Case Study 2
Jessica Adkins
Liberty University
February 7, 2016

Performance Appraisals
Mrs. Howell will be unable to use the information found within the performance appraisals to decide which employees should be discharged. This is due to the managers failing to complete the appraisals properly. A performance appraisal is defined as “the identification, measurement, and management of human performance in organizations (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016, p. 205) Performance appraisals are generally tools that are used in evaluating an employee’s performance based on the dimensions set by the firm (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). Performance appraisals supply firms with employee shortcomings once per year, ensure consistency among employees, and recognize valuable employees (Segal, 2000). Performance appraisals are of upmost importance to firms who are facing downsizing since it supplies accurate information for the decision-making process that is required to make employee decisions (Segal, 2000). The firm is facing the issue of performance appraisals having inaccurate information. This inaccurate information is prohibiting Karen Howell from laying off the correct employees. The firm should not layoff any employees until the information found in the appraisals can be more accurate. Requiring the managers to conduct new appraisals is the only way to prohibit the firm from facing legal issues. If the firm is unable to wait for these results then Mrs. Howell will have to use other methods to make the termination decisions for the firm. There are numerous separation strategies that can be beneficial to Mrs. Howell in this case. These strategies are voluntary separations, layoffs in the form of seniority, and layoffs based on work performance (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). The employee separation strategies will help Mrs. Howell make the decisions on whom to terminate without the help of the performance appraisals that would have been ideal for this issue.

