MS150400352
Muhammad Sohail Qumar
HRM 713
SLOUTION ASSIGNMENT# 1
1. CASE ANALYSIS/ EXPLANATION a. Cure In a privately owned hospital striving for quality excellence with an emphasis on mutual cooperation and participation within institutions. b. Management hired a PMS expert who developed a new PMS. c. According to new PMS Doctors will be evaluated by their facilitating staff and vice versa. d. Criteria for satisfactory performance for Doctors was 50 patients while for supporting staff it was their assigned duties and level of cooperation with doctors. e. This PMS resulted in blaming doctors for deaths of patients and supporting staff for delayed services.
2. CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CASE a. Appraisal was mutually carried out by …show more content…
Point one of Deming’s critique “Current performance appraisal systems are unfair as they hold workers responsible for the errors that may be the result of faults within system”.
• There can be many faults in appraisal system of Cure In hospital for which employees should not be blamed. Many common and local causes deteriorate the performance which include an inappropriate design of appraisal system, Incompatible objectives, +`immeasurable goals to employees and lack of periodic evaluation of performance by management.
• In case of Cure In, appraisal has been mutually carried out by employees i.e. Doctors and supporting staff. Whereas appraisal should be carried out by managers because it is the superior who is ultimately responsible for individual and organizational performance. Management may take feedback from Doctors and supporting staff necessary for appraisal to improve the quality of assessment but they should not allow employees to appraise each other otherwise conflicts will arise as it happened in this …show more content…
Doctors and supporting staff cannot be held responsible for faults which arouse due to wrong decisions, defects in appraisal process, flaws in system design and managerial short comings.
b. Point four of Deming’s critique “ Current performance appraisals rob the workers of their pride in workmanship”.
• In this case doctors have been forced to chase an average of 50 patients. This will not give information to doctors and supporting staff that how well they have done in terms of quality output. This practice of just meeting numerical goals make the doctors and staff to neglect quality.
• Checking 50 patients by doctors is a numerical objective which will make the doctor to just meet this quota while compromising quality. By just checking just 50 patients it cannot be determined that how well services were provided to patients.
• On the hand casualties are natural acts and it can keep happening even if best services are provided by doctors so they cannot be blamed for it. Similarly goal of cooperation for staff is a very vague, unclear and unspecific objective which cannot be measured to precisely determine the performance of supporting staff.
ANSWER TO QUESTION #
Muhammad Sohail Qumar
HRM 713
SLOUTION ASSIGNMENT# 1
1. CASE ANALYSIS/ EXPLANATION a. Cure In a privately owned hospital striving for quality excellence with an emphasis on mutual cooperation and participation within institutions. b. Management hired a PMS expert who developed a new PMS. c. According to new PMS Doctors will be evaluated by their facilitating staff and vice versa. d. Criteria for satisfactory performance for Doctors was 50 patients while for supporting staff it was their assigned duties and level of cooperation with doctors. e. This PMS resulted in blaming doctors for deaths of patients and supporting staff for delayed services.
2. CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CASE a. Appraisal was mutually carried out by …show more content…
Point one of Deming’s critique “Current performance appraisal systems are unfair as they hold workers responsible for the errors that may be the result of faults within system”.
• There can be many faults in appraisal system of Cure In hospital for which employees should not be blamed. Many common and local causes deteriorate the performance which include an inappropriate design of appraisal system, Incompatible objectives, +`immeasurable goals to employees and lack of periodic evaluation of performance by management.
• In case of Cure In, appraisal has been mutually carried out by employees i.e. Doctors and supporting staff. Whereas appraisal should be carried out by managers because it is the superior who is ultimately responsible for individual and organizational performance. Management may take feedback from Doctors and supporting staff necessary for appraisal to improve the quality of assessment but they should not allow employees to appraise each other otherwise conflicts will arise as it happened in this …show more content…
Doctors and supporting staff cannot be held responsible for faults which arouse due to wrong decisions, defects in appraisal process, flaws in system design and managerial short comings.
b. Point four of Deming’s critique “ Current performance appraisals rob the workers of their pride in workmanship”.
• In this case doctors have been forced to chase an average of 50 patients. This will not give information to doctors and supporting staff that how well they have done in terms of quality output. This practice of just meeting numerical goals make the doctors and staff to neglect quality.
• Checking 50 patients by doctors is a numerical objective which will make the doctor to just meet this quota while compromising quality. By just checking just 50 patients it cannot be determined that how well services were provided to patients.
• On the hand casualties are natural acts and it can keep happening even if best services are provided by doctors so they cannot be blamed for it. Similarly goal of cooperation for staff is a very vague, unclear and unspecific objective which cannot be measured to precisely determine the performance of supporting staff.
ANSWER TO QUESTION #