| Course | PSYCH 647 Human Performance, Assessment, and Feedback (PSYCH/647) |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Performance management system design |
| Length | about 1,166 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PSYCH 647 Week 5
From an Annual Form to a Year-Round System: Designing Performance Management for a Water Utility Without Breaking It
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
PSYCH/647: Human Performance, Assessment, and Feedback
Week 5 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The water utility, its systems and the design are composites written for a model paper; research findings come from the sources listed.
Performance appraisal is an event; performance management is a system. Many organizations improve their forms without changing how managers and employees work together, and then wonder why nothing changes. This paper designs a performance management system for a public water utility, drawing on earlier weeks and on research about why such systems succeed or fail.
Where the Utility Starts
The Mesa del Sol Water Authority employs about 420 people, including 140 field technicians, in Albuquerque. Its old system consisted of an annual form completed in October and filed with HR. Supervisors described it as paperwork; technicians described it as meaningless. Ratings clustered at four, pay raises of two to three percent followed ratings almost automatically and the form had no link to the utility's strategic goals, which include reducing water loss from leaks, improving customer satisfaction and preparing for a wave of retirements.
Earlier weeks produced building blocks: six behavioral performance dimensions, a measurement plan using multiple sources, behaviorally anchored scales with frame-of-reference training and feedback practices focused on tasks. A system must connect these to goals, development and rewards.
Why Performance Management Disappoints
Pulakos and O'Leary (2011) located the failure somewhere other than the paperwork. In their view, companies keep polishing forms and rating scales while the things that actually move performance, a manager making expectations clear, an offhand word of feedback on a Tuesday, trust built over months, get no attention at all. They noted that organizations repeatedly redesign formal systems, adding complexity, while managers and employees continue to dislike them. They recommended shifting attention from the formal system to the informal interactions that happen throughout the year and simplifying the formal elements.
This critique applies directly. A better October form alone would not change how supervisors and technicians work together the rest of the year.
A Century of Lessons
DeNisi and Murphy (2017) looked back over every appraisal study the Journal of Applied Psychology had printed since 1917. Early research focused heavily on rating formats and rater errors, seeking accuracy. Over time, research shifted toward the social context of appraisal, rater goals and motivation, the reactions of employees and the use of appraisals to improve performance. The authors concluded that while knowledge about ratings had grown, evidence that performance management systems actually improve individual and organizational performance remained limited, and they called for research on how appraisal links to performance improvement.
Their review supports designing the system around improvement, with honest evaluation of whether it works.
What Good Systems Deliver
Aguinis et al. (2011) argued that, despite widespread frustration, well-implemented performance management offers benefits for employees, managers and organizations: clearer expectations, better feedback, opportunities for development, information for decisions about pay and promotion, alignment of individual work with organizational goals and documentation that protects organizations legally. They identified characteristics of good systems, including strategic congruence, practicality, meaningfulness, specificity, fairness and openness.
A system that technicians see as fair and useful in March is worth more than a perfect form in October.
The Design
Planning. In January, each crew agrees on two or three crew goals connected to the utility's strategic priorities, such as reducing repeat leak calls in their district or cutting average customer outage time, and each technician sets one development goal, such as learning the automated meter system. Goals are set with the supervisor and lead technician and recorded in a one-page plan.
Monitoring and feedback. Crews hold brief debriefs after complex jobs, and supervisors hold fifteen-minute quarterly check-ins with each technician to review progress, recognize good work and address problems early. Supervisors log critical incidents throughout the year.
Appraisal. In October, technicians complete a self-assessment and supervisors and lead technicians rate the six dimensions using anchored scales after frame-of-reference training. Ratings are discussed in a feedback conversation focused on behavior and goals.
Development. Each conversation ends with development goals and a plan, including training, mentoring or rotation.
Rewards. Pay increases are discussed in a separate meeting a month later. Under the union contract, all technicians receive the negotiated step increase; a small performance award pool rewards crews that meet their goals and individuals with documented exceptional contributions, decided by a committee rather than by one supervisor's rating.
Fairness Across the Cycle
Employees judge a system as fair when its procedures are consistent and transparent, when they have a voice and when decisions are explained. The design builds these in at each stage: technicians help set crew goals, complete self-assessments before ratings, see the anchors their ratings rest on and can request a second review of any dimension rating by the lead technician and a supervisor from another district. Award pool decisions are made by a committee that includes a technician representative, and the committee publishes the reasons for awards. These steps cost little time but address the most common complaint about the old system, that ratings felt like one person's opinion.
Supervisors' Role and Support
Research on performance management keeps returning to the supervisor's everyday behavior. Supervisors at the utility were promoted for technical skill, and few have been trained to coach. Alongside frame-of-reference training, supervisors will receive coaching skills training and a peer group that meets quarterly to discuss difficult conversations. Their own performance plans will include how well they carry out check-ins and development conversations, so that the system's most important behaviors are themselves managed.
Working With the Union
The union contract governs pay steps and discipline. The design was developed with the union's input; the union agreed to the new dimensions and anchors and to crew goals, provided that dimension ratings are used for coaching and development rather than discipline, which follows its own process. This agreement lowers the stakes of honest ratings.
