Elise Case Elise Smart Case

Elise Case

Elise Smart Case Study

If the principles and guidelines of the assessment procedures at Millennium Insurance are to have any meaning they must be followed, and as such the only factors Smart should consider are the degree to which Ketchum met or failed to meet her established goals. The fact that the major goal she failed to meet was unstructured and that she took maternity leave at the beginning of the year should not be taken into account now -- they were talent into account when the goals were initially established, and they were agreed to. It is during the goal establishment period that accommodations for maternity can be made and problems should be raised, and they should not influence the evaluation.

2)

It is difficult to gauge Ketchum's potential reaction to either a negative or a positive performance review. In the event of a negative review, which she has certainly earned, it is possible that Ketchum will be able to honestly assess her performance, agree with the review, and that this will spur her on to harder efforts or more reasonable workloads. Given her actions with subordinates and the dishonesty, however slight, in reporting her activities and progress, it seems more likely that a negative review will lead to a more negative attitude and likely an overall degradation in performance, especially on this specific project.

3)

A "Needs Improvement" rating is clearly called for based on the established guidelines of the company, and this is the rating that Ketchum should received. Whether or not the goal Ketchum failed to meet was a fair goal, she not only agreed to this goal initially but continued to assure Smart that the goal would be met throughout the year, even after the point when it should have been clear to Ketchum that the goal would not be achieved without additional help and a splitting up of the tasks involved. The consistency and the transparency as well as the fairness of performance reviews and their attendant bonuses is important to the organization as a whole, and should not be tampered with here due to one interpersonal issue.

4)

The primary objective of the performance review is not punitive, but rather corrective. As such, Ketchum's review should be approached in as constructive and understanding a manner as possible, yet without making any excuses or additional allowances. The accomplishments that Ketchum achieved and the difficulties in her personal life and her work situation should be acknowledged, and then her failure to meet her most major goal of the year should be directly addressed. Ketchum's own input regarding the reasons for this failure should be sought before Smart gives her own assessment, and this assessment should initially be presented in the form of questions that Ketchum has the ability to agree or disagree with and elaborate upon or discuss. This will ensure that the review is received in as open and effective a manner as possible, with the vest results for all concerned.