This tool requires participants to assess the performance of three case-study appraisees by awarding an overall rating common in many appraisal systems. In making their assessments, each syndicate will be allowed to elaborate on the case-study information by making assumptions which, for the purpose of the activity, they may then regard as fact (although please point out that in real life they would deal only with fact).
As you review each group's assessments, you will find that they have probably awarded different appraisal ratings. Because each group has the same case studies, the differences can only be the result of either:
- Groups applying different assessment criteria
- the effect of their different assumptions.
- Because each group must justify its ratings, this tool provides an excellent opportunity to focus on:
- the need for consistency of standards between appraisers
- how small differences in performance can result in different appraisal ratings
- the terminology with which to justify an appraisal rating so that the appraisee feels it is fair and objective.