Banner

No More Worries!

image Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay

Paper Formatting

  • Double or single-spaced
  • 1-inch margin
  • 12 Font Arial or Times New Roman
  • 300 words per page

No Lateness!

image 

Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay

AEW Guarantees

image

  • Free Unlimited revisions
  • Guaranteed Privacy
  • Money Return guarantee
  • Plagiarism Free Writing

Much has been written regarding ethical issues that relate to selling, advertising, stock trading

 

 

 

 

 

Much has been written regarding ethical issues that relate to selling, advertising, stock trading, accounting fraud, and executive compensation. However, little attention has been given to ethical issues related to performance appraisal. In many work organizations, managers are told to conduct annual performance appraisals with employees and are asked to be accurate in their appraisals. The importance of being ethical is not addressed. This exercise asks students to examine 10 different appraisal situations to determine if they pose any ethical issues . Each student group needs to determine: 1) Is the manager in the case acting in an ethical manner? 2) Would their group act in the same manner as did the manager?


In discussing this exercise, it may be helpful to point out that there are two approaches to appraisal in practice. One of these, the rational perspective, suggests that the goal of performance appraisal should be accuracy. Each manager must evaluate employees objectively because these appraisals need to be used to make a wide range of administrative decisions (e.g., promotions, transfers, raises, bonuses, layoffs, selection, and training). They also need to be used to develop and motivate employees. Accuracy serves as a foundation for accomplishing these tasks. On the other hand, the second perspective-the political approach-suggests that the purpose of performance appraisal may be its utility in accomplishing either the manager’s or the organization’s goals. For example, the manager may want to encourage an employee who is struggling by giving her/him a higher than deserved evaluation. Likewise, a manager may want to punish an employee for being argumentative by giving him/her a lower than deserved evaluation. Thus, under this philosophy, appraisal is a means to an end and accuracy is not the primarily or only goal. The scenarios that follow all relate to the issue of whether these political goals are ethical and appropriate.


Debriefing the Exercise


Review and answer each scenario. After completing the two questions posed for each scenario, justify your answers based on selecting and answering one or two of the questions in (a-g).


1. Does the action involve intentional deception?

1. Does the action purposely benefit one party at the expense of another?

1. Is the action fair and just to all concerned?

1. Would you or the manager feel comfortable if the action was made public, or must it remain a secret?

1. Would you need to justify the action by telling yourself that you can get away with it or that you won’t need to live with the decision consequences?

1. Would you recommend the action to others?

1. Will the action build goodwill and better relationships?


SCENARIO


1. A supervisor has an employee who is an outspoken homosexual. The supervisor does not like homosexuals. As a result, the supervisor purposefully rates her lower than deserved on her performance appraisal form.


NOTE: (What are your thoughts?)

1. A firm has recently been charged with discriminating against minorities. The firm denies the charges but asks all supervisors to make sure they do not discriminate. In order to avoid any possible discrimination charge, a manager rates one poor performing minority employee higher than deserved on the performance appraisal form.

NOTE: (What are your thoughts?)

1. A manager has a male subordinate who is married with three children. This employee is a known womanizer and has been spotted by several employees hanging out with women other than his wife, including prostitutes. The supervisor does not believe this is appropriate and rates the employee lower than deserved on the performance appraisal form.

NOTE: (What are your thoughts?)

1. A female employee who recently had a baby negotiated a change from full-time to part-time status with the HR department. Her supervisor, also a working mother, resents the fact that she is able to spend more time at home with her child. The supervisor rates her lower than deserved on the performance appraisal form in an attempt to force her to switchback to full-time status or quit.

NOTE: (What are your thoughts?)

1. A firm has a 360-degree performance appraisal system that includes asking all subordinates to rate and evaluate their boss. A manager wants to be promoted so he gives all employees higher performance evaluations than they deserve in hopes that they, in turn, will rate him higher.

NOTE: (What are your thoughts?)

1. A manager realizes that an employee’s attendance is so poor that she is likely to get terminated within the next few months. So, in order to build a more solid case against the employee and further justify the inevitable termination, the manager rates the subordinate lower than deserved on the performance appraisal form.

NOTE: (What are your thoughts?)

1. A manager wants to get promoted in order to get a substantial raise. He believes that he will be judged, in part, in terms of how effective he has been at developing high performing subordinates as evidenced by his subordinates’ performance appraisal scores. In order to enhance his promotion chances, he rates his employees higher than deserved.

NOTE: (What are your thoughts?)

