catalysts for action—or the main barriers to goal achievement. Supervisors are responsi- ble for the reasonable safety and security of their employees. Motivational research over most of the past century has concluded that emphasizing the positive produces better results in terms of forming behavior than does negative enforcement.
D
ISCUSSION ANDR
EVIEW1. What role might a supervisor have in connection with others in the placement of staffers into the organization?
2. Upon meeting new workers assigned to the unit, what topics would the supervisor discuss first? Why?
3. What special concerns would a supervisor have if the new worker was being assigned temporarily to someone with no previous experience as a mentor?
4. What significance does the job description have for both the supervisor and the persons being supervised? What are pitfalls in writing job descriptions?
5. What is the usual and preferred strategy for a supervisor to recognize good work in a subordinate?
6. What responsibility does a supervisor have for the workplace safety of subordinates? How do the risks of security employment compare with those in other vocations?
7. Compare the ABC technique and the Pareto principle. How does each theory aid management in managing time more effectively?
8. In your opinion, does Mayo’s research at the Western Electric plant have any relevance to the management of a security program?
Explain.
9. In your opinion, is the Pygmalion effect harmful or beneficial to management? Explain.
E
NDNOTES1 K. Tyler (May 1999). “Take New Employee Orientation off the Back Burner.” HR Magazine, p. 49.
2 Ibid.
3 W.R. Van Dersal (1985). The Successful Supervisor in Government and Business.
New York, NY: Harper & Row, p. 13.
4 K. Blanchard and S. Johnson (1983). The One Minute Manager. New York, NY:
Berkley Books, p. 44.
5 “New Study Confirms Safety of Office Work. Workplace Violence Elsewhere Can Be Lessened” (October 18, 1996). Security Letter, Vol. 26, Part I, p. 1; “Private Security Personnel 4th Highest Rank of Violent Workplace Victimization” (September 1, 1998).
Security Letter, Vol. 28, Part III, p. 1.
6 “Violence in the Workplace” (June 1996). Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Current Intelligence Bulletin 57.
7 “Post Leakage Response: Don’t Forget to Remove Ceiling Tiles after Water Damage”
(May 15, 1999). Security Letter, Part I, p. 2.
8 R.F. Brislin (1994). The Effective Security Supervision Manual. Boston, MA:
Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 8.
9 H. Mintzberg (1979). Harvard Business Review on Human Relations. New York, NY: Harper & Row, p. 121.
10 F.S. Hillier and G.J. Lieberman (1980). Introduction to Operations Research. San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day.
11 A. Lakein (1973). How to Get Control of Your Time and Your Life. New York, NY: Peter H. Wyden.
12 R.N. Ashkenas and R.H. Schaffer (May–June 1982). “Managers Can Avoid Wasting Time.” Harvard Business Review, 60(3):98; R.C. Dorney (January–February 1988).
“Making Time to Manage.” Harvard Business Review, 66(1):38.
13 Quoted in A. Fisher (January 10, 2005). “Get Organized at Work—Painlessly.”
Fortune, p. 30.
14 A.S. Grove (1985). High Output Management. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
15 D. McGregor (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
16 W.G. Ouchi (1981). Theory Z. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
17 F.J. Roethlisberger and W.J. Dixon (1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18 H.A. Landsberger (1958). Hawthorne Revisited. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
19 S.R.G. Jones (April 1990). “Worker Interdependence and Output: The Hawthorne Studies Reevaluated.” American Sociological Review: 55.
20 A.H. Maslow (1943). “Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50:370–96; A. Bryant (June 21, 1998). “Looking for Purpose in a Paycheck.” New York Times, Sec. 4, p. 1; see also A.H Maslow (1998). Maslow on Management. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
21 F.G. Globe (1970). The Third Force. New York, NY: Pocket Books.
22 F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, and B. Snyderman (1959). Motivation to Work. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
23 M. Magnet (July 6, 1987). “The Money Society.” Fortune, p. 31.
24 D. Eden (1990). Pygmalion in Management: Productivity as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, p. 1.
25 R. Rosenthal (1985). “From Unconscious Experimenter Bias to Teacher Expectancy Effects.” In Teacher Expectancies, ed. J.B. Dusek. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Earlbaum Associates.
