Partiality practiced by the previous manager of MP organization
Discuss about the People Work and Society.
The performance ranking system that was followed by BN, the previous manager of MP organization was partial. The performance appraisal of the employees does not occur on the basis of their performance. Instead, employees who have children or employees who have educational as well as social background were given priority and higher ranking in performance appraisal, over an employee who does not have the social or educational background or children. The term performance appraisal is defined as a performance review, career development discussion and performance evolution process executed by the management of an organization to understand the quality as well as productivity of all the employees (Bian, Huang and Zhang 2015). This process is highly crucial for the employees since it helps them to evaluate their performance as well as to understand their flaws. Not only that, performance appraisal process encourages the employees to give their best performance so that the organization can reach its goal. However, since partiality was practised by the previous manager, the 4 employees who were eligible for the ‘excellent’ ranking were ranked ‘satisfactory’ by the BN. This situation is likely to impose a positive-negative impact on their performance as well as their loyalty towards the institution.
Favoritism in the workplace has several negative impacts. If employees are given a higher performance appraisal, just on the basis of their social or educational background on the basis of the fact whether they have children or not, employees who are the victims of this favouritism will get demoralized. They may develop the feeling of being neglected and demotivated. This demoralization will surely impose a negative impact on their performance. Low performance in term will reduce the productivity of the MP organization and as a result, the overall revenue of the mentioned organization will get reduced. Moreover, favoritism will also reduce the loyalty of the employees who are being victimized by the unethical issue (Indvik and Johnson 2012). Hence, employee attrition will result in a further decrement of productivity as well as overall revenue of the organization. In extreme cases, this issue may result in lawsuits that have financial consequences. Not only that, this will impose a negative impact on the reputation of the company and as a result, it will be difficult to recruit efficient and skilled candidates in future.
In order to avoid the negative consequences of unethical performance appraisal, Mr DN should immediately change the performance ranking system of the above-mentioned organization. Instead of ranking employees with children and social as well as educational background, employees should be ranked according to their performance (Maç and Calis 2012). Moreover, employees who are found to be lagging behind in terms of performance should be assessed by the manager in order to find out their exact issue. Effective training specific to the issues detected for each employee should be provided by DN. Finally, in order to encourage the employees, a half-yearly or yearly rewarding system can be implemented.
Negative Impact of Favoritism in Workplace
As per the description of the scenario the performance of OE was significantly higher than average that is very beneficial for the society and the management of the MP. The recognition and reward procedures have been also implemented to provide the promotion to the high performing individual (Thibaut 2017). However, this sudden can make EO more arrogant and self-conscious. This type of over self-satisfaction can switch other psychological behaviours. At the same time, the authority has decided to make some hike in qualification measurement for the position in a junior management role. These sudden changes can also trigger the sense of ego for the individual. Apart from that for this alteration, the OE needs to complete the diploma degree that can cause additional reluctance in him.
Self-satisfaction is good for mental health that also provides additional motivation to a person. However overly self-satisfaction can trigger a psychological phenomenon called superiority complex can lower the performance of an individual significantly (Bratton and Gold 2017). It is very common in an organisational environment where a high performer gets a promotion within a short period. In this scenario, this psychological characteristic may be the cause of OE’s deteriorating performance. At the same time, the alteration of the designation criteria has also impacted on his self-motivation. In this type of situation, the person often thinks that everyone around him is jealous of his success (Dul et al. 2012). It also a defences mechanism comes from a superiority complex that can cause excessive ego problems. In this situation, the individual usually becomes reluctant about the duties and responsibilities that reduce the performance quality.
There are two potential solutions that can handle this situation by retaining the professional ethics of OE and improve the performance. At the very beginning of this situation the individual need to understand that his or her thought process and perception is not correct. There is no connection between his or her success and the regulation alteration. For this, the management can conduct a direct face to face interview where the OE can voice about his or her disappointment and ethical dilemma. Aggression can make the whole situation worse for both the management and the OE (Buller and McEvoy 2012). The management can request him to take leave to regain his psychological stability and peacefulness. This type of assertive negotiation and sympathetic approach can change the motive and perception of any misled individual.
