Performance management systems and organizational effectiveness

Performance Management

The objective of this study is to critique and article concerning a court case or lawsuit related to discrimination or unjust dismissal by a performance management system.

Case Description

It is reported in the work of Barrett and Kernan (1987) that in "Nord v. U.S. Steel (1985) the plaintiff successfully demonstrated that she had a record of good performance appraisals before she requested a promotion. After this request her appraisals became negative, which led to her eventual termination. The court reasoned that the downgraded evaluations after her promotion request were evidence of discrimination. Employers in the remaining 37 cases successfully defended their termination decisions." (p. 6) The court emphasized the necessity of "applying performance appraisal standards equally to all employees

Purpose of Performance Management

Miller (2015) writes "A performance appraisal itself may become the target of a lawsuit. Indeed, no evaluation system is completely immune to the risk of litigation. Even a well-designed system can subject an employer to various liabilities if it is poorly implemented or applied in an inconsistent manner. If they are well written and consistent, appraisals can support disciplinary or termination decisions. However, if poorly implemented they can support the plaintiff's position." (p. 1)

III. Analysis of Criteria and Methods Used for Performance Management Measurement

Barrett and Kerman, in their review of performance management measurements reported six specific points including: (1) Conduction of a "job analysis to ascertain characteristics necessary for successful job performance"; (2) Incorporation of "these characteristics into a rating instrument. Although the professional literature recommends rating instruments that are tied to specific job behaviors (i.e. BARS), the courts routinely accept less sophisticated approaches such as simple graphic rating scales and trait ratings. Regardless of method, written definitive standards should be provided to all raters"; (3) Training of supervisors for proper use of the instrument for rating; (4) Train supervisors to use the rating instrument properly; (5) There should be in place "formal appeal mechanisms and review of ratings by upper-level personnel"; and (6) Evaluations should be documented by the organization in addition to documentation of reasons for termination. (Barrett and Kerman, 1987, p. 11)