This paper examines the compensation and benefits structure of Savannah Engineering, Inspection and Insurance Company (SEIIC), identifying key weaknesses in its seniority-based appraisal system and rigid benefits offerings. It surveys three major performance appraisal methods — behavioral checklists, management by objectives (MBO), and 360-degree feedback — evaluating the strengths and limitations of each. The paper then reviews contemporary benefit trends, including on-site perks, flexible scheduling, telecommuting, and voluntary benefits programs. Drawing on these analyses, it recommends that SEIIC adopt 360-degree appraisals and expand its benefits offerings to better attract, motivate, and retain high-performing employees.
The paper demonstrates comparative analysis: it lines up three distinct appraisal frameworks side by side, applies consistent evaluative criteria (fairness, employee input, measurability, potential for bias), and uses that comparison to justify a final recommendation. This approach models how to synthesize multiple sources into an evidence-based argument rather than simply summarizing each method in isolation.
The paper opens with a problem statement identifying SEIIC's compensation weaknesses, then moves through an extended middle section comparing appraisal methods (behavioral checklist → MBO → 360-degree feedback, including a critique of 360-degree surveys). A separate section then addresses benefits trends (on-site perks, flexible hours, voluntary benefits). The conclusion synthesizes both threads into a unified call for reform. This problem–analysis–solution structure is well-suited to applied business writing.
Savannah Engineering, Inspection and Insurance Company (SEIIC) is a service-based company and must therefore cultivate strong, committed performance from each of its employees in order to thrive. Currently, however, its compensation and benefits programs lack the ability to reward top performers. The company gives annual pay increases of 2–5% to all employees regardless of individual productivity, and seniority rather than performance is given preference in its evaluation and rewards system. Its benefits are nominally competitive — offering health insurance, life insurance, a defined-benefit retirement plan, and a 401(k) defined-contribution plan — but the structure is rigid and limited to these traditional offerings. This paper surveys several performance appraisal methods and contemporary benefit trends in order to suggest improvements that would ensure top performers at SEIIC are adequately recognized and compensated.
The most popular traditional method of appraisal based on performance rather than seniority is the behavioral checklist. A behavioral checklist contains a list of criteria that an employee is expected to meet in order to be considered a diligent worker. The specific behaviors differ according to the type of job being assessed. This method is considered favorable because evaluation is done on the basis of individual employee performance without direct comparisons to peers (Elan, 2015). Managers meet with the employee to discuss his or her performance. The downside is that the checklist may not fully capture all of an employee's contributions over the course of the year. Nevertheless, the method is generally fair in the sense that employees understand how and why they are being appraised and can anticipate whether they will receive a pay increase or promotion based on their performance.
A more contemporary method is management by objectives (MBO), which similarly emphasizes performance over seniority by focusing on the concrete contributions an employee makes to the organization. In the MBO approach, the manager and the employee mutually agree upon specific, attainable goals with a set deadline, allowing the appraiser to define success and failure clearly (Elan, 2015). The employee provides meaningful input into the criteria by which he or she will be evaluated, which generally produces a sense of fairness and personal control over outcomes.
However, the rigidity of MBO can in some instances cause an excessive focus on the trees rather than the forest, hampering broader productivity because compensation is tied directly to hitting predetermined targets. In one organization, for example, a production manager whose primary goal was to keep his employees 100% utilized ended up blocking most lean-improvement initiatives — worried that if the team found ways to work faster and ran out of tasks, utilization rates would drop and his goal would go unmet (Dyer, 2013). In such cases, objectives can become arbitrary and ultimately fail to serve the organization's larger interests.
A third widely used method is the 360-degree performance appraisal, which involves feedback from the employee's manager, supervisor, team members, and any direct reports (Elan, 2015). A key advantage over SEIIC's current system is that 360-degree feedback provides specific, targeted input from a variety of sources, ensuring that an employee's contributions to team efforts do not go unrecognized. In addition to evaluating work performance and technical skills, the appraiser collects in-depth behavioral feedback from multiple directions (Elan, 2015). While concerns about peer bias are legitimate, the use of multiple sources of information acts as a counterweight to individual prejudice.
Employees are graded on a clearly defined set of behaviors that they are aware of from the outset, so there are no surprises at review time. For example, to measure the leadership competency "vision," evaluators might score behavioral statements such as "Marcus sets a clear vision for our team" and "Marcus shows how our team's work fits the vision of the entire company" (Buckingham, 2011). Consistency in the survey instrument gives employees a meaningful incentive to improve, and continuity between review cycles allows progress to be tracked over time.
Despite their popularity, 360-degree evaluations have attracted significant criticism. A central objection is that aggregating data from multiple unreliable raters does not produce reliable results — it simply produces more unreliable data. As Buckingham (2011) argues, "each individual rater is equally unreliable. This means that each rater yields bad data. And, unfortunately, when you add together many sources of bad data, you do not get good data. You get lots of bad data." The subjectivity inherent in filling out ratings forms is compounded by the formulaic nature of standardized surveys, which leave little room for individualized qualitative input. One rater's interpretation of "having a clear vision," for instance, may differ substantially from another rater's interpretation of the same phrase.
These are genuine limitations, and any organization implementing 360-degree feedback should take steps to train raters, standardize interpretation of behavioral anchors, and supplement quantitative ratings with structured qualitative comments wherever possible. The Harvard Business Review article by Buckingham (2011) on this topic offers a useful discussion of the methodological pitfalls and potential remedies.
Although SEIIC's traditional approach to compensation and benefits served the company adequately in the past, meaningful change is now necessary. SEIIC currently offers a benefits package that is competitive in traditional terms, but if it does not reform its compensation structure to reward performance rather than seniority, top performers will grow resentful and seek opportunities elsewhere. Adopting a 360-degree appraisal system would provide a fairer, more comprehensive basis for compensation decisions, while expanding benefits to include flexible work arrangements and voluntary opt-in programs would improve quality of life for employees across the board. Offering perks that encourage social interaction and support employees' personal interests — such as free food, gym passes, or leisure activity vouchers — can also reinforce a positive organizational culture and increase the likelihood that valued employees will choose to remain with the company.
Buckingham, M. (2011). The fatal flaw with 360 degree surveys. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from
D'Onfro, J., & Smith, K. (2014). Google employees reveal their favorite perks about working for the company. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/google-employees-favorite-perks-2014-7
Dyer, J. (2013). Does management by objectives stifle excellence? Industry Week. Retrieved from
Elan. (2015). What are the different types of performance appraisal systems? HR Zone. Retrieved from
Three emerging employee benefit trends to watch in 2013. (2015). Hub. Retrieved from
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.