| Course | HRMG 3001 Human Resource Management |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 8 |
| Paper type | Appraisal critique |
| Length | About 770 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HRMG 3001 Week 8
Critiquing Birchline Cabinet Works' Annual Appraisal Form: Five Traits Rated One to Five, What Each Rating Is Meant to Reward and What It Rewards in Practice, and Three Modest Changes
Student Name
Walden University
HRMG 3001: Human Resource Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Critiquing Birchline Cabinet Works' Annual Appraisal Form: Five Traits Rated One to Five, What Each Rating Is Meant to Reward and What It Rewards in Practice, and Three Modest Changes
The Form
Birchline Cabinet Works, the composite cabinet shop studied this term, uses a one-page appraisal form once a year. The owner rates each employee on five traits from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), adds a comment and totals the ratings. The total sets the annual raise: each point above 15 adds 10 cents an hour.
Table 1
Birchline Cabinet Works Annual Appraisal Form
| Trait | Rating scale | Weight | |
|---|---|---|
| Dependability | 1 to 5 | Equal | |
| Teamwork | 1 to 5 | Equal | |
| Quality of work | 1 to 5 | Equal | |
| Initiative | 1 to 5 | Equal | |
| Attitude | 1 to 5 | Equal | |
| Comments | Free text | Not scored | |
| Total | 5 to 25 | Sets the raise | |
Form as used in the most recent annual review cycle.
Trait by Trait
Dependability. Meant to reward reliability: finishing work as promised and being there when needed. In practice, the owner rates it almost entirely by attendance. An assembler who is never absent but often has boxes rejected for being out of square can score 5, while one who missed three days for a family emergency scores 3.
Teamwork. Meant to reward helping others and coordinating across benches. In practice, it measures agreeableness: employees who are friendly and do not complain score high. The assembler who regularly tells finishing about recurring glue problems, which annoys some coworkers but prevents rework, has scored 3 two years running.
Quality of work. Meant to reward accurate, defect-free work. In practice, it relies on the owner's general impression. The shop already records defects: finishers attach a rework tag to every part sent back, noting the bench it came from. Those tags are never consulted at review time.
Initiative. Meant to reward improving the work without being asked. In practice, it rewards visibility: suggestions made to the owner directly count, while improvements made quietly at the bench go unnoticed.
Attitude. Meant to reward commitment to the shop. In practice, it is the most subjective trait on the form and the one most likely to reflect the owner's personal liking for an employee.
The Pattern
Kerr (1975) warned that organizations often pay for one kind of behavior while hoping to get a different kind. The form hopes for reliable, high-quality work and cooperation that prevents problems; it rewards attendance, agreeableness and being noticed. Employees learn what the form rewards, because the raise depends on it. Over time the shop gets more of what it measures: perfect attendance from people whose boxes come back from finishing, quiet agreement instead of useful complaints about glue, and suggestions timed for the owner's attention rather than made at the bench where they would help.
Rater Errors
Two rater errors are likely. Recency error: because the form is completed once a year, the owner's ratings lean on the last few weeks before review. Leniency: most employees score 4s and 5s, so totals bunch between 19 and 23, and raises barely differ. DeNisi and Murphy (2017) note that rating errors of this kind have been studied for a century and are hard to train away, which is why the design of the system matters more than urging raters to be careful.
What the Form Gets Right
The form has strengths worth keeping. It is short, so the owner actually completes it every year. It covers more than output, which suits a small shop where cooperation matters. And the comments box gives room for specific examples, although it is rarely used. The changes below keep all three strengths.
Three Modest Changes
1. Replace "quality of work" impressions with the rework tag count per employee for the year, adjusted for volume. The data already exist.
2. Rename "dependability" to "reliability" and define it as meeting work commitments, with attendance one input among several rather than the whole measure.
3. Hold a short check-in each quarter, recorded in a few lines, so the year-end rating rests on all four quarters. This also addresses recency error directly, because the year-end rating can draw on four short records instead of the owner's memory of the last month.