Manager Capability and Time
Supervisors manage up to thirty technicians across several crews, leaving little time for check-ins. The design reduces the formal paperwork from eight pages to two, relies on lead technicians for daily feedback and gives supervisors a monthly half day protected for performance conversations.
The phased rollout begins with the two pilot districts in January and extends to the rest of the utility by summer, so lessons from early quarters can shape the full launch.
Technology
Goals, check-in notes and ratings will be recorded in the utility's existing HR system on tablets technicians already carry, keeping records simple and accessible.
Evaluating the System
We will evaluate the system after one year using employee surveys on fairness, clarity and usefulness, the completion rate of check-ins, the spread of ratings, progress on crew goals linked to strategy and, over time, indicators such as repeat leak calls, customer complaints and voluntary turnover.
Conclusion
A performance management system works when it shapes everyday behavior, links individual work to strategy and treats appraisal as one part of a cycle. Research on why systems fail, a century of appraisal findings and the characteristics of good systems points to a simple, year-round design built with the union and evaluated honestly.
References
Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2011). Why we hate performance management, and why we should love it. Business Horizons, 54(6), 503-507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.06.001
DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085
Pulakos, E. D., & O'Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management broken? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(2), 146-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01315.x
What the PSYCH 647 Week 5 instructions ask
Week 5 of PSYCH 647 commonly addresses performance management as a whole system rather than a yearly form. Prompts may include the cycle of planning, monitoring, developing, rating and rewarding, alignment with organizational strategy, goal setting, continuous feedback, the link between appraisal and pay, legal and union considerations, technology and why systems fail. Some versions ask students to design or redesign a system for an organization. Show how each part connects to the others and to the organization's goals, address the needs of employees, managers and the organization, plan for practical constraints and describe how the system itself will be evaluated. Cite journal research in APA style.
How this PSYCH 647 Week 5 example is built
Here the task is a whole system: Grace Okonkwo, an HR analyst at the Mesa del Sol Water Authority, designs a performance management system to replace an annual form that everyone saw as paperwork. An analysis of why performance management is broken argues that formal systems matter less than everyday manager-employee behaviors. A hundred-year review traces the field's turn from chasing accurate ratings to asking what appraisals are for. A brief case for performance management describes what good systems deliver. Grace designs a cycle with crew goals tied to the utility's strategy, quarterly check-ins, the new dimensions and anchors, separate development and pay conversations and a simple evaluation plan, negotiated with the union.
PSYCH 647 Week 5 grading rubric: where the points go
Performance management papers earn credit for a coherent system that connects strategy, goals, feedback, appraisal, development and rewards. Instructors look for the difference between appraisal and management to be explained, for each component to be justified with research, for the system to fit the organization's culture and constraints and for the roles of managers and employees to be clear. Credit goes to recognizing why many systems fail, to emphasizing everyday feedback over forms and to planning evaluation of the system itself. Designs that add paperwork without changing everyday behavior lose points with most graders. A visual or narrative description of the cycle and APA references complete the paper.
PSYCH 647 Week 5 help: mistakes to avoid
In this unit, students often design performance management as a more detailed form, overlooking research suggesting that everyday conversations matter more than paperwork. Another common error is linking pay tightly to ratings without considering how that pressures raters to inflate. Some papers ignore constraints such as union contracts, civil service rules or budgets, producing systems that could not be implemented. Others never explain how the system will be evaluated. Connect each part to strategy and to the others, focus on behaviors of managers and employees, address constraints and plan an evaluation. A tutor can help you diagram a performance management cycle for your organization and check that each stage feeds the next.
Related PSYCH 647 sample papers
Other PSYCH 647 week samples
- PSYCH 647 Week 1: Defining Job Performance
- PSYCH 647 Week 2: Criteria and Measurement
- PSYCH 647 Week 3: Appraisal Methods and Rater Errors
- PSYCH 647 Week 4: Giving and Receiving Feedback
- PSYCH 647 Week 6: Evaluating an Appraisal Program
More MS in Psychology sample papers
- PSYCH 639 Week 5: Ethics in Organizational Consulting
- PSYCH 642 Week 5: Development and Succession Planning
- PSYCH 644 Week 5: Problem Solving and Reasoning
- PSYCH 645 Week 5: Systems and Cultural Perspectives
PSYCH 647 Week 5 questions, answered
What does PSYCH 647 Week 5 usually cover?
Performance management as a system, including goal setting, ongoing feedback, appraisal, development, rewards and why systems fail.
Where can I find a free PSYCH 647 Week 5 sample paper?
The complete PSYCH 647 Week 5 performance management design for a water utility is above, free to read.
What is the difference between performance appraisal and performance management?
Appraisal is the periodic evaluation; performance management is the ongoing process of setting goals, giving feedback, developing and evaluating.
Why does performance management often fail?
Common reasons include focus on forms over conversations, weak links to strategy, rating inflation and lack of manager skill or time.
Should pay be tied to performance ratings?
It can be, but tight links pressure raters to inflate; many organizations separate development and pay conversations.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All PSYCH 647 week samples · All courses