26 R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils’ Intellectual Development. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
27 J.S. Livingston (September–October 1988). “Pygmalion and Management.” Harvard Business Review 66(5):122.
28 T.H. Fitzgerald (1979). “Why Motivation Theory Doesn’t Work.” In Harvard Business Review on Human Relations. New York, NY: Harper & Row, p. 277.
A
DDITIONALR
EFERENCESM. Bloom (February 1999). “Performance Effects of Pay Dispersion on Individuals and Organizations.” Academy of Management J. 42(1):25–40.
Additional References 153 R.E. Boyatzis (1982). The Competent Manager. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
A. Fisher (September 30, 1996). “Stop Whining.” Fortune, pp. 206–08.
M.B. McCaskey (November–December 1979). “The Hidden Messages Managers Send.”
Harvard Business Review 57(6):135–48.
K. Tyler (May 1999). “Take New Employee Orientation off the Back Burner.” HR Magazine 43(6):49–57.
S. Winston (2004). Organized for Success: Top Executives and CEOs Reveal the Organizing Principles That Helped Them Reach the Top. New York, NY: Random House/Crown Business.
6
155
Appraising and
Promoting People in Security Programs
The secret of success in business of all kinds . . . is a liberal division of profits among the men who make them, and the wider distribution the better.
—Andrew Carnegie
People are an organization’s most important assets. Managing them successfully means providing opportunities for growth, including promotion to greater responsibilities.
Promotions in formal organizations normally occur after work has been appraised over time as exceeding minimum expectations. Appraisal is the process of evaluating individ- ual performance on the job and assessing it relative to goals and objectives. Appraisal not only is a measure of individual performance but also identifies potential for future per- formance and capability. When employees can be evaluated and compared with reliabil- ity and fairness, the workplace and workers gain from the process.
T
HED
IFFICULTIES OFP
ERFORMANCEA
PPRAISALThe organizational process of personal appraisal fits into the context of other aspects of management development: forecasting, recruiting, training, compensation and conditions of service, deployment, and management review or audit. Yet many security operations do not provide formal appraisal of workers. This may be because the process is time- consuming, demands judgment, and requires confronting individuals in what can be awkward situations involving workplace behavior. Some employers feel that statements made at such times can lead to litigation if the individual is terminated subsequent to an unfavorable evaluation. Litigation for wrongful termination is more likely if the employee is discharged shortly after a favorable appraisal has been issued.
Such reservations about formal appraisal processes are understandable. However, advantages of appraisals far outweigh their disadvantages. A well-conceived and consci- entiously operated appraisal program can lead to motivation and growth of individuals, and produce higher performance. With such a process, justifiable criteria must be identi- fied as the basis of promotions. No manager can be guaranteed that certain procedures will prevent the employer from being sued for workplace discrimination for failing to
promote someone in a fair manner. However, the existence of a well-conceived employee appraisal system serves as a deflective shield against spurious civil litigation from employ- ees passed over for promotion. Beyond the uncommon likelihood of such litigation is the larger issue that all employees will observe that management has sought to establish reasonable, though imperfect, standards of promotion. Instead of encouraging litigation, such programs mitigate its risk.
Rapidly growing organizations sometimes feel they cannot spare time for appraisals.
Yet this process helps identify individuals within the organization who are capable of assuming new responsibilities. In addition, appraisals are important in determining merit increases, special training, and layoffs.
W
HOS
HOULDB
EA
PPRAISED ANDW
HEN?
In well-structured organizations, all employees deserve appraisal. Due to the time-con- suming nature of the process, appraisals are generally conducted on an annual basis.
However, some organizations will conduct appraisals on a semi-annual or more frequent basis. Organizations should schedule appraisals at times that will interfere least with critical activity. In retail organizations, for example, it would not be logical to schedule appraisals in November and December, as workers are busy with the holiday season.
