Performance Appraisal?

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Performance Appraisal?
Nakeisha’s PA practices have the potential to create irreversible difficulties for Sweeny Electronics by setting the pace for underperformance and raising questions about the fairness of the appraisal system. It is clear that Bill’s performance was not more than average, yet he was rated outstanding. While this is a considerate action by Nekeisha, it is considered as leniency bias and could play the role of encouraging underperformance, higher than warranted compensation and inability to make effective personnel decisions based on the appraisals (Javidmehr and Ebrahimpour 291). This would in exchange to impact the company’s performance. Nekeisha’s PA practices could also lead to questions on the fairness of the appraisal system, which may significantly influence employee motivation and performance (Idowu 36). These two challenges affect the objectivity of the Sweeny Electronics appraisal system; rendering it ineffective at the rating and rewarding employees.
To diminish the negative effect of Bill’s evaluation, Nakeisha must re-evaluate his rating to ensure that it is done according to the system requirements. She could explain to Bill that her previous rating was unacceptable by the company’s standards and the possible negative impacts it could have on the system. Nakeisha should then go on to encourage Bill to work harder to ensure that he gets a better rating next time. Also, she should continue supporting Bill to address his issues to ensure enhanced performance at work.

The forced distribution performance appraisal system may not help in alleviating the problem created by Nakeisha. This is a system where employees are rated based on pre-determined parameters, mostly three or more categories such as excellent, good, fair and poor, or the use of percentages to rate performance. Using this system may not solve the problem because it is still based on supervisor judgment and the supervisor can still give an employee a favorable rating (Mathis et al. 354). It is also difficult for the supervisor to effectively explain the distinctions that made them rate one employee over the other (Mathis et al. 354). A better approach would be the 360-degree rating, where an employee is rated by different stakeholders including colleagues, customers, subordinates, management, and self. This provides richer feedback and a fairer way to rate employees (Mathis et al. 348).
Works cited
Idowu, Ayomikun O. “Effectiveness of Performance Appraisal System and its Effect on
Employee Motivation.” Nile Journal of Business and Economics, No. 5, 2017, pp. 15-39.
Javidmehr, Mahmoud Ebrahimpour, Mehrdadand. “Performance appraisal bias and errors: The
influences and consequences.” International Journal of Organizational Leadership, No. 4, 2015, pp. 286-302.
Mathis, Robert, L. et al. Human Resource Management. Cengage Learning. 2013