Unequal-Equal Supervisors

  1. How have the inaccurate performance ratings created more problems?

The Inaccuracy of Hubert’s performance ratings can create problems in multiple ways. Inaccurate performance created dilemma for Hubert Johnson. He has judged both employees, but no two employees are judged on the same basis and appearance of bias, it will fault all the decisions. For accurate performance, Hubert must perform the process of determining the how well employees do their job with respect to standard and also telling that information to the employees. The various error made by Hubert due to which he makes an inaccurate decision can be given as follows:

  1. Leniency Error
  2. Central Tendency Error
  3. Strictness Error

Leniency Error:

This error is when Hubert would perhaps take it too easy on both employees and when he would observe that the rating /performance of both the employees falls at the high end of the scale. This would benefit Harriet by promoting the fact that even she is less active than Neil, but he has more experience whereas Neil can supervise the company because of his extra skills and can promote the company.

Central Tendency Error:

This error occurs when Harriet observes that the rating /performance of both the employees falls in the middle range of the scale. To avoid the unpleasantness of giving negative feedback to the employees, he put this decision aside and avoid it, but Herbert needs to provide the constructive criticism to both neglecting the negative facts because there is always the chance of improvement in the job position. So, he should have pointed out the weak and strong points of Harriet and Neil. This error created a problem by not benefiting Neil although he is better than expectations but rating Harriet with the same rank as Neil although she is below standards.

Strictness Error:

We can define this error as when a manager uses only lower part of the scale to rate the employees. Hubert has also shown sign of this error by rating both Harriet and Neil lower on the scale. This will generate a problem and as a result is not fair to Neil by appraising him at the lower end along with Harriet, as his performance is extremely impressive and has been up to par whereas Harriet has shown signs of slipping some work duties and is not good for company’s supervisor.

From above errors, we can conclude that inaccurate performance ratings cause adverse effects on the company. It is clear that Neil will be the appropriate choice to help and lead the company to reach its goals. But company requires a person with seniority according to which Hubert should retain Harriet, however, to help get sales back company needs an efficient supervisor or leader like Neil. Hubert’s inaccurate decision of keeping Harriet will affect the company’s production level.


  1. What HR and legal issues could be raised in this case?

According to the expert’s research and some references, many legal issues are there which can be raised from this case and some of the legal issues that can ascend are:

  1. Implied Contract:

It is agreement created by the action of the organization, but there is no written or verbal agreement.

  1. Negligence :

This issue arises due to inaccurate performance rating provided by the manager.

  1. Misrepresentation :

Misinterpretation arises due to false information provided by the manager regarding performance.

  1. RTI Act could be raised from this case.

In case if Harriet is not selected for company’s Supervisor’s position, and she knows that she has exactly same performance rating as Neil and that it is characteristic that priority will be given to seniors or experienced person, then she could place charges against the company or organization based on gender misrepresentation or partial information, discrimination, and many other factors. On the other side if Neil is not chosen, he may also press legal action based on same factors pointed above i.e., implied contract, negligence due to Hubert’s inaccurate performance ratings, which results in Neil not being in the position of company’s supervisor that he justifies, and misrepresentation due to false appraisal ratings provided by Hubert.


The other legal issues that could arise based on Hubert’s decision of not accurately evaluating his employees and appraising them based on their actual performance. Following are the issues that can be arisen in the case:

  1. Inaccurate Appraisal Process:
  • The employees providing efficient performance may not be eligible for an increase in their pay, and this leads to a form of compensation inequality.
  • This case can arise the questions concerning the fair-mindedness in the company or organization system of evaluation.
  • The company should take action of demotion or termination to provide justification to the performance ratings and accurate the decision Hubert should have demoted the Harriet on a temporary basis.

To resolve all the above issues, the manager can conduct a new appraisal for the employees because no changes can be made on the old results that were made ten months ago. The current appraised prepared should contain the accurate performance rating. According to the manager’s observation, Neil is more energetic, flexible and fast decision maker which can increase the company sale and lead to the growth of the company so; he should be conducted as supervisor neglecting the point of conducting an experienced employee. As Harriet has been observed for skipping some of her work duties but due to her more experience her negative points should not be ignored, and manager should demote her temporarily so that she can increase her performance in a positive way. So, the new performance appraisal will help Hubert to determine the performance and leadership skills in a better way to select the efficient supervisor and should revise the job duties of the employees according to their duties so that they can improve accordingly.