The Paris-Peoria Solution: Innovations in Appraising Regional and International Sales Personnel |
| |
| Authors: | Mark R Edwards W Theodore Cummings John L Schlacter |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Mark R. Edwards (D.B.A., Arizona State University) is Associate Professor and Director of the Creativity Institute in the College of Engineering at Arizona State University. He has done extensive research and published over twenty articles on human performance, talent assessment, performance appraisal, health, and productivity. His industry experiences include service as personnel director for a top Fortune 500 firm.;2. W. Theodore Cummings (D.B.A., Arizona State University) is Associate Professor of Marketing in the College of Business and Economics at The University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He has published articles in the areas of marketing, management, and quantitative systems. He has done considerable research on new techniques in salesman appraisal.;3. John L. Schlacter (Ph.D., Ohio State University) is Professor of Marketing at Arizona State University. His articles on marketing and management have appeared in a wide variety of publications. He is an active consultant and is involved in many executive development programs, both through the Center for Executive Development at Arizona State University and as a faculty member of Sales and Marketing Executives, International. |
| |
| Abstract: | AbstractHow can salesmen in different locations be fairly evaluated? Traditional appraisal methods are deficient because they assume equal performance distributions among different regions or countries. Further, individual supervisory bias may make even within-region performance measures unfair, not comparable, and indefensible. A new Team Evaluation Census (TEC) appraisal is described in terms of four innovations—natural, direct comparisons to anchor appraisal judgments and minimize leniency; benchmarks to improve comparability and reduce performer competition; multiple and linking raters to improve appraisal reliability and validity and to improve across- group comparability; and safeguards to ensure individual fairness and allow rater validation. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
