Due to the fact that performance measures play a fundamental role in such organizational decisions as pay increases, promotions, and discipline, employees who seek legal action against an organization over decisions as such, ultimately charge the organization's measurement system on which the decisions were made. In hindsight of the legal actions that employees seek, the two types of cases, discrimination and unjust dismissal, are dominant.
So when describing discrimination suits, the plaintiff typically alleges that the performance measurement system unjustly discriminated against them because of age, race, or gender. All things considered, many performance measures are subjective, and we have seen that individual biases can affect them,
…show more content…
Zia, the Supreme Court essentially equated performance measures with selection tests. It ruled that the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures apply to evaluating the adequacy of a performance appraisal instrument. This ruling presents a challenge to those involved in developing performance measures, because a substantial body of research on race discrimination in performance rating has demonstrated that both white and black raters give higher ratings to members of their own racial group, even after rater training. In addition, there is evidence that the discriminatory biases in performance rating are worse when one group makes up a small percentage of the workgroup. When the vast majority of the group is male, females receive lower ratings; when the minority is male, males receive lower …show more content…
For example, an employee who works for a defense contractor might blow the whistle on the company for defrauding the government. If the company fires the employee, claiming poor performance, the employee may argue that the firing was, in fact, because of blowing the whistle on the employer, in other words, that the dismissal was unjust. The court case will likely focus on the performance measurement system used as the basis for claiming the employee's performance was poor. The unjust dismissal also can result from terminating for poor performance an employee who has a history of favorable reviews and raises. This may occur especially when a new evaluation system is introduced that results in more experienced older employees receiving unsatisfactory reviews. Rewarding poor performers or giving poor performers positive evaluations because of an unwillingness to confront a performance issue undermines the credibility of any performance management system. This makes it difficult to defend termination decisions based on a performance appraisal
Fraud is one of Canada's most severe acts of financial criminality as the economic impact of this crime could potentially handicap an entire society. According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre Annual Statistic Report (CAFC), a report established to monitor fraud with the aid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and Competition Bureau of Canada, it reported an annual loss of 74 million dollars affecting over 14,472 victims (Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, 2014). Given this alarming statistic, it is worrisome that we as a society still ignore or turn a blind eye towards those who commit fraud as seen in the low conviction (Canada Revenue Agency, 2014), and focus our efforts on petty thefts as seen with the high rate of convictions
After applying the four-fifth’s rule, and examining the selection ratios for all job categories, it is determined that the evidence points to disparate impact discrimination.
The results of the testing was that “whites scored far better on the Company’s alternate requirements than Negros” 420 F.2d 1225, 1239 n. 6. The key issue was whether or not the testing was
Institutions in the businesses sector are swarming in racial discrimination, much of which is covert and difficult to detect and prove. Racial discrimination excludes, marginalizes and exploits those citizens who are discriminated against, ceasing any opportunity for economic progress and development. Under certain regulations some businesses are required to diversify their workplace by hiring certain amounts of people of color, but in reality these small quotas do not do much for the overall condition of the people who are being discriminated against. Businesses that fail to take action on racial discrimination tend to have lower levels of productivity. This stems from employees not being interested in working hard, or because people with exceptional talents and skills choose to shy away from certain places of employment due to the fear of racial discrimination. Employees who feel wronged also tend to switch jobs, forcing the organization to spend more time and resources on hiring and training new employees, besides coping with the low productivity of a new employee. (Nayab)The effects of racial discrimination in the American work force could be identified with funded research on the topic. With ample data employers will be able to better understand the negative affects that racial discrimination have
Disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that is forbidden by laws in which all employers must comply, including fire and emergency services. Disparate treatment in the workplace is applicable to many functions of the workplace including, discipline, promotions, hiring, firing, benefits, layoffs, and testing (Varone, 2012). The claim of disparate treatment arises when a person or group, “is treated differently because of a prohibited classification” (Varone, 2012, p. 439). In the 2010 case, Lewis v. City of Chicago, six plaintiffs accused the city of disparate treatment following testing for open positions within the Chicago Fire Department (Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2010). The case is based on the argument that the Chicago Fire Department firefighter candidate testing, which was conducted in 1995, followed an unfair process of grouping eligible candidates, therefore discriminating against candidates of African-American decent. The case was heard by the Seventh District Court of Appeals and ultimately appeared before the United States Supreme Court, where Justice Scalia delivered the final verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
The performance assessment and appraisal forms are crucial within the performance management system (Aguinis, 2014). However, the appraisal form within the case study provided is designed for the supervisor’s use thus missing one vital factor throughout the entire process, employee participation. Thus, questioning the validity and reliability of the process. This is especially concerning as the bottom 10 per cent of employees are being fired and the top 20 per cent are being rewarded with $5,000.00 based on what their supervisor records on the form without consultation with employees. Thus, supervisors may not provide accurate scores as they do not have to justify their responses (Aguinis,
There are different types of discrimination against a job applicant or an employee. It is prohibited by law to make biased decisions based on preconception to group of people according to a certain race, national origin, class, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, age, disabilities, genetic information etc. All developed countries have an advanced legislation to protect job applicants and employees against different types of discrimination in many types of work situations such as hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages and benefits. This paper examines issues associated with the main forms of discrimination.
