Southfield Packaging Harvard Case Solution & Analysis

Question 03: Commonly, performance appraisals are conducted to aid 1) organizational decision making, and 2) employee development.  Describe the difference between those two goals, and why the lack of congruence between the two has caused ambiguity and unfairness in the scenario described at Southfield.

It is a fact that performance appraisals are aimed for the employee development, there retention and to strengthen the long term relation with the valued employee. Along with this, appraisal system for the employees helps organizations in making future decisions within the company. Without the involvement of employees no organization can achieve its goals or for that matter cannot take any decisions. It is a two way method where employees need monetary and non-monetary appraisals to bring the best out of them. The difference between the two objectives or goals are quite clear.

Appraisal system for employee development is aimed at making the employees cherish their extra ordinary performance. Organizations worldwide look to compensate top performers so that they stay motivated and work with the organization for a long period of time. It is a method of actually retaining and providing value to those employees who actually drive the company towards next level. Once the employees are given proper recognition and are given value for their services and efforts, the organization feels that the company can make decisions as per the requirement of the industry and in the favor of the company.

Therefore if the employee is given proper appraisal for his or her efforts that it eventually helps the organization to compete in the industry. Therefore, it can be said that performanceappraisal without biasness and undue favor can actually lead the company to proper decision making and employees’ development.

While discussing the case of Southfield Packaging where the lack of similarity between the organizational decision making and employee development has actually caused unfairness because the decision making of Sanders was based on his personal opinion while evaluating the performance of Belby. Although it was a fact, that Belby was one of those employees who has been with the company Southfield Packaging for over fifteen years and has always presented himself with determination in terms of making his team perform and also providing complete customer and service satisfaction for the customers or the clients.

However, while evaluating his performance, Sanders overlooked quite a few things in his evaluation and in fact judged him on his physical appearance and health. Although the management knew Belby was the one who only workedas a team but in fact he never took credit for it. Therefore, while evaluating his yearly performance quite a few factors were overlooked by the management specifically Sanders which caused ambiguity and unfairness.

Question 04: Compare or contrast Belby’s definition of performance with Sanders’ definition.  Do you think Belby will accomplish his goal of being promoted in the coming year?  Provide a rationale for your response.

As per the performance definition of Sanders was concerned he viewed it in a different manner when compared to Belby. Sanders believed that performance should be evaluated in terms of all the attributes that are required to be observed by the management. In case of Belby, Sanders evaluated performance of Belby in a rather 360 angle. As per Sanders, the reason to promote Michael Williams instead of Belby was because he was a smart guy and someone who was quite interactive with the staff. Along with this, Sanders believed that Belby lacked in self-awareness. He was someone who did not control emotions in fact he reacts rather quickly.

Although his reputation in retaining clients and motivating employees is good but he is someone who does not think a lot, he evaluates performance in quite a few angles. If Sanders believe to promote an employee,so he should be tested on all angles. Sander also believed that Belby does not mange time in an efficient manner. It was a habit for Belby that he called Sanders rather than mailing him. Sanders who had other issues to handle sometimes did not like to discuss issues on call.

On the other hand, the performance definition of Belby was quite different to Sanders. Belby believes if he is performing his task in an efficient manner and if he is able to satisfy the needs of the customers than he should be promoted. Belby was disappointedon the overallsituation of evaluating performance because he believed that making decisions on the basis of his health and looks and on these basis ceasing his promotion, was not a reasonable move. Belby believed that he has been a part of the company for 15 years therefore he should be given the due rewards along with the efforts he puts in for each task.....................................

Share This

SALE SALE

Save Up To

30%

IN ONLINE CASE STUDY

FOR FREE CASES AND PROJECTS INCLUDING EXCITING DEALS PLEASE REGISTER YOURSELF !!

Register now and save up to 30%.