Performance Case

Rajiv's performance appraisal has a lot of weaknesses. The following are some of its weaknesses:

Mr. Rajiv included quantity of work and quality of work as some of categories of appraising the workers' performance. When defining performance, results and outcomes never equals to it. Good results and outcomes can be achieved through bad means or good means. So they can never truly reflect the overall performance of a worker.

(Reference: page 6 of PMS.pdf)

Performance as behavior shouldn't be graded as outstanding, good, average, below average, or unsatisfactory. It should be graded as positive, neutral or negative. Behaviors can only be measured if it has positive affects, insignificant effects, or negative effects.

(Reference: page 6 of PMS.pdf)

He wrongly graded Joe Plum's behavior performance, under the cooperativeness marking. He simply suggested a possible better way of fixing a problem. Dictatorship seems to be Mr. Rajiv's definition of cooperativeness. He graded him lowly just because Mr. Plum didn't agree to the solution he formulated. Mr. Rajiv is clearly ignorant about the right way of measuring performance behavior. There is no clear distinction or indicator between a superior and average performance. And the threshold isn't established at all. His way evaluation is highly subjective.

(Reference: page 26 of PMS.pdf)

Mr. Rajiv's attitude towards his job of appraising the workers performance is totally off. For him, it's just something he has to get over with as soon as possible. He doesn't have the worker's performance improvement in mind. He just does the appraisal for the sake of doing it and passing a requirement. Performance appraisal should be approached with the goal of helping the workers improve their performance.

(Reference: page 8 of PMS.pdf)

Rajiv's performance appraisal is put together terribly badly. It lacks clarity, purpose and details.

I hope this will still be helpful to you.

Sincerely yours,

Monte