1. A manager wants to give one particular subordinate a big raise in order to keep her from accepting a job elsewhere. However, there is limited raise money available, and it is based on merit. So, he rates another employee lower than deserved, thereby reducing this person’s raise, in order to be able to give the other a larger raise.

NOTE: (What are your thoughts?)

1. A manager wants to get rid of a disliked subordinate, so she rates the employee lower than deserved in hopes that the employee will quit.

NOTE: (What are your thoughts?)

1. A manager wants to help a subordinate get promoted, so she gives her a higher evaluation than deserved.

 

) Is the manager acting ethically?No. This is a clear case of discrimination and bias based on personal prejudice, completely unrelated to job performance.
2) Would your group act the same?No.
Justification (c, d):c) Is the action fair and just to all concerned? Absolutely not. The employee is being unfairly penalized and discriminated against, violating fundamental principles of workplace justice. d) Would you feel comfortable if the action was made public? No. This action is illegal in many jurisdictions and universally considered unethical discrimination, which the manager would certainly not want exposed.

 

2. Scenario: Manager rating a poor performing minority employee higher to avoid a discrimination charge.

 

QuestionAnalysis
1) Is the manager acting ethically?No, but with a complex motivation. While the intent is to protect the firm (utility), the action involves intentional deception and is unfair to high-performing employees who receive accurate, perhaps lower, scores.
2) Would your group act the same?No.
Justification (a, c):a) Does the action involve intentional deception? Yes. The manager is consciously providing an inaccurate, false evaluation to serve an organizational goal (risk reduction). c) Is the action fair and just to all concerned? No. It is unfair to the employee's peers, as it skews the performance data used for resource allocation (raises/promotions), and it is unfair to the employee by giving them false positive feedback that prevents development.

 

3. Scenario: Supervisor rating an employee lower due to disapproval of their private life (womanizer).

 

QuestionAnalysis
1) Is the manager acting ethically?No. The manager is injecting personal moral judgment about activities unrelated to job performance into a professional evaluation, resulting in intentional deception.
2) Would your group act the same?No.
Justification (d, e):d) Would you feel comfortable if the action was made public? No. The public (including HR and senior management) would see this as an abuse of authority, violating the professional principle that appraisals must be job-related. e) Would you need to justify the action by telling yourself that you won’t need to live with the decision consequences? Yes. The manager must rationalize that their personal moral code overrides the professional duty of accuracy.

 

4. Scenario: Supervisor rating a part-time mother lower out of resentment, trying to force her to quit or switch to full-time.

 

QuestionAnalysis
1) Is the manager acting ethically?No. This is a highly unethical abuse of power motivated by personal resentment, interfering with a legitimate HR arrangement.
2) Would your group act the same?No.
Justification (b, c):b) Does the action purposely benefit one party at the expense of another? Yes. The manager benefits emotionally (satisfying resentment) or politically (getting a full-time worker back) at the direct expense of the subordinate's job security and emotional well-being. c) Is the action fair and just to all concerned? No. It undermines the employee's negotiated work status and constitutes retaliation.

 

5. Scenario: Manager gives subordinates high ratings in exchange for high 360-degree ratings for promotion.

 

QuestionAnalysis
1) Is the manager acting ethically?No. This is a form of quid pro quo corruption. It constitutes intentional deception to achieve a personal gain (promotion).
2) Would your group act the same?No.
Justification (a, g):a) Does the action involve intentional deception? Yes. The appraisals are inflated and inaccurate, destroying the integrity of both the employee appraisal system and the 360-degree feedback system. g) Will the action build goodwill and better relationships? Only superficially and temporarily. It erodes trust in the performance system itself and creates transactional, non-professional relationships.

Sample Answer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is an excellent exercise for exploring the tension between the rational (accuracy) and political (utility) approaches to performance appraisal. In ethical terms, the rational perspective aligns closely with principles of justice and fairness, while the political perspective risks violating these principles when accuracy is sacrificed for personal or organizational gain.

Here is an ethical review of the ten scenarios, applying the two core questions and justifying the response using the provided ethical questions (a-g).

 

📝 Ethical Review of Performance Appraisal Scenarios

 

 

1. Scenario: Supervisor rating a homosexual employee lower due to personal dislike.

 

QuestionAnalysis

12% Discount

image

  • Research Paper Writing
  • Essay Writing
  • Dissertation Writing
  • Thesis Writing

Why Choose Us

image

  • Money Return guarantee
  • Guaranteed Privacy
  • Written by Professionals
  • Paper Written from Scratch
  • Timely Deliveries
  • Free Amendments