Two potential solutions for tackling unethical performance appraisal
The management can offer some special leaves to pursue the diploma degree. This conversation can motivate the OE to take the essential education for his designation. At the same time, the management can also ensure that there is no urgency for this qualification. He can pursue the required qualification when he wants. Management can convey that the new regulation is enforced only for the new recruitment and selection procedure where he does not need to hurry to cope up with this change. Following this conversation, the management can also help him consistently to complete his required qualification by providing adequate work-life balance to the person.
The unethical use of credit card by the TX will be considered as a subject of intentional misconduct on which the further legal procedure can be taken. However, the most appropriate approach for this case can be more assertive. With this approach, the monument can ask the TX to show essential documentation that proves the fatal illness of his child. At the same, the management can expect an apology letter from the person regarding his intentional misconduct (Amabile and Pillemer 2012). Apart from that, a personal interview session can be conducted where the person can clearly voice his opinion on the decision made by the management of MP. As a farther procedure, the management can seize the permission of using this credit card for the stipulated amount of time to warn the individual. At the same time, the management can monitor the other financial activities of the person as well as can check the history of investment done by the card.
With appropriate support and positive feedback from investigation and monitoring team, existing legal procedure can be amended. Apart from that, the TX can be asked to return the same amount of money he used by this credit card with some minor penalty amount. The management should handle this situation as politely as possible that would not harm the sentimental issues related to his son. Throughout the whole procedure, the management should also ensure that these actions have been taken only to warn him, where the authority is eternal sympathy towards the poor health issues of his son (Daley 2012).
The TX has done a serious misconduct which should not be indulged by the authority. At the same time, the authority also has to remember that the person has a huge responsibility and finding a substitution will not be easy. Therefore, the management should take some initiatives to warn the person about his misconduct. During this time the TX may also feel depressed about the consequences and the current health condition of his son. Therefore, it is the duty of the management to show an equal amount of sympathy for his son. Apart from that if the person is found, to be honest person throughout his professional history, some essential changes can be made to reduce the impact of penalisation on him from both financial and psychological aspects.
The interview procedure is also important to understand his mental situation that caused this ethical dilemma (Schmuck and Schultz 2012). The mental support is also very important to keep the person motivated about his duty and responsibilities. At the same time, the polite and assertive approach to the person can also help to hold the employee-employer relationship healthy that would be highly beneficial for his further action and operational performance. Any kind of aggression can make the whole situation worse for both the management and the TX.
Reference:
Amabile, T. M., and Pillemer, J., 2012. Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 3-15.
Bian, Y., Huang, X. and Zhang, L., 2015. Information and favouritism: The network effect on wage income in China. Social networks, 40, pp.129-138.
Bratton, J., and Gold, J., 2017. Human resource management: theory and practice. Palgrave.
Buller, P. F., and McEvoy, G. M., 2012. Strategy, human resource management and performance: Sharpening line of sight. Human resource management review, 22(1), 43-56.
Daley, D. M., 2012. Strategic human resources management. Public Personnel Management, 120-125.
Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W. S., … and van der Doelen, B., 2012. A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics, 55(4), 377-395.
Indvik, J. and Johnson, P.R., 2012. The elephant in the living room: Favoritism in the workplace. In Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict. Proceedings (Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 13). Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc.
Maç, S.D. and Calis, S., 2012. Social responsibility within the ethics and human resource management debates: a review of global compact and SA8000 social responsibility standard. Turkish Journal of Business Ethics, 5(10), pp.21-53.
Schmuck, P., & Schultz, W. P. (Eds.)., 2012. Psychology of sustainable development. Springer Science & Business Media.
Thibaut, J. W., 2017. The social psychology of groups. Routledge.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
