dc.contributor.advisor | Supnick, Lonnie E., 1940- | |
dc.contributor.author | Falcone, Mary A. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-09-26T14:20:51Z | |
dc.date.available | 2012-09-26T14:20:51Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1995 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10920/27592 | |
dc.description | 86 p. | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Performance appraisals have been considered an effective management tool for
many years by the private sector. It is therefore not surprising that the government
sector has embraced the concept. Wayne County instituted an appraisal system for all
levels of employees in 1989. The appraisal process takes place on essentially two
levels: supervisors evaluate the employees who work directly beneath them; and, the
employees evaluate their direct supervisors.
Because nearly all employees and supervisors belong to a collective bargaining unit
(although they don't necessarily belong to the same collective bargaining unit), getting
the evaluation program from the concept stage to the implementation phase required
far more input from legal counsel that would be required for such a program in the
private sector. For example, the evaluation program itself could not violate any of the
several underlying collective bargaining agreements already in place; it could not violate
any state or federal employment discrimination laws; it could not violate any so called
"whistle-blower" laws; and, it had to be worded in such a way that all employees were
capable of grasping the meaning of each question asked, regardless of their educational
level. The rigidity of the structure that was required for the implementation of such a
program did not lend itself to probing questions designed to elicit insightful answers.
The other major obstacle to frank evaluations can characterized as an unexpected
backlash resulting fron1 the upward evaluation process: Each department votes in
advance of the evaluation forms being passed out whether they want the supervisor to
see their responses, or whether the department wishes their responses to remain
anonymous. If the department votes for anonymity, then the supervisor is not shown
the actual responses, but they are shown a summary of the responses.
Court Personnel and upper management feel that this approach is successful due to
its fairness, confidentiality, and the opportunity subordinates have to give their
supervisors feedback and criticism. However, subordinates have not been satisfied with
the supervisory evaluation and do not consider it very effective. Many employees feel
that the evaluation program is "useless" and a "waste of their time." At the same time,
other employees are intimidated by the upward evaluation process because they do not
feel they are "good at evaluating."
It is therefore difficult to pinpoint the source of the employees' dissatisfaction, i.e., it
could result from the design of the system; the manner in which the system is used;
and/or the conditions of the work place. | en_US |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartof | Kalamazoo College Human Development and Social Relations Senior Individualized Projects Collection | |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Senior Individualized Projects. Human Development and Social Relations.; | |
dc.rights | U.S. copyright laws protect this material. Commercial use or distribution of this material is not permitted without prior written permission of the copyright holder. All rights reserved. | |
dc.title | Upward Evaluation Systems: A Critical Investigation of Upward Evaluation Systems Using the Wayne County Probate Court Supervisory Evaluation Program as a Case Study | en_US |
dc.type | Thesis | en_US |
KCollege.Access.Contact | If you are not a current Kalamazoo College student, faculty, or staff member, email dspace@kzoo.edu to request access to this thesis. | |