Lay-Off Options The first step that should be taken to help Mrs. Howell make the termination decision sis a voluntary separation program should be implemented. A voluntary separation takes place when employees decide for personal and professional reasons to end employment with their current firm (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). The voluntary separation allows Mrs. Howell the benefit of having some employees decide to no longer work for the firm. This could be caused from lack of interest in their job, disinterest in relocation, or finding a better job elsewhere (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). There are numerous benefits to voluntary separations. One benefit is employees volunteering to leave their positions will save the firm large amounts of time wasted on decision making (Wilkinson, 2012). Furthermore, the employees are able to leave under good circumstances allowing for rehire if the firm needs them in the future. Under the Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment Authority of the United States government firms that are downsizing and restructuring are allowed to offer employees a lump-sum payment of up to $25,000 as a bonus to voluntarily separate (The United States Department of Personnel Management, 2015). Payment incentives may allow employees who are close to retirement age or those looking to change careers the opportunity to leave their current position to pursue other avenues. Mrs. Howell may have to make fewer layoff choices if more employees choose voluntary separation. A layoff is different from termination. A layoff causes an employee to lose their position based on the facts that the firm needs to change its strategy or environment; forcing the firm to reduce its labor force (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). Terminated employees are usually discharged due to their own actions. Layoffs can have a negative effect on the firm. Layoffs can cause employees to be fearful of losing their jobs in the future (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). Seniority and employee performance are common ways a firm is able to decide who to lay off during downsizing (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). A seniority layoff criterion is one way that Mrs. Howell will be able to decide who is subject to layoffs. Seniority means that the last one hired is the first one to be let go. The seniority method is beneficial to Mrs. Howell and the firm because many employees view this method as fair and it reduces manager’s bias in decision making (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). However, this method has the disadvantage of the firm losing high performance employees simply because another employee has been there longer (Traub, 2013). The law upholds seniority as an acceptable method of laying off employees as long as every employee has equal opportunities to gain seniority in the firm (The United States Department of Personnel Management, 2015).
Performance based criteria for layoffs are decisions that are made based on the employee’s individual performance at their job. This method allows the firm to keep the most qualified employees who have the highest amount of production for the firm. This method enables to the firm to keep the best performers and discharge the weakest (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). The employees being kept may or may not have been employed the longest. The downside to this method is the performance of employees may not be accurately documented like Mrs. Howell is currently facing. This method also opens the firm up to legal issues with older employees who may be terminated due to lack of performance and replaced with a younger employee. The older employees can say they were discriminated against due to their age (Segal, 2000) It is imperative that the firm along with Mrs. Howell come to a conclusion regarding the performance appraisal situation. The firm may implement many rules and regulations regarding the performance evaluation protocols. However, if the managers that are responsible for conducting the appraisals are not completing them properly then the appraisal becomes more costly than beneficial for the firm (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). The firm should implement more frequent appraisals in order to get the managers more accustomed to performing these tasks correctly.
Performance Appraisal Improvement
The first thing Howell should do is schedule a meeting with each department manager and explain what employee cuts must be made. Howell should then give the managers the copies of the performance appraisals that she has been using to make the firing decisions. The managers can see that the inaccurate information that has been given on the appraisals can inadvertently cause employees to lose their jobs. Mrs. Howell should set with each manager to go through the performance appraisals and discuss the issues with each appraisal. The managers need to understand the severity of the issue of the inaccurate information that has been given. The managers along with the new head of Human resources Wendy Wright to decide what the performance dimensions need to be for each department. Wendy Wright and Mrs. Howell will work with the managers to decide what can be done in order to help the managers evaluate the employees performance in a more accurate and productive way (Czerwinski, 1998). Each department would have its own dimensions, no one set of dimensions for everyone plan (Czerwinski, 1998). This method will allow the firm to use the appraisal to develop the skills of employees and ensure the right employee is working in the right department. Therefore maximizing the employee’s skills within the firm. The new dimensions of performance appraisals will aid in reducing the amount of bias or rater errors found in performance appraisals. A rater error is an error that can be found in performance appraisals that show biases that are consistent on the rater or in this case the manager (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). There are numerous errors that may occur during the performance appraisal process. The most popular rater error is the halo error or tendency to rate employees similarly across all performance dimensions (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). There are usually two causes of a halo error. The first is the manager forms a general opinion of the employee then adjusts all performance dimensions to fit within that opinion (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). This form of stereotyping is one of the most harmful in the appraisal process (Traub, 2013).The second cause happens when a manager rates all performance dimensions based on what is important to the manager not the firm (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). This is demonstrated when a manager ranks an employee higher because the employee is more like the manager themselves (Traub, 2013).Another error is the restriction of range error. A restriction of range error takes place when a manager only uses a small portion of the performance dimension rating scale to score the employee (Traub, 2013). There are three types of restriction of range errors. The first is leniency errors or only using the highest section of the performance dimension scale (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). The second is central tendency errors or only using the middle section of the performance dimension scale (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). The third is severity errors or only using the lowest sections of the performance dimension rating scale (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016).
The errors can be minimized even further if the firm implements a couple review policies to the performance appraisals. The firm can implement a self-review and a peer review. A self-review will allow the employees to rate themselves and provide the firm with feedback on the causes of any performance issues they may be having (Luis R. Gomez-Meija, 2016). The self-review allows the employee to have some control over their appraisal and may clarify issues the manager or firm was not aware of (Czerwinski, 1998). The peer review takes place when employees in the firm that work at the same level review each other. There is also another step to the peer review where the employees review their manager called the subordinate review. This allows the employees to have a voice in the ongoing of daily work environment. This often gives the manager information that they may not have on other employees (Czerwinski, 1998).
Mrs. Howell along with Wendy Wright requiring the managers to do performance appraisals more often will increase the managers comfort level with the process. The reduction of errors by allowing the managers to aid in the important dimensions each department measures will increase the productivity of the appraisals by the managers (Traub, 2013). Allowing the employees to have a voice in their personal appraisals along with the appraisals of their managers and peers will give the employees a better understanding of the dimensions that are valuable to their department. The managers are responsible for building a productive team atmosphere within their departments (Kouzes, 2004). The leaders or managers are able to build a more productive team when all employees feel like they have input and are valued by their manager (Wilkinson, 2012).
Biblical Perspective
Matthew 7:1-29 says “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye (Kenneth Barker, 1995). Termination of employees is never a task a manager looks forward to. The Christian way to handle this situation is make sure the manager is making this decision based on the facts not on a preconceived opinion the manager has of the employee. It is easy to assume the employee who is a recovering drug addict stole the missing money. It is even easier to assume the employee who is struggling with bills stole as well. Everyone has seen times of struggle in their lives and did not want others to judge them on this one circumstance. Managers and HR representatives especially need to make sure they are making the decisions based on facts only not the first impression they get from someone.

References
Czerwinski, R. E. (1998, 01). Performace Appraisal "What can be done to improve. Retrieved 02 05, 2016, from United States FEMA: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/pdf/efop/efo28049.pdf
Kenneth Barker, D. W. (1995). The NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Kouzes, P. M.-W. (2004). Christian Reflections on Leadership Challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Luis R. Gomez-Meija, D. B. (2016). Managing Human Resources. Boston: Pearson.
Segal, J. (2000, 10 01). The Benefit of Performance Appraisals. HR Magazine, 45(10), p. 1000.
The United States Department of Personnel Management. (2015, 05 15). Voluntary Seperation Incentives. Retrieved 02 03, 2016, from OM.GOV: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/workforce-restructuring/voluntary-separation-incentive-payments/
Traub, L. (2013). BIAS IN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT. New York: Cook Ross.
Wilkinson, T. J. (2012). Strategic Managment in the 21st century. Sanata Barbara: Praeger.