Human Resource Management

Document Content and Description Below

A Fortune 100 high tech company was in the news recently when the new CEO implemented an 'enhanced' performance appraisal system.She kept the current... Share Question Question A Fortune 100 high ... tech company was in the news recently when the new CEO implemented an "enhanced" performance appraisal system. She kept the current six criteria (quality, quantity, knowledge, attitude, dependability, cooperation) scale on which employees were rated from 0 to 5 by the direct supervisor (see example below). Each employee's total score could range, at least theoretically, from 0 to 30 points. Although about 10% earned 30 points, no one earned below 10. The average was 22. The CEO made several changes to the system. She established a fixed distribution of ratings (see guidelines below). Based on her belief that many of the employees had "gotten lazy and apathetic," she decided to fire employees ranked in the bottom 10% ("poor") and to give the employees ranked "below average" a three-month warning. The below average employees had 90 days to "dramatically improve" their performance in the six categories. This became public when several male employees, including John Anderson, filed an EEOC complaint. Anderson was fired after earning a total of 7 points placing him in the bottom 10%. His average rating for the previous 5 years was 27. The company fired 600 employees ranked in the lowest 10%. In his EEOC complaint, Anderson noted that the percentage of male employees with scores below 15 went from 20% before the "enhanced" system to more than 80% under the new system. Anderson complained that the CEO frequently reminded managers that "retaining and advancing women in the workforce is a business imperative; I will not tolerate managers who refuse to support my diversity goals for this company [Show More]

Last updated: 1 year ago

Preview 1 out of 4 pages