERCISE 7.3
For Step 1, the students should be instructed to read Chapter 7 before attempting to do the exercise.
Then, they should read the background for the case (Exhibit 7.3.1 of the text), and review the relevant
issues in Chapters 7 and 3.
Appendix B-133
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
These are issues that should involve partners, managers, employees, and HR professionals. Finally,
specific recommendations for change (if necessary) should reflect the seven (7) steps cited in Chapter
7 on developing appraisal systems:
1. Start with job analysis
2. Specify performance dimensions and develop performance anchors
3. Scale the anchors
For Step 3, groups of no more than six (6) students should develop short presentations. Students
should use their responses from Form 7.3.1 for discussion purposes. Allow at least 15 minutes so that
all group members can review all other student forms. We recommend that all group members
Table 7.3.1
Answers for Form 7.3.1
Appendix B-134
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
1. What legal statute applies to this case?
Ann Hopkins was a senior manager in an office of Price Waterhouse when she was proposed for
partnership in 1982. She was neither offered nor denied admission to the partnership; instead, her
candidacy was held for reconsideration the following year. When the partners in her office later
refused [490 U.S. 228, 232] to repropose her for partnership, she sued Price Waterhouse under Title
2. What additional data or information would be helpful in order for you to take a
definitive position on Hopkins?
More detail on partnerships and eligibility as related to gender is critical. Also, the performance
requirements of the partner's job would be helpful to have in determining selection guidelines. In
addition, the performance records of all the candidates should be reviewed. Third, the weight on
disproportionate.
3. What steps would you take at Price Waterhouse to prevent a similar legal problem in the
future?
PW should follow the recommendations outlined in Chapters 6 and 7 for conducting fair and legally
sound performance appraisals. Namely, PW should develop a legally defensible appraisal system for
promotions based on the following:
Appendix B-135
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
- Clearly defined and universally applicable appraisal procedures
- Hopkins should have been evaluated using the same procedures as if she were a man,
i.e., no stereotyping
1. Appraisal system content defined by criterion and job activity
1. Ratee traits (e.g., "ladylikeness") should be excluded; may contribute to sexual
stereotyping
2. Objective verifiable performance data should be used (e.g., the $25 million
contract Hopkins secured)
3. Performance dimensions should be weighted by their relative importance e.g.,
0.35 Value of contracts
5. Development of rater and ratee training manuals and programs
6. Integration of a computerized performance appraisal system with corporate HR information
systems
Appendix B-136
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
1. Analysis of appraisal ratings distributions to show ratings errors among partnership
candidates
2. Link appraisal data to succession planning programs
3. Integrate appraisal data with employee and client surveys for more comprehensive
information about candidates
7. Establishment of a formal appeal process for rejected promotion candidates
1. Candidates should be able to review and dispute any part of a PA
2. Local office partners (possibly clients) should be able to dispute PA ratings of candidates
8. Methods to evaluate the system's effectiveness in terms of:
1. User reactions
Perception of fairness by raters and candidates safeguards against biases (e.g., sex,
race, age discrimination) level of useful information gained
Another possibility is to use an assessment center for selecting partners (Ch. 6).
4. Is gender stereotyping illegal? If so, does Hopkins prevail in this case?
Gender stereotyping is illegal if such perceptions lead to discriminatory employment decisions
regarding groups protected under Title VII of CRA 1991 (e.g., women). Title VII does allow
employment practices that may be correlated with sex in cases of:
Appendix B-137
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
1. Seniority systems
2. Veterans preference rights
3. National security reasons
4. Job qualifications based on
Test scores
Backgrounds
Experience
1. Bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQs)
5. If gender stereotyping is an acceptable legal theory of discrimination, does the theory apply
to discrimination against gay people under Title VII? Give an example of what you regard as
illegal discrimination against a gay person using this theory.
6. What specific steps would you take to improve the validity and legal defensibility of the
partner selection process?
Validity and legal defensibility are overlapping yet separate concepts. To improve validity selection
assessments should predict job performance. This requires assessing the performance appraisal
process. It would be impossible to improve the validity of the selection system without valid criteria
Appendix B-138
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter Exercise 7.4
Performance Appraisal at Darby Gas & Light
Joyce E.A. Russell
IM Notes prepared by Joyce E. A. Russell and John Bernardin
Objective. The purpose of this exercise is to give students practice in critiquing a performance
appraisal form and in offering suggestions for improving it. In addition, by reviewing survey data
survey taken of employees with regard to their organization's performance appraisal system, students
can more effectively revise the firm's current performance appraisal system.
Description. This exercise requires about one hour of out-of-class preparation to review the
background information (Exhibits 7.4.1, 7.4.2, and 7.4.3) and to complete Form 7.4.1. Students will
complete this preparation individually. In class, the professor will hold a discussion (about 30 minutes)
where students can critique the form and system used by Darby and can offer their suggestions for a
new form and system.
Responses to Form 7.4.1
1. After reviewing Exhibit 7.4.2, list what you regard as the major problems with the Darby
appraisal system. Make specific recommendations about changing the system and cover
what you regard as all aspects of the system.
The appraisal form is just terrible and should be dropped. Among the problems,
1. Use of dimensions that are not defined as performance outcomes (e.g., job knowledge,
decision making).
Appendix B-139
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
5. Apparently no involvement of “customers” in the derivation of performance anchors or
criteria.
Darby should begin the process of revising the form based on a thorough job analysis of the various
jobs. The form content should then be linked to the job analyses. Dimensions should be defined in
behavioral terms and anchors should be defined in behavioral terms. Employees and managers should
2. What revisions to the form would you suggest? What particular methods (formats) discusses
in Chapter 7 do you recommend?
1. Use of more precise definitions of performance levels (e.g., behavioral
anchors using summated (BOS), PDA. CARS and BARS could be useful too.
Appendix B-140
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
3. Suppose the firm wants to use the form for employee feedback (i.e., to provide feedback to
employees on their strengths and weaknesses). Do you think the instrument will be useful
for this purpose? Why or why not? What, if any, revisions would you suggest so that the
form can be used for employee development?
The form will probably not be very useful in providing feedback to employees. Employees may know
what their ratings are, but not what the ratings refer to or how to change their behavior. To correct
this, the ratings should require behavioral anchors and definitions of dimensions. Also, specific,
4. Suppose Darby has used this form to both promote people and make merit pay adjustments.
Suppose also that Darby has been informed that six African-Americans have claimed
discrimination based on promotion and pay policies. What (if any) advice can you give the
company? What specific data should Darby evaluate in the context of these claims?
The company should first analyze the promotional and pay decisions using the 80% rule as the
criterion for defining “disparate impact.” Prima facie evidence of discrimination in the form of an 80%
rule violation is an excellent predictor of the outcome of court decisions against employers. If there is
no 80% rule, careful scrutiny of the entire appraisal system is necessary. You should also advise Darby
