CASE STUDY #3: PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

A panel of three high school teachers at Rippowam High School had been convened by the principal to make a most important decision. A local company was willing to award a $10,000 college scholarship to "the most outstanding senior" in the class, with the recipient to be determined by the high school. Walter Plant, Sandra Meltzer, and Jerry Driscoll were given the assignment to select the scholarship recipient. They agreed to meet at 2:30 to discuss their assignment.

Driscoll opened the meeting: "I wish we had more to go on than what they gave us. A student can be 'outstanding' in many ways."

"Well, I assume grades are the most important factor," said Meltzer. "Why don't we start out with the ranking of all students based upon their grade-point averages. I'd be hard pressed to award $10,000 to any student other than the class valedictorian."

"I don't think it's that easy," continued Plant. "I am far more impressed with a student who gets a B+ in honors physics than someone who gets an A in basketweaving. While a student's grade point average is certainly a good measure of their academic accomplishments, it's tainted by the difficulty of the courses taken."

"That's not the only problem with the grade point average," Driscoll warned. "I've got some students in my homeroom who will graduate with the minimum number of hours, and I've got some others who branched out and took more than the minimum. I think we should give some consideration to the total number of hours taken in the curriculum."

A deep frown appeared on Plant's face. "I don't see why we should penalize the student who did only what was required by the school. We specify what is needed for graduation, and the students have to comply. While I never encourage a student to stick to the minimum, I don't think we should devalue their performance for having done so."

"Maybe we're getting too hung up with grades and hours," said Meltzer. "Suzanne Millord won first prize in the regional science fair competition. Shouldn't something like that count too? I'm more impressed with that than an A in any class."

"You know," Plant commented, "we are forgetting about some other things too. How about civic activities, such as participation in student government or interest clubs? We encourage student involvement in these activities to make for a more well-rounded education. I don't feel we should ignore them when it comes time to make an award."

"I feel those activities have their own rewards," said Driscoll. "We want to give this scholarship to the best student, not the most socially active one."

"While we're at it," mused Plant, "how about athletic participation? We also stress physical education as well as social and intellectual development. Maybe we should also include interscholastic athletics. We've got some outstanding athletes in this school, and who's to say that 'most outstanding' can't be defined in terms of athletics?"

"I hardly think this was designed to be an athletic scholarship," Meltzer grumbled. "If you want to make it more complicated, why not throw in financial need; $10,000 is a lot of money, and some families could use it more than others."

Driscoll stared out the window. He knew it would be a long afternoon.

QUESTION: If you had been invited to this meeting, what suggestions would you make to help the teachers reach a decision? Give at least THREE recommendations using terms and concepts from the lectures or textbook on this topic.

1. Do you agree or disagree and elaborate.

In terms of choosing the best senior to receive the $10,000 college scholarship, I suggest the board uses the 360 feedback loop. The 360 feedback loop requires feedback from all sources that surround an individual (appraisal from individuals below, above, or beside). To do this, one measure that can be used is the comparative method. The comparative method is looking at one object of a study in relation to another. In this case, we would be comparing one student from another in order to decide who gets the scholarship. It would be imperative for the board to consider all aspects of each individual, both inside and outside of academics. For example, one student could have perfect attendance, the highest GPA, and astounding athletic ability. On the other hand, another student could have decent attendance, a medium GPA, but dedicate time outside of academics to volunteering/helping the community. The board should communicate with the individuals circle (friends, family, colleagues, etc.) before determining whether they would be fit for the $10,000 college scholarship.

2. Do you agree or disagree and elaborate.

If I had been invited to this meeting, I would have several suggestions to help the teachers reach a decision. Due to the varying factors concerning how "the most outstanding senior" in the class should be picked, it would be useful if the teachers decipher the categories that the students fall into. Several categories should be considered, such as academic intelligence, involvement in clubs, athletic performance, and other extracurricular activities. An "outstanding student" can be influenced by numerous variables, so it is important that the teachers do not only focus on one particular trait, as it would deprive other deserving students of the scholarship. A forced distribution system might be somewhat helpful in this scenario, as it forces a certain number of people to fall into each distributive category. This method would eliminate the leniency bias, as it forces some people to fall into the lowest category. However, this system may not always feel fair since it does not sufficiently represent the student's overall position and does not consider all of the several extracurriculars that they may be involved in.

Another suggestion would be to utilize a graphic rating scale, as all of the students are based on some differing criteria, so it is inclusive of all the academic and extracurricular activities they take part in. On this scale it is also easy to compare the most deserving individuals to one another, which is necessary for concluding who should receive the award at hand. As this option is made up of both numeric values and anchored words, the teachers must consciously think about their decisions for each student which leaves less room for given false ratings. The anchored words - such as positivity, determination, willingness to participate, and high academic achievement - could be based on a larger scale to better weed out unqualified candidates. Unfortunately, this system would be time-consuming as there is a large number of potential scholarship recipients to be evaluated.

The teachers could also use a behaviorally anchored rating scale to determine which student should receive the award. While this is a time-consuming scale to develop and use since it could take up to one hour just to evaluate a single student, it may be useful for this scenario due to the broad range of categories involved in the criteria. BARS defines every single behavior and pairs it with a detailed anchor-enhanced scale. Due to the specificity of this particular system, it reduces the chance of leniency and personal bias, which are big potential issues in this scenario. Responsibility, athleticism, being courteous, creativity, and motivation are all examples of behaviors that could be utilized in this scale. All of the aforementioned recommendations have chances of helping the teachers in their decision process, but it might be most useful to perform a few different ratings with varying aspects in order to justify and feel confident in the final decision, even if it may take a long time.