| Course | MLDR 6010 Managing People and Promoting |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 4 |
| Paper type | Appraisal write-up |
| Length | About 880 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MLDR 6010 Week 4
Annual Appraisal for a Senior Technician Just Passed Over for Lead: Anchored Ratings on Five Dimensions of Her Current Role, Dated Observations Beneath Each and a Review of the Rater Errors in the First Draft
Student Name
Walden University
MLDR 6010: Managing People and Promoting
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Annual Appraisal for a Senior Technician Just Passed Over for Lead: Anchored Ratings on Five Dimensions of Her Current Role, Dated Observations Beneath Each and a Review of the Rater Errors in the First Draft
Appraisal Header
Employee: Kelsey, senior veterinary technician, Westerville clinic, Olentangy Animal Hospitals. Review period: March 1 of last year to February 28 of this year. Rater: practice manager. Role appraised: senior technician, not lead technician. Dimensions are taken from the senior technician role description: clinical procedures, patient monitoring, client communication, teamwork and reliability. Each uses a five-level behaviorally anchored scale, following Smith and Kendall (1963), in which each level is defined by described conduct rather than by an adjective.
How This Appraisal Was Built
Before assigning any rating, I pulled the year's records: anesthesia monitoring sheets for 212 procedures in which Kelsey was the monitoring technician, surgery notes, the attendance record, eleven client feedback cards that named her and my own dated notes from floor observations. I wrote out observations first and only then matched each dimension to the anchor it fit. DeNisi and Murphy (2017) review a century of appraisal research and conclude that how accurately a manager rates turns more on what the rater knows and wants than on the design of the form; gathering the records first was my attempt to supply the information before the motivation could shape it.
Ratings and Observations
Clinical procedures, rated 5. On June 14, Kelsey placed a central line in a dehydrated cat after two other technicians had failed peripheral access, and the attending veterinarian noted it in the record. On three dates in September and October, new technicians were assigned to observe her catheter placement as part of their training.
Patient monitoring, rated 5. Her monitoring sheets for the period show no missing entries across 212 procedures. On August 2, during a long orthopedic repair, she alerted the surgeon to a falling blood pressure trend eight minutes before it crossed the clinic's intervention threshold.
Client communication, rated 4. Seven of eleven client feedback cards that named her praised her explanations. Two cards from Saturday discharges in November described her as hurried, and my own note from November 18 records a discharge that took under two minutes for a post-surgical patient with three medications.
Teamwork, rated 3. This rating falls below the top levels, and the observations are stated as plainly as the praise. On January 9 and again on February 6, when a newer technician was struggling to place a catheter, Kelsey took the patient and completed the procedure herself rather than coaching the technician through it. Both times the patient was well served, and both times the newer technician lost a chance to learn. Kelsey also covered for colleagues willingly throughout the year, which is why the rating is not lower.
Reliability, rated 5. No unplanned absences in the period, and the schedule shows she covered nine shifts at colleagues' request.
Table 1
Ratings by Dimension With Matched Anchors
| Dimension | Rating (1 to 5) | Anchor matched | |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical procedures | 5 | Performs advanced procedures independently and is sought out by others for technique | |
| Patient monitoring | 5 | Keeps complete monitoring records and alerts the veterinarian to trends before thresholds are reached | |
| Client communication | 4 | Explains discharge instructions clearly and checks understanding; occasionally rushed at peak times | |
| Teamwork | 3 | Helps colleagues readily but sometimes takes over tasks rather than supporting others to complete them | |
| Reliability | 5 | No unplanned absences and covers shifts when asked | |
Composite employee. Anchors abbreviated from the clinic's scale.
Rater-Error Review
After finishing a full first draft, I read it against the rater errors that Murphy (2008) and others describe, and found three.
Halo. My first draft rated teamwork 4. Rereading it, I found the justification was mostly about Kelsey's clinical skill, which colleagues admire; her excellence in one area had raised the rating in another. The observations about taking over procedures supported a 3, and the rating was changed.
Leniency. My first draft also softened the client communication paragraph and omitted the November 18 discharge. I recognized the reason: Kelsey had just been passed over for lead, and I did not want the appraisal to feel like a second rejection. Leniency in that situation would have been unfair to her, because it would leave her without an accurate record, and to colleagues rated honestly. The observation was restored, and the rating of 4 stands on the evidence.
