MT203 Unit 7 Performance Appraisal Exercise Example

Attitude, Dependability, Teamwork: A Unit 7 Performance Appraisal Exercise for Pool Service Technicians

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT203: Human Resource Management

Unit 7 Performance Appraisal Exercise

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Bluebonnet Pool Care, Technician R. and every figure and date are composite and illustrative; bracketed figures stand where the company's records would supply the numbers; the sources cited are real.

The Current Form and Its Problems

Bluebonnet Pool Care's form asks a route supervisor to circle a number from one to five for four traits and add comments. Each item has a specific fault. Attitude asks the supervisor to judge a state of mind, which invites ratings based on whether the supervisor likes the technician. Dependability gives the rater no event to point to: is a technician who never misses work but leaves gates open dependable? Teamwork matters little in a job where technicians work alone on their routes all day. Initiative is undefined, so one supervisor rates it on volunteering for Saturdays and another on suggesting route changes.

Surveying appraisal research back to the First World War, DeNisi and Murphy (2017) judged that changes to rating formats alone have produced modest gains, and that what matters more is whether the system gives raters and employees information they can use. The current form gives neither. A technician rated three on attitude learns nothing about what to do differently.

The Redesigned Form

The new form uses five dimensions taken directly from the Unit 2 job analysis. Each dimension has a behaviorally anchored scale, a format Smith and Kendall (1963) introduced, in which supervisors who know the job write and sort example behaviors until every scale point carries a concrete description instead of a word like good or poor.

Water quality: at the low level, the technician's pools produce more than [three] green or cloudy water callbacks per hundred visits, and stabilizer is not tested monthly. At the middle level, callbacks fall between one and three per hundred, and tests are logged. At the high level, callbacks are below one per hundred, and the technician adjusts doses for stabilizer and weather without prompting.

Equipment care: at the low level, pumps have run dry or valves have been left closed on the technician's route. At the middle level, equipment problems are found and reported. At the high level, the technician spots developing faults, such as a pump bearing beginning to grind, and reports them before they fail.

Route completion: at the low level, pools are regularly skipped or serviced on the wrong day. At the middle level, routes are completed on schedule. At the high level, routes are completed on schedule even when the technician absorbs pools from an absent colleague.

Customer communication: at the low level, gates are found unlatched or problems are not noted for the customer. At the middle level, notes are left when problems are found. At the high level, notes are clear enough that customers rarely call the office for an explanation.

Chemical safety: at the low level, acids and chlorine are stored together or unlocked. At the middle level, storage follows policy on every inspection. At the high level, the technician corrects unsafe storage on a helper's truck and reports it.

Completed Appraisal: Technician R., Season Ending September 30

Water quality, rated high. Technician R.'s route of [62] pools produced [four] water callbacks in [1,550] visits, about a quarter of the company average. Her monthly stabilizer logs are complete for every pool from April through September.

Equipment care, rated high. On July 14 she found a grinding pump at a customer's home, shut it down and called repairs, which replaced a bearing instead of a motor. On August 22 she reported a cracked filter lid before it failed.

Route completion, rated middle. Her own route was completed on schedule every week. She covered an absent colleague's pools twice, on June 9 and August 4, but [11] of his pools were serviced a day late on June 9.

Customer communication, rated low. The office log shows [five] customer calls asking what her notes meant, and on [three] visits, June 17, July 22 and September 2, gates were reported unlatched after her service.

Chemical safety, rated middle. Her truck passed all four spot inspections. There is no record of her correcting another technician's storage.

Her water is the cleanest in the company, and three customers found their gates open behind her.

Plan for the Review Conversation

The conversation would start with water quality and equipment care, where her work is the best in the company, and ask what she does that others do not, since her methods could be taught. It would then turn to the gate reports, presenting the three dates without judgment and asking what happens at the end of each visit. A specific goal would follow: no gate reports in the next season, with a gate check added to the routine she already uses at the equipment pad. Notes would get the same treatment, perhaps with three standard note templates for common problems. The review would end by asking whether she wants to train new technicians in water chemistry next spring, which would recognize her strength. The plan puts strengths first because she has earned that, and because a technician who hears her best work named is more likely to accept the criticism that follows.

Dessler (2020) advises that appraisal interviews focus on specific behavior rather than personality and end with an agreed plan, and this outline follows both points.

References

DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085

Dessler, G. (2020). Human resource management (16th ed.). Pearson.

Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47(2), 149-155. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047060