Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
Photolite Company Assessment Project Paper
Ron Ward, the wage and salary administrator for Photolite Corporation, met with Jesse Jaimeson, the director of personnel, to discuss their presentation to sen-ior management for new evaluation techniques in the recently established matrix organization.
Jesse Jaimeson: “I’ve read your handout on what you’re planning to present to senior management, and I feel a brief introduction should also be included. [See Exhibit I.] Some of these guys have been divorced from lower-level appraisals for over 20 years. How do you propose to convince these guys?”
Exhibit I. Recommended approach
Prework
Employee and manager record work to be done using goals, work plans, position guide.
Employee and manager record measurements to be used.
Note: This may not be possible at this time since we are in the middle of a cycle. For 1999 only, the process will start with the employees submitting a list of their key tasks (i.e., job description) as they see it. Manager will review that list with the employee.
(continued)
523
524 Project Management Case Studies
(continued)
Self-Appraisal
Employee submits self-appraisal for key tasks.
It becomes part of the record.
Managerial Appraisal
Manager evaluates each task.
Manager evaluates total effort.
Skills displayed are recorded.
Development effort required is identified.
Note: Appraisals should describe what happened, both good and bad.
IV. Objective Review
Employee relations reviews the appraisal.
Assure consistent application of ratings.
Assist in preparation, if needed.
Be a sounding board.
V. One-over-One Review
Managerial perspective is obtained.
A consistent point of view should be presented.
VI. Appraisal Discussion
Discussion should be participative.
Differences should be reconciled. If this is not possible, participants must agree to disagree.
Work plans are recycled.
Career discussion is teed up.
Employee and manager commit to development actions.
VII. Follow-up
Checkpoints on development plan allow for this follow-up.
Ron Ward: “We do have guidelines for employee evaluation and appraisal.
These include:
To record an individual’s specific accomplishments for a given period of time.
To formally communicate to the individual on four basic issues:
What is expected of him/her (in specifics).
How he/she is performing (in specifics).
Photolite Corporation (D) 525
What his/her manager thinks of his/her performance (in specifics).
Where he/she could progress within the present framework.
To improve performance.
To serve as a basis for salary determination.
To provide a constructive channel for upward communication.
“Linked to the objectives of the performance appraisal, we must also consider some of the possible negative influences impacting on a manager involved in this process. Some of these factors could be:
A manager’s inability to control the work climate.
A normal dislike to criticize a subordinate.
A lack of communication skills needed to handle the employee interview.
A dislike for the general mode in the operation of the business.
A mistrust of the validity of the appraisal instrument.
“To determine the magnitude of management problems inherent in the appraisal of employees working under the matrix concept, the above-mentioned factors could be increased four or five times, the multiplier effect being caused by the fact that an employee working under the project/matrix concept could be working on as many as four or five projects during the appraisal period, thereby requiring all the project managers and the functional manager to input their evalu-ations regarding a subordinate’s performance and the appraisal system itself.”
Jaimeson: “Of course, managers cannot escape making judgments about subordinates. Without these evaluations, Photolite would be unable to adequately administer its promotion and salary policies. But in no instance can a perfor-mance appraisal be a simple accept or reject concept involving individuals. Unlike the quality appraisal systems used in accepting or rejecting manufactured units, our personnel appraisal systems must include a human factor. This human fac-tor must take us beyond the scope of job objectives into the values of an indi-vidual’s worth, human personality, and dignity. It is in this vein that any effective personnel appraisal system must allow the subordinate to participate fully in the appraisal activities.”
Ward: “Prior to a couple of years ago, this was a major problem within Photo-lite. Up to that time, all appraisals were based on the manager or managers assess-ing an individual’s progress toward goals that had been established and passed on to subordinates. Although an employee meeting was held to discuss the outcome of an employee’s appraisal, in many instances it was one-sided, without meaning-ful participation by the person being reviewed. Because of such a system, many employees began to view the appraisal concept as inconsistent and without true concern for the development of the individual. This also led many to believe that promotions and salary increases were based on favoritism rather than merit.