Recency. The first draft's teamwork paragraph relied on the January and February episodes, both close to the review date and both close to the selection exercise, where Kelsey had left the board to scrub in. I checked the earlier months for similar episodes and found none recorded, so the rating rests on two observations, not a pattern across the year. I kept the rating at 3 but added this sentence so that she and any later reader know how much evidence stands behind it.
Summary
Kelsey is a highly skilled, reliable senior technician whose clinical work is the clinic's standard. The one area below the top level, supporting others to complete tasks rather than completing them herself, is also the area the lead selection identified. That overlap will be addressed in the development plan, not in this rating.
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
Murphy, K. R. (2008). Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(2), 148-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00030.x
Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47(2), 149-155. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047060
The Walden MLDR 6010 Week 4 instructions
Week 4 asks you to write a performance appraisal for an employee in a difficult situation. Set out the role, the review period and the rater, and appraise the job the person actually holds. Gather records before you assign ratings, so evidence leads and ratings follow. Use a scale defined by behavior rather than adjectives, and match each rating to the anchor it fits. Support every rating with dated observations, and state the evidence for lower ratings as plainly as for high ones. After a full draft, review it against common rater errors such as halo, leniency and recency, and record each error you find and how you corrected it.
How this MLDR 6010 Week 4 example is built
The write-up opens with a header naming the employee, the review period and the role appraised, citing Smith and Kendall. A section explains how records were gathered first, citing DeNisi and Murphy. A table shows five ratings with their matched anchors. Observations follow for each dimension: a central line in a dehydrated cat, 212 complete monitoring sheets, two hurried Saturday discharges, two procedures taken over from newer technicians and nine covered shifts. A rater-error review, citing Murphy, describes a halo that raised teamwork, leniency that hid a rushed discharge and recency in the teamwork evidence. A summary links the lower rating to the development plan. Lower ratings are written in the same plain voice as the praise, without hedging adjectives.
Reading the MLDR 6010 Week 4 rubric
Appraisal write-ups are judged on how firmly each rating rests on observed conduct. Appraising the current role, not the role the person wanted, earns credit. Gathering records before rating shows method. Anchored ratings with dated observations are weighted heavily. Stating the evidence for lower ratings without softening it shows fairness to the employee and to colleagues. A rater-error review that identifies real errors in the draft and the changes made demonstrates self-awareness and is rewarded. Appraisals that rely on adjectives, rate everyone at the top or let recent events dominate the whole period typically receive lower marks. Instructors also check that the rater-error review appears after a full draft and that each listed error points to a specific rating it touched.
Common MLDR 6010 Week 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Before you rate anyone, collect what the period produced: logs, notes, feedback and your own dated observations. Write the observations out first. Then read each anchor on your scale and choose the one that matches what you wrote, not the one that matches your overall impression. When a rating falls below the top, quote the observation behind it in plain words. Finally, reread your draft as if someone else wrote it and ask where a strength in one area lifted another, where sympathy softened a fact and whether the last month crowded out the rest of the year. Writers often skip that last read. If you would like a second reader for that rater-error review, our team can mark where each error seems to appear.
Get a MLDR 6010 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Attach the appraisal form or template your section circulated along with the Week 4 prompt and rubric, and the completed write-up is delivered within 24 to 48 hours, no charge the first time. A copy of the actual form matters more than a description of it, because each of its boxes is completed in the order it appears.
More MLDR 6010 papers and MS in Leadership samples
- MLDR 6010 Week 1: Popular vs Defensible Post
- MLDR 6010 Week 2: Lead Technician Role Analysis
- MLDR 6010 Week 3: Lead Technician Selection Case
- MLDR 6010 Week 5: Feedback Conversation Script
- MLDR 6010 Week 6: Two-Sided Development Plan
- MLDR 6010 Week 7: Difficult Conduct Case Analysis
- MLDR 6010 Week 8: Handbook Policy Check
- MLDR 6010 Week 9: Peer Response on a Conduct Case
- MLDR 6010 Week 10: Organizational Justice Equity Review
- MLDR 6010 Week 11: Final Management Paper
MLDR 6010 Week 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MLDR 6010 Week 4 sample paper?
Every rating and observation of the appraisal can be read below at no cost.
Which role does the MLDR 6010 Week 4 appraisal rate?
Her current senior technician role, not the lead role she was passed over for.
What scale is used?
A five-level behaviorally anchored scale, with each level defined by described conduct.
Which dimension rates below the top levels?
Teamwork, because she twice took over procedures instead of coaching newer technicians.
Which rater errors were found in the first draft?
Halo, leniency and recency, each corrected and recorded.