TYRONE FEELS EXHAUSTED. AS MANAGER OF THE LOCAL HARDWARE STORE, HE JUST COMPLETED AN ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW FOR EACH OF HIS EMPLOYEES. HE STRUGGLED TO SEPARATE THE GOOD AND BAD EMPLOYEES. WAS HE RIGHT TO CAREFULLY IDENTIFY THE TOP PERFORMERS, OR SHOULD HE HAVE JUST RATED EVERYONE THE SAME?
One of the things that Tyrone found most difficult was how to account for different aspects of performance. One of the sales representatives—Joe—had the highest sales volume, but often refused to help other less-experienced coworkers. Because of Joe's lack of cooperation, Tyrone gave him a much lower rating than might be suggested by the objective sales figures. Was this a good idea?
Another employee, Logan, became upset last week and actually threatened violence against two coworkers. At first Tyrone gave him a very low rating, but then he thought back about Logan's performance over the entire rating period. Up until last week Logan's work had been exemplary. Tyrone thus decided that it would not be fair to penalize Logan with an extremely low rating. On the other hand, Tyrone wants to communicate that threats of violence will not be tolerated. He wonders what he should say when he meets with Logan.
Tyrone also worries about any potential biases that he might have. When he looked over his ratings he saw that ...
With Safari, you learn the way you learn best. Get unlimited access to videos, live online training,
learning paths, books, interactive tutorials, and more.