Discrimination is known to exist in all workplaces, sometimes it is too subtle to notice, and other times it is exceedingly obvious. It is known that everyone subconsciously discriminates, dependant on their own beliefs and environments that surround them. However, discrimination can be either positive or negative in their results, and sometimes discrimination is a necessary part of life.
The curve can accommodate only a few people at the top. For this, during performance appraisal, relative appraisal mechanisms are employed, wherein an employees’ performance is benchmarked against that of a group of people. When performance appraisals for an employee are done with respect to a group’s performance, biases can be formed about the group’s dominant behavioral characteristic and the employee’s assessment could be calibrated with respect to that
There are certain guidelines and standards that each employee should be aware of, and expected to follow. This is what is normally used to measure a person’s job performance. When not living up to these qualifications, an employee may a gentle reminder of his failure to comply. If held accountable for unacceptable behaviors, it will often turn this performance around. If not, after a certain amount of warnings, it becomes obvious that this person does not take his job very seriously, and therefore may be dismissed.
Many employees lose motivation if not considered deserving of merit rewards, which directly affect performance. Employee’s say the criteria used to measure performance is highly subjective and unfair. Consequently, favoritism when rating employees can create major problems within an organization. This makes other employees unmotivated; they feel insignificant, causing low morale, because no matter how high they perform, they never meet the standards. Unmotivated employees produce less and do not substantially contribute to the organization. The inconsistencies with the appraisal system used for merit pay causes a higher degree of employee conflict, which directly affects productivity. Often personal goals may become more important than team goals, which is not beneficial to the company and affects team unity. Developing an accurate performance appraisal system where assessors are properly trained and objectives are clearly spelled out and discussed with employees can alleviate many
The first problem with Merck’s performance appraisal system was the prevalence of rating errors which resulted in issues such as central tendency. This meant that very few employees received ratings of 1,2 or 5, instead, a vast majority received ratings of 3 or 4. Some employees received a score of 3 or 4 because their supervisors were strict and refused to award a 5 even for excellent performance. On the other hand, many employees argue that some of their colleagues who were below average performers still received 3 and 4 because supervisors refused to give them scores of 1 or 2.
...organizational annual pay and grading reviews, Performance appraisals generally review each individual's performance against objectives and standards for the trading year, agreed at the previous appraisal meeting. Performance appraisals are also essential for career and succession planning - for individuals, crucial jobs, and for the organization as a whole. Performance appraisals are important for staff motivation, attitude and behavior development, communicating and aligning individual and organizational aims, and fostering positive relationships between management and staff. Performance appraisals provide a formal, recorded, regular review of an individual's performance, and a plan for future development.
Although performance is a major objective at top organizations, successfully addressing poor performance is also a key focus. Although many employees feel or dread performance appraisals they are directed to enforce clarity with individual employees day-to-day work-load, performance appraisals develops responsibility while making employees accountable for performance expectations, reinforces future career planning, helps the organization with determining training needs, and provides a stem of documentation for legality purposes. Performance management in detail is much broader than many employers, and employees assume and necessitates so much more. Proficient appraisals should represent a summary of on-going dialogue. Focusing only on an annual performance evaluation leads to misrepresentation of the performance management process in its
Network Solutions, Inc. is a worldwide leader in hardware, software, and services essential to computer networking (Aguinis, 2013, p.31). In the past, this company has used over 50 different systems to measure performance management. Even with the large amounts of different systems to measure performance, only a fraction of employees were receiving performance reviews, and less than 5% of employees received the lowest category of ratings. Also, the organization had no recognition program for employees with a higher category of ratings. In addition to the lack of employees not receiving reviews, it was noticed in the organization that performance problems were not being addressed or resolved.