sales organization evaluates its sales team. The organization I am using is Carton Bros. Ireland it is a poultry distribution company. The question in more specific terms is intention to discover what are the different methods of performance appraisals this organization uses in order to evaluate how their sales team are performing?'
About the company
Carton Brothers is the name of the company that produce Manor Farm chicken. It dates back to 1775, when it was started in the Dublin market. It soon grew substantially as a company and gradually became one of the largest traders in the country diversifying and, in fact, one part of it becoming involved in the import, blending and selling of tea. The company also sold may other commodities such as rabbit, spirits & eggs amongst other things.
It was in 1956 that the company first turned to rearing the chickens and making them more accessible to the Irish people. The company moved in 1970 to a custom built factory in the heart of Cavan at a small village called Shercock on the shores of Lough Sillan. Carton Bros. has one of the most modern processing facilities in Europe producing up to 600,000 birds per week at its home in the heart of Cavan. The company supplies its Irish customers from all the major supermarkets, local stores and butchers as well as for sale abroad. Currently Vincent Carton, 8th generation of the Carton family, is Managing Director, and the company employs 650 people directly, contracts a further 150 farmers and gives indirect employment to many more throughout the 26 counties (Carton Brothers About Us).
Since Carton Bros has such a huge and diverse sales force, employing both direct and indirect workers it would be interesting to evaluate how it evaluates its sales team. This is particularly interesting given the fact that Carton Bros. has achieved a reputation as a dedicated, successful production company producing "unique and very tasty chicken products from the best chicken that we ourselves produce. " (Carton Brothers About Us). Their contracted farmers grow only for Carton Brothers and must comply with all the processes and guidelines that they have defined and the company seems to live up to its brand.
Rationale for research
People evaluate their sales teams for various reasons and in various ways. The idea for this research first came about in response to a news item that I had read regarding the way that Carton Bros appraised its sales team and treated its workers. In June 2011, one of the employees accused Carton of running their business in a patriarchal way giving allegiance to family first and foremost and according their shareholders and workers little respect. (The Angelo Celt ( 1 June, 2011) )
More so, an earlier court case demonstrates that the company was accused of harsh treatment against its workers including reduction of pay for apparently no, or minimal reason ("the basic rates of pay of the workers concerned are low when compared to production workers generally. "); withdrawal of the Sick Pay scheme; drastically cutting employee rest periods; including their afternoon Tea Break. All of this and similar miserly treatment of workers resulted in high absenteeism. According to the explanation that Carton Bros gave in its defenses, it seemed to be evaluating performance of its sales team in terms of how much they could produce in order to make its company more productive. The company, in other words, pointed to its depressed state of the poultry industry generally, land to the Company's severe debt problem and high cost structure in particular and treated its workers as automatons whom they demanded the highest standards from as way of their overcoming the challenge. Both shareholders and workers, subsequently, noted that Carton Bros seemed to lack respect for individuals and to treat them as means to an end rather than as ends in themselves. The result has been a series of court cases and high levels of turnover as well as low motivation. (Labor Court Database. )? It has often been said that appraisal of work team replicates the way that the organization deals with its people. There have been notable organizations, for instance, such as the Education Functional Council of England (HEFQM) who have won rewards for their treatment of employees and their assessment appraisal methodology as well as for their performance. Reviews have noted that the three areas seem intertwined -- in other words that appraisal of team players follows respect and concern for team members attempting to develop them for the company believes that by doing so it will all the better develop themselves. In return, employees are motivated and intense in pleasing the company. The outcome is that the company is successful and commended on all aspects.
The staff-centered goals, for instance, of HEFQM are the following:
1.To manage and improve their people resources
2.To identify and develop people's knowledge and skills.
3.To involve and empower people
4.To achieve communication between people and the organization
5.People are rewarded and acknowledged
This is the very reverse of Carton Bros. The performance appraisal structure of HEFQM are built around these conditions since this is the core of the HEFQM's existence and the philosophy of their company. Each sales organization, therefore, evaluates its team in ways specific to the company ethos.
HEFQM considers employee satisfaction and development significant; it therefore structures its performance appraisal around these concerns. Carton Bros. seems to place family business and profits first, comfort of employees last. My hypothesis is that its performance appraisal would reflect these conditions.
My research objectives are consequently four-fold:
To assess whether performance appraisals of sales team reflect company philosophy
To assess whether performance appraisals of sales team reflect company treatment of its employees
To assess whether the notoriety of Carton Bros. towards its employees is reflected in its performance appraisal
To investigate extent to attention if any Carton Bros accords to comfort and empowerment as well as rewarding and satisfying its employees in its performance appraisal
Design of Research Methodology: - Research approach
Semi-structured interviews with all employees, both conventional and unconventional as well as farmer and administrators will occur. The focus will be on whether performance evaluations are carried out and the way that each of these sectors perceive the appraisal to be slanted. Research will also investigate to see whether the company has formulated a hard copy, or a tangible program of performance appraisal. If so, the researchers would ask for permission to evaluate it. They would then adopt phenomenological approach to analyzing the themes of the performance appraisal program / document were such document / program to exist.
The whole would occur over a 2-3-month period after first soliciting permission from company and asking separate workers for their permission too. - Unit information (coverage/sample)? The sample will be any and all employees employed by Carlon Bros in the present moment as well as past employees who have been employed by the company over the last 10 years.
Administrators and supervisors will also be asked their opinion. The objective is to involve all hierarchical levels of the organization in the individualized face-to-face interviews so as to get a broad, multi-faceted and rich coverage of the conditions and style of the performance appraisal that Carton Bros administers of its workers and the perception of their appraisal from both workers and employers. - Method of data collection
The method of data collection will be conducted via semi-structured interviews.
Individual depth interviews would be used. Each will last an hour but will vary according to the way the interview develops. I choose this type of interview since it is particular suited for sensitive areas of which I see this case as being one. Individuals will, as far as possible, also be interviewed in an environment where they are more relaxed, eg at their home.
As part of my performance, I will practice active listening to the fullest extent possible reminding myself that the perspective and interpretation of the other differs from my own and that people's feelings or accounts may be far different than those mentioned by them and this may be so not always consciously but simply because they are unaware of their actions and motivations (Desai, 2002). It does not mean they the their story is untrue, merely that it is influenced by context and other elements and that to get a more balanced picture, I will need to have various participants invited to tell me their story. There is not one unitary truth, but rather a vast spectrum of truths, and I would like to get the impression of this vast spectrum of truths and see whether I can forge some associated elements.
The model that I will use for conducting interview will be the essence of Rogerian counseling in that it will involve unconditional regard for other and active listening. I choose Carl Roger's mode of active listening since it comes accompanied with reflexion and other…