526 Project Management Case Studies
“Problems inherent in these situations are compounded in the matrix organi-zation when an individual is assigned to several projects with varying degrees of importance placed on each project, but knowing that each project manager will contribute to the performance appraisal based on the success of their individual projects. Such dilemmas can only be overcome when the individual is considered as the primary participating party in the appraisal process and the functional man-ager coordinates and places prime responsibility on the subordinate contributor in the project for which prime interest has been focused by the company. Other project contributions are then considered, but on a secondary basis.”
Jaimeson: “Although we have discussed problems that are inherent in a matrix organization and can be compounded by the multiple performance deter-mination, a number of positives can also be drawn from such a work environment. It is obvious, based on its design, that a project/matrix organization demands new attitudes, behavior, knowledge, and skills. This in turn has substantial implica-tions for employee selection, development, and career progression. The ultimate success of the individual and the project depends largely on the ability of the organization to help people learn how to function in new ways.
“The matrix organization provides an opportunity for people to develop and grow in ways and rates not normally possible in the more traditional functional organizational setting. Although the project/matrix organization is considered to be high tension in nature, it places greater demands on people but offers greater development and career opportunities than does the functional organization.
“Because of the interdependencies of projects in a matrix, increased com-munications and contact between people is necessary. This does not mean that in a functional organization interdependency and communication are not necessary. What it does say, however, is that in a functional setting, roles are structured so that individuals can usually resolve conflicting demands by talking to their func-tional manager. In a matrix, such differences would be resolved by people from different functions who have different attitudes and orientations.”
Ward: “From the very outset, organizations such as Photolite ran into conflict between projects involving such items as:
Assignment of personnel to projects
Manpower costs
Project priority
Project management status (as related to functional managers)
Overlap of authority and power in the matrix
“If not adequately planned for in advance, these factors could be significant factors in the performance appraisal of matrix/project members. However, where procedures exist to resolve authority and evaluation conflicts, a more equitable
Photolite Corporation (D) 527
performance appraisal climate exists. Unfortunately, such a climate rarely exists in any functioning organization.
“With the hope of alleviating such problems, my group has redefined its approach to exempt performance appraisals. [See Exhibits I and II.] This approach is based on the management by objectives technique. This approach allows both management and employees to work together in establishing perfor-mance goals.
“Beyond this point of involvement, employees also perform a self-evaluation of their performance, which is considered a vital portion of the performance appraisal. Utilization of this system also opens up communication between man-agement and the employee, thereby allowing two-way communication to become a natural item. Although it is hoped that differences can be reconciled, if this can-not occur, the parties involved have at least established firm grounds on which to disagree. These grounds are not hidden to either and the employee knows exactly how his/her performance appraisal was determined.”
Jaimeson: “Okay, I’m convinced we’re talking the same language. We won’t have any problem convincing these people of what we’re trying to do.”
Exhibit II. Performance summary
When writing the overall statement of performance:
Consider the degree of difficulty of the work package undertaken in addition to the actual results.
Reinforce performance outcomes that you would like to see in the future by highlighting them here.
Communicate importance of missed targets by listing them here.
Let employees know the direction that performance is taking so that they can make decisions about effort levels, skill training emphasis, future placement possibilities, and so on.
When determining the overall rating number:
Choose the paragraph that best describes performance in total, then choose the number that shades the direction it leans.
Use the individual task measurements plus some weighting factor— realistically, some projects are worth more than others and should carry
more weight.
●● Again, consider the degree of difficulty of the work package undertaken.
(continued)
528 Project Management Case Studies
(continued)
Strong points are:
Demonstrated in the accomplishment of the work.
Found in the completion of more than one project.
Relevant—avoid trivia.
Usually not heard well by employees.
Good subjects for sharpening and growing.
Areas requiring improvement usually:
Show up in more than one project.
Are known by subordinate.
Limit employee effectiveness.
Can be improved to some degree.
Areas of disagreement:
Can be manager or subordinate initiated.
Need not be prepared in advance.
Require some effort on both parts before recording.
Are designed to keep problems from hiding beneath the surface.
Your review of the self-appraisal may reveal some disagreement. Discuss this with the employee before formally committing it to writing.
QUESTIONS
If you were an executive attending this briefing, how would you react?
Are there any additional questions that need to be addressed?
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!