What the Appraisal Should Be For
At a shop this size, the appraisal has two purposes: setting raises fairly and telling employees what good work looks like so they can do more of it. The current form does neither well, because it measures things that are only loosely connected to the work (Dessler, 2020). These changes keep the form short while tying it more closely to what the shop needs.
References
DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085
Dessler, G. (2020). Human resource management (16th ed.). Pearson.
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769-783. https://doi.org/10.5465/255378
HRMG 3001 Week 8 instructions, in plain terms
In Week 8 you critique one performance appraisal form or process. Reproduce the form so the reader can see it. For each element, ask what it is meant to reward and what it rewards in practice, using specific examples. Look for patterns across the elements and connect them to research on reward systems. Identify the rating errors most likely in this setting. Acknowledge what the form does well. Propose a small number of changes that address the problems you found without making the process much heavier. Close by stating what appraisal should accomplish in this organization.
How the HRMG 3001 Week 8 example is put together
The critique reproduces the five-trait form and the raise formula. Each trait gets a paragraph contrasting its intent with its effect, with examples such as the assembler whose useful complaints about glue earn a 3 for teamwork. A pattern section applies Kerr to show the form rewards attendance, agreeableness and visibility, and describes how employees adapt. A rater error section explains recency and leniency and cites DeNisi and Murphy. A section credits the form's brevity, breadth and comments box. Three changes follow: using rework tags for quality, redefining dependability and adding quarterly check-ins. The conclusion restates appraisal's two purposes at the shop, citing Dessler.
Reading the HRMG 3001 Week 8 rubric
Appraisal critiques are graded on depth and fairness. Every element of the form should be examined against what it is meant to do, with concrete examples of what it rewards in practice. Strong critiques connect individual findings into a pattern and support it with research. Name only the rater errors this particular setting invites, and explain why the form's timing or format invites them. Acknowledging the form's strengths shows balance. Recommendations should be few, practical and directly linked to the problems identified; proposing an elaborate new system for a small organization misses the point. A clear statement of what appraisal is for ties the critique together.
Common HRMG 3001 Week 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Get a copy of the form and read each item as an employee would: what would I do to score higher on this? Then ask whether that behavior is what the organization actually needs. Where the answer is no, you have found a problem. Look for data the organization already collects, such as defect records, that the form ignores. Think about when and how often the form is completed and what errors that invites. Keep your recommendations small enough that a busy manager would adopt them. Common weaknesses are criticizing without examples and proposing a complete redesign. Share the form you are critiquing, and we can help with the analysis. Be fair to the person who designed the form, who was likely trying to keep it short and simple. A critique that respects that aim is more likely to be acted on.
Get a HRMG 3001 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Send the appraisal form your section provides, or describe it, along with the prompt and the rubric; the critique works through that form line by line. First custom sample free, 24 to 48 hours. The shop's form and the owner's ratings on it are fabricated for teaching, so no actual employee's review appears.
More HRMG 3001 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- HRMG 3001 Week 1: HR Beliefs Discussion Post
- HRMG 3001 Week 2: HR Function Overview
- HRMG 3001 Week 3: Critical Incident Job Analysis
- HRMG 3001 Week 4: Employee Selection Brief
- HRMG 3001 Week 5: First-Week Onboarding Plan
- HRMG 3001 Week 6: Pay Structure Memo
- HRMG 3001 Week 7: Training Needs Proposal
- HRMG 3001 Week 9: Plain-Language Policy Summary
- HRMG 3001 Week 10: HR Practice Integration Paper
- HRMG 3001 Week 11: Course Reflection Paper
- FNCE 3001 Week 8: Break-Even Analysis
HRMG 3001 Week 8 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HRMG 3001 Week 8 sample paper?
The appraisal critique, with the reproduced form and all three changes, can be read here at no cost.
What does the HRMG 3001 Week 8 critique find about dependability?
It is meant to reward reliability but is rated almost entirely by attendance.
What data does the shop ignore?
Rework tags that record defects by bench, which could measure quality directly.
Which rater errors are likely?
Recency, because the form is completed once a year, and leniency, because most ratings bunch at 4 and 5.
What changes does the critique propose?
Using rework tags for quality, redefining dependability as reliability and holding short quarterly check-ins.