Job performance evaluation of Sweetwater State University secretarial staff

Rob was recently appointed as the vice president for administrative affairs at Sweetwater State University. He faced serious problems at the beginning of his tenure. Three weeks ago Not long ago, his boss, the principal, told him that one of the first things he had to do was to improve the school's performance evaluation system for secretaries and clerks. The main problem with the school's performance evaluation system is that it ties the results of job performance evaluations to salary promotions at the end of the year. However, when most managers evaluate the work performance of secretaries and clerks, they often do not pay much attention to maintaining the accuracy of their evaluations. This is mainly related to the evaluation tool, that is, the graph scale evaluation method is used. Administrators often rated their secretaries and clerks as simply "outstanding," and the result was that all of the school's support employees received annual salary promotions to the highest levels.

However, the current school budget no longer has the ability to increase the maximum salary for every administrative staff member in the next year. In addition, the president of the university believes that it is not normal practice to provide effective performance feedback to each secretarial and clerical staff member. Therefore, he hopes that Rob can re-examine the original job performance evaluation system. In October Robb sent a memo to every executive asking them to rate only half of their staff as outstanding. The memo immediately met with widespread resistance from administrative and secretarial staff - managers feared that their staff would seek more lucrative jobs in the private sector; secretarial staff believed that the new job performance evaluation system was unfair and that it deprived employees of their jobs. This gives every secretary the opportunity to be promoted with the highest salary.

In this case, Rob found several performance evaluation experts from the school of business administration to discuss this issue. Rob first talked about the problems he discovered: the existing job performance evaluation system was established 10 years ago when the school was first established. The job performance evaluation form at that time was designed by a committee of secretaries. This system of annual job performance reviews ran into trouble almost from the start. That's because managers vary widely in how they interpret job performance standards and how accountable they are for filling out forms and supervising their employees. The problem is not just that. The disadvantages of this work performance evaluation method have become obvious at the end of the first year. The salary increase of each secretary is actually directly linked to the work performance evaluation. Because the salary paid to secretaries by the school is lower than that in private companies, some secretaries who did not receive outstanding promotions in the first year left in anger. Since then, in order to reduce the turnover rate, many administrative managers have begun to set the salary performance of their subordinates as excellent. This ensures that they receive the highest level of salary promotion.

Two of several experts agreed to consider this issue. And made the following suggestions 2 weeks later:

1. The original evaluation form basically has no explanation function. For example, the meaning of excellence and work quality itself is unclear. As a result, most managers have unclear and inconsistent understanding of each evaluation indicator. He suggested a different form.

2. At the same time, he also suggested that Rob withdraw his previous memorandum because it is unfair to force half of the secretaries to be classified as excellent. Moreover, it is best to use the ranking method during assessment.

3. If we want all managers to take job performance evaluation seriously, we must stop linking job performance evaluation results with salary promotions. As for salary promotion, it is not only based on job performance evaluation, but also considers other factors. In this way, managers will no longer hesitate to honestly evaluate the performance of their subordinates when evaluating them. Actual job performance is evaluated.

Question:

A. What is the main reason for the performance appraisal problems in this school?

B. Why do experts recommend using the ranking method? In fact, there are many methods for performance appraisal, such as behavioral comparison method, behavior-anchored rating evaluation method, critical incident method, etc. Which method is more scientific and reasonable and less likely to cause discrepancies?

C. Experts suggest that performance appraisal should not be linked to salary promotion.

Because if performance evaluation is linked to salary, it is easy for administrative supervisors to not objectively evaluate the work performance of their subordinates. However, if salary promotion is not linked to performance appraisal, then what should salary be linked to? How should the school's annual salary promotion be carried out?

Labor Relations Management

Skills Section

Case 1:

The following is Nebula Company (Party A) and employee Zhang Yun (Party B) ) Contents of the signed labor contract:

1. Party B’s position is an internal network maintenance engineer, mainly responsible for the company’s intranet data planning and construction; responsible for the security and maintenance of the intranet.

2. Party B’s normal working hours are 8 hours a day.

3. When Party A requires Party B to work overtime based on work needs, Party B shall cooperate unless there are force majeure reasons.

4. Party B must abide by various labor disciplines stipulated in the "Employee Handbook".

5. Party A shall pay Party B monthly remuneration, and Party B’s salary is RMB 2,000/yuan per month.

6. This contract is made in two copies, each party A and B hold one copy. It will take effect on August 1, 2003 after being signed by both parties.

7. This contract is a long-term contract. Unless Party A and Party B make a special statement, this contract will continue to be valid.

8. If a dispute arises between Party A and Party B during the performance of this contract, they agree to use the Labor Bureau as the first hearing authority.

Question: Please indicate which statutory provisions are missing from the above provisions.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)