Performance Appraisals: Aligning Strategic Goals to People Development

With approval by your instructor, select a mid-sized to large organization and consider its performance management processes.(Starbucks)

As a consultant, you have been asked to evaluate the current system and propose changes. In 1,000-1,250 words, address the following:

Explain how the organization uses the performance appraisal assessment to manage employee performance, its current performance appraisal tool and quantitative and qualitative components, and how the organization has communicated and implemented its practices. Include at least one example of current practices for support.

Determine what changes are necessary to improve the performance appraisal processes, including at least one example of the change for support.

Consider a new performance appraisal tool that would benefit this company and an effective method for conducting a performance appraisal interview. Describe the benefits of using this proposed appraisal tool and appraisal interview during the performance evaluation process.

Suggest a minimum of two recommendations for consideration by the company leadership that would meet the performance appraisal expectations of fair and realistic criterion, and professional development and motivation of the employees.

Cite and reference a minimum of five scholarly sources.

Performance Appraisals: Aligning Strategic Goals to People Development Rubric
Current Appraisal Methods
Collapse All
24 points
Criteria Description
Description in paper includes appraisal method covering required elements and
examples.
5. Target
24 points
The description includes a comprehensive appraisal method to include all required
elements within the assignment with at least one example of current practices.
4. Acceptable
20.88 points
The description includes a detailed current appraisal method and identifies roles
and performance ratings of employees with at least one example of current
practices.
3. Approaching
18.96 points
The description includes the current appraisal method and briefly identifies roles
and performance ratings of employees.
2. Insufficient
17.76 points
The description includes the current appraisal method but it is incomplete or lacks
details.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The description does not include the current appraisal method.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Changes or Strategies
30 points
Criteria Description
Description in paper includes changes or strategies for the company to implement for
its performance appraisal practices, including examples.
5. Target
30 points
The description includes detailed and innovative changes or strategies for the
company to implement for its performance appraisal practices and includes at least
one example of the change.
4. Acceptable
26.1 points
The description includes detailed changes or strategies for the company to
implement for its performance appraisal practices and includes at least one
example of the change.
3. Approaching
23.7 points
The description includes changes or strategies for the company to implement for its
performance appraisal practices.
2. Insufficient
22.2 points
The description includes some changes or strategies for the company but they are
incomplete or lack details.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The description does not include changes or strategies for the company.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Appraisal Tool and Appraisal Interview
18 points
Criteria Description
Description in paper includes suggestions for and a discussion of the advantages and
disadvantages benefits from both the proposed appraisal tool and an appraisal
interview method, and how it would align with the performance appraisal practices of
the organization.
5. Target
18 points
The description includes thorough suggestions for both an appraisal tool and an
appraisal interview method to include in the performance appraisal practices of the
organization. In addition, the description addresses the benefit of using the
appraisal tool and interview method as a part of the performance appraisal
practice.
4. Acceptable
15.66 points
The description includes detailed suggestions for both an appraisal tool and an
appraisal interview method to include in the performance appraisal practices of the
organization.
3. Approaching
14.22 points
The description includes mention of both an appraisal tool and an appraisal
interview method to include in the performance appraisal practices of the
organization.
2. Insufficient
13.32 points
The description includes either the appraisal tool or the appraisal interview
method, but it is incomplete or lacks details.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The description does not include appraisal tools or an appraisal interview method.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Recommendations to Company Leadership
12 points
Criteria Description
Paper includes two or more recommendations to company leadership that would meet
the performance appraisal expectations of fair and realistic criterion, and professional
development and motivation of the employees.
5. Target
12 points
Two or more exemplary recommendations to company leadership are made that
would meet the performance appraisal expectations of fair and realistic criterion,
and professional development and motivation of the employees.
4. Acceptable
10.44 points
Two or more appropriate recommendations to company leadership are made that
would meet the performance appraisal expectations of fair and realistic criterion,
and professional development and motivation of the employees.
3. Approaching
9.48 points
Two or more recommendations to company leadership are made that would meet
the performance appraisal expectations of fair and realistic criterion, and
professional development and motivation of the employees.
2. Insufficient
8.88 points
Two or more recommendations to company leadership are made but the
recommendations are incomplete or irrelevant.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
There are no recommendations to company leadership.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Thesis, Position, or Purpose
8.4 points
Criteria Description
Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.
5. Target
8.4 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is persuasively developed throughout and skillfully
directed to a specific audience.
4. Acceptable
7.31 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly
directed to a specific audience.
3. Approaching
6.64 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately developed. An awareness of the
appropriate audience is demonstrated.
2. Insufficient
6.22 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally
weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate
audience is evident.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Development, Structure, and Conclusion
9.6 points
Criteria Description
Development, Structure, and Conclusion Advances position or purpose throughout
writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.
5. Target
9.6 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is coherently and cohesively advanced throughout.
The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A convincing and unambiguous
conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
4. Acceptable
8.35 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression
of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and plausible conclusion aligns to the
development of the purpose.
3. Approaching
7.58 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on
each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
2. Insufficient
7.1 points
Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are
inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic
and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections
between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Evidence
6 points
Criteria Description
Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers
other perspectives.
5. Target
6 points
Comprehensive and compelling evidence is included. Multiple other perspectives
are integrated effectively.
4. Acceptable
5.22 points
Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Other perspectives are integrated.
3. Approaching
4.74 points
Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.
2. Insufficient
4.44 points
Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or
integration of other perspectives is present.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies
entirely on the perspective of the writer.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Mechanics of Writing
6 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence
structure, etc.
5. Target
6 points
No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence
structure are used throughout.
4. Acceptable
5.22 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence
structure are used.
3. Approaching
4.74 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally
appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
2. Insufficient
4.44 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language
choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language
choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Format/Documentation
6 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level;
documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,
appropriate to assignment and discipline.
5. Target
6 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of
direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated.
4. Acceptable
5.22 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.
3. Approaching
4.74 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious
errors.
2. Insufficient
4.44 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors
in documentation of sources are evident.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.
Total 120 points
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.