However, late January and February are good months for retailers to schedule appraisals.
Other workplaces will have different operating rhythms that will indicate when the most logical time for formal appraisal should be.
Many organizations schedule appraisals at least one year after the individual has begun a position and at each annual anniversary. However, as this chapter observes, employers frequently appraise workers during probationary periods, which are often particular to that organization or industry and should be mentioned specifically in the employee’s manual. Probationary periods are usually 30, 60, 90, or 180 days after the commencement of employment. The annual review then might occur approximately six months to a year after the probationary appraisal has been successfully completed by the new hire, and on an annual basis subsequently.
A
PPRAISAL FORA
LLL
EVELS AND BYA
LLL
EVELSHow the appraisal will be designed and who may do the appraising differs from organi- zation to organization and within an organization. The appraisal process should be flex- ible enough so that it produces the best returns for the time required. The following are a number of strategic methods of appraising workers:
• Top-down. Appraisals are traditionally considered top-down; that is, a supervisor appraises his or her subordinates. In a hierarchical organization, this will be the expected and usual method of evaluation, and perhaps the only one normally scheduled. The advantage of top- down appraisals is that the more experienced supervisor understands the needs of the workplace clearly and is the best judge of how subordinates have achieved workplace standards over her or his
previous appraisal period. Also, the appraiser knows how a worker’s performance can be raised to a higher level. The disadvantage of this process is that it is a reflection of an autocratic style of management, especially when other forms of appraisal are not part of the process.
• Bottom-up. In this circumstance, subordinates evaluate their supervisors.
The results of the appraisal document are received by a human resources manager, who analyzes the results and shares them with the supervisors involved. The advantage is that this process helps reveal strengths and weaknesses to the supervisor in a way that might otherwise not be discovered by upper management or the individual supervisor. Often, what the supervisor believes is a personal strength—for example, a penchant for delightful witticisms during the workday—may be regarded quite differently by those who are targeted for such remarks on a regular basis. The reverse may also be the case. A weakness that the supervisor believes he or she possesses may be interpreted differently by subordinates, enabling the supervisor to reassess his or her management traits. However, many managers find it hard to accept criticisms from subordinates and may ignore their appraisals.1
• Peer review. This is a situation in which peers evaluate each other.
Typically, the results of the questionnaire used in such a process are seen only by a human resources manager, who then distills and shares the information with the persons involved. Peer reviews also help identify to management strengths and weaknesses of team members.
The drawback is that such a process makes many participants
uncomfortable. The process forces coworkers to raise unpleasant issues that possibly could be traced back to them and lead to disharmony.
• Customer or client reviews. Often, contract workers are part of the work environment for extended periods, sometimes for years. These individuals should be assessed annually by the contractor who assigns them to the work location. In the event the worker is a sole contractor on an extended assignment, that person may be reviewed much the same way proprietary employees are. Reviews by customers or clients of contract personnel provide the contractor with tangible evidence of worker qualities. They are the persons most in a position to evaluate performance under daily circumstances. In situations where contract workers are employed for extended service to the organization, the appraisal should involve collaboration between both the contractor and management of the contractee. Similarly, security service
employees may be appraised by their “customers” within or outside of the organization. A security department within an organization serves the organization as a whole, and individuals who provide those services may be spot-checked periodically by a simplified evaluative document. Generally, senior managers do not opt for this type of evaluation unless criticisms have been raised and need to be substantiated or unless a new program requires evaluation.
• Review of contractees. Organizations that contact with security services like guard companies, employment screening services, alarm
Appraisal for All Levels and by All Levels 157
monitoring services, or undercover investigative firms also may select a formal appraisal service. In actuality, such appraisal occurs day by day, or even hour by hour. Still, a structured process permits an organized means of reviewing evolving issues that have or could change the delivery of services. For example, the contractor might ask what capital investment the contractee has made—or intends to make—that will affect business.