PROGRAM STUDI MAGISTER MANAJEMEN - PENDIDIKAN JARAK JAUH

FAKULTAS EKONOMI DAN BISNIS

UNIVERSITAS TELKOM

SOAL EVALUASI 1 SEMESTER GENAP

TAHUN AKADEMIK 2023/2024

Mata Kuliah : Human Resource

Hari/Tanggal : Kamis, 16–19 Mei 2024
Waktu : 4 hari
Sifat Ujian : □ Ujian serentak terjadwal
□ Assigment
□ Take home Test
Dosen : Dr. Ratri Wahyunityas

PERINGATAN:
BERBAGAI BENTUK PELANGGARAAN PADA SAAT UJIAN AKAN DIKENAKAN
SANKSI NILAI E UNTUK SELURUH MATA KULIAH DI SEMESTER TERSEBUT.
(TULIS ULANG PERNYATAAN DALAM PERINGATAN DI ATAS PADA LEMBAR JAWABAN ANDA)

1. Bacalah kasus “Appraising The Secretaries At Sweetwater U” dengan seksama!

2. Analisislah kasus tersebut berdasarkan tahapan – tahapan dalam pembahasan kasus
yaitu :
a. Tahap 1: Situation Appraisal, yaitu mengungkapkan fakta penting yang ada didalam
kasus
b. Tahap 2: Problem Analysis, yaitu mengungkapkan masalah utama yang terdapat
dalam kasus
c. Tahap 3: Decision Analysis, yaitu membahas kondisi nyata yang terdapat di dalam
kasus berdasarkan teori yang telah dipelajari sebagai bentuk analisis dari
permasalahan yang dihadapi. Gunakan 3 konsep/teori yang telah Saudara pelajari
dalam Performance Management untuk membahas permasalahan dan menjadi dasar
dalam memberikan berbagai solusi terbaik untuk menghadapi permasalahan yang ada
di tahap 2 (termasuk sistem penilaian kinerja yang sebaiknya dikembangkan)!
d. Tahap 4: Potential Problem Analysis, yaitu mengidentifikasi berbagai macam
persoalan potensial yang mungkin terjadi di waktu yang akan datang dan rencana
tindakan yang diperlukan untuk meminimalkan munculnya dampak negatif.

- SELAMAT BEKERJA -

Ttd Dosen Koordinator Disetujui oleh Ka.prodi

 APPRAISING THE SECRETARIES AT SWEETWATER U

Rob Winchester, newly appointed vice president for administrative affairs at Sweetwater
State University, faced a tough problem shortly after his university career began. Three weeks
after he came on board in September, Sweetwater’s president, Rob s boss, told Rob that one
of his first tasks was to improve the appraisal system used to evaluate secretarial and clerical
performance at Sweetwater U. The main difficulty was that the performance appraisal was
traditionally tied directly to salary increases given at the end of the year. Therefore, most
administrators were less than accurate when they used the graphic rating forms that were the
basis of the clerical staff evaluation. In fact, what usually happened was that each
administrator simply rated his or her clerk or secretary as excellent. This clearedthe way for
all support staff to receive a maximum pay increase every year. But the current university
budget simply did not include enough money to fund another maximum annual increase for
every staffer. Furthermore, Sweetwater’s president felt that the custom of providing invalid
feedback to each secretary on his or her year’s performance was not productive, so he had
asked the new vice president to revise the system.

In October, Rob sent a memo to all administrators, telling them that in the future no more
than half the secretaries reporting to any particular administrator could be appraised as
excellent. This move, in effect, forced each supervisor to begin ranking his or her secretaries
for quality of performance. The vice president’s memo met widespread resistance immediately
from administrators, who were afraid that many of their secretaries would begin leaving for
more lucrative jobs, and from secretaries, who felt that the new system was unfair and reduced
each secretary’s chance of receiving a maximum salary increase. A handful of secretaries had
begun picketing outside the president’s home on the university campus. The picketing, caustic
remarks by disgruntled administrators, and rumors of an impending slowdown by the
secretaries (there were about 250 on campus) made Rob Winchester wonder whether he had
made the right decision by setting up forced ranking. He knew, however, that there were a few
performance appraisal experts in the School of Business, so he decided to set up an
appointment with them to discuss the matter. He met with them the next morning. He
explained the situation as he had found it. The current appraisal systemhad been set up
when the university first opened 10 years earlier. A committee of secretaries had developed it.
Under that system, Sweetwater’s administrators filled out forms similar to the one shown in
Table 1. This once-a-year appraisal (in March) had run into problems almost immediately,
since it was apparent from the start that administrators varied widely in

Ttd Dosen Koordinator Disetujui oleh Ka.prodi

their interpretations of job standards, as well as in how conscientiously they filled out the forms
and supervised their secretaries. Moreover, at the end of the first year it became obvious to
everyone that each secretary’s salary increase was tied directly to the March appraisal. For
example, those rated excellent received the maximum increases, those rated good received
smaller increases, and those given neither rating received only the standard across-the-board
cost-of-living increase. Since universities in general and Sweetwater, in particular have paid
secretaries somewhat lower salaries than those prevailing in private industry, some secretaries
left in a huff that first year. From that time on, most administrators simply rated all secretaries
excellent in order to reduce staff turnover, thus ensuring each a maximum increase. In the
process, they also avoided the hard feelings aroused by the significant performance
differences otherwise highlighted by administrators.

Two Sweetwater experts agreed to consider the problem, and in 2 weeks they came back to
the vice president with the following recommendations. First, the form used to rate the
secretaries was grossly insufficient. It was unclear what are excellence or quality of work
meant, for example. They recommended instead a form like that in Figure 1. In addition, they
recommended that the vice president rescind his earlier memo and no longer attempt to
force university administrators to arbitrarily rate at least half their secretaries as something less
than excellent. The two consultants pointed out that this was, in fact, an unfair procedure since
it was quite possible that any particular administrator might have staffers who were all or
virtually all excellent or conceivably, although less likely, all below standard. The experts said
that the way to get all the administrators to take the appraisal process more seriously was to
stop tying it to salary increases. In other words, they recommended that every administrator fill
out a form like that in Figure 1 for each secretary at least once a year and then use this form
as the basis of a counselling session. Salary increases would have to be made on some basis
other than the performance appraisal, so that administrators would no longer hesitate to fill out
the rating forms honestly. Rob thanked the two experts and went back to his office to ponder
their recommendations. Some of the recommendations (such as substituting the new rating
form for the old) seemed to make sense. Nevertheless, he stillhad serious doubts as to the
efficacy of any graphic rating form, particularly compared with his original, preferred forced
ranking approach. The experts second recommendation to stop tying the appraisals to
automatic salary increases made sense but raised at least one very practical problem: If salary
increases were not to be based on performance appraisals, on what were they to be based?
He began wondering whether the expert recommendations weren’t simply based on ivory
tower theorizing.

Ttd Dosen Koordinator Disetujui oleh Ka.prodi

Table 1. Form of Performance Appraisal

Figure 1. Graphic Performance Rating

Ttd Dosen Koordinator Disetujui oleh Ka.prodi

Ttd Dosen Koordinator Disetujui oleh Ka.prodi