Chapter 8: Performance Management and Appraisal 321
Case 8-2. Performance Evaluation at DHR: Building a Foundation or Crumbling Ruins?
DHR Construction was managed by Richard Davis, operat-
ing manager and senior partner. Homes were built on-demand
to customer specifications. Richard Davis was in charge of the
financial management of the firm including working with suppli-
ers, creditors, and subcontractors (obtaining bids and construc-
tion loans). Davis and Richard Hodgetts, the general partner, met
on a weekly basis and communicated through phone calls and
e-mail. The role of project foreman was delegated to either one of
their subcontractors or a hired employee and, in the worst-case
scenario, filled by a reluctant Hodgetts (who had a full-time job
outside of the business and had minimal free time).
DHR earned a reputation for honesty, promptness in paying bills,
and professionalism—rare commodities for a small home builder in
the area. However, DHR was also very demanding of suppliers—if
you promised a job was going to be completed or supplies were
going to be delivered by a certain date and you did not meet the
deadline, you were going to hear from the firm. Repeated miscues
would result in not being asked to bid on future projects.
Enter James Kennison
James Kennison was a successful corporate executive who was
good with his hands; his main hobby and passion was working
on his home. His mild-mannered, laid-back approach to life was
perfect for the professional environment of his former firm, Micro-
Tech, a business that produced specialized electronic parts and
gauges. Kennison left the corporate world when he became eco-
nomically self-sufficient in order to simplify his life, reconnect with
nature, and become, as he called it, “self-actualized.”
In order to keep busy, Kennison decided that he would put his pas-
sion for building to good use and hire himself out as an indepen-
dent handyman/subcontractor. His aptitude, acumen, and even-
tempered style made it very easy for Kennison to fit into any work
crew that would hire him. After a few jobs, Kennison decided to
work on his own and hired himself out as a finisher on home con-
struction projects. It was in that capacity that Kennison was origi-
nally hired by Davis and Hodgetts to work as a subcontractor on
the homes in their Mountain Trails project. Kennison’s wit, charm,
and polished demeanor sat well with Davis and Hodgetts, and he
became a fixture at their weekly business meetings.
It was not surprising, then, that Davis and Hodgetts approached
Kennison about taking over the position of contractor/foreman
when a sudden vacancy occurred. Kennison had a plethora of
experience, had a real head for business, and was respected by
the other subcontractors as a fellow artisan, one who knew the
work and was not afraid to get dirty doing it.
Although Kennison seemed open and honest in his dealings
with Davis (with Kennison consistently indicating that all was
going well), it didn’t take more than a month before Davis realized
that all was not going as planned. Davis’s Gantt chart indicated
that several homes were falling behind schedule with one of the
homes failing inspection.
Evaluative Appraisal Interview: Cracks in the Drywall?
Davis and Hodgetts talked about the situation at some length and
decided that both of them needed to talk with Kennison at the
next dinner meeting and find out exactly what was happening at
the job site since Kennison hadn’t commented on work delays or
problems with the inspectors. At the meeting, Davis reiterated with
Kennison what he thought were the job responsibilities, the impor-
tant tasks to be accomplished, and the need to have open and
candid communications between them. Kennison admitted that
getting subcontractors to show up as scheduled was starting
to become a problem and that he thought that the construction
inspections would be quickly dealt with. He apologized for the delays
and said that he would keep in better contact with Davis and let him
know exactly what was happening, especially if there were any new
problems. Davis reminded Kennison that he needed to keep a close
watch on the subcontractors since they had a tendency to work for
multiple builders simultaneously and therefore would jump from job to
job. Kennison assured Davis and Hodgetts that he would manage the
situation and that things would improve.
The talk with Kennison seemed to get things back on track.
Kennison provided Davis with a list of the subcontractors to invite
to their dinner meetings. When the issue was raised with these
subcontractors about work scheduling, the subcontractors prom-
ised to do the best they could to perform the work as required. The
next few days saw a flurry of activity at the work site as the subcon-
tractors, guided by Kennison, tried to catch up with the construc-
tion schedule. The next inspection came off without a hitch.
Here’s to the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss
After a few days, the subcontractors were back to their old rou-
tine of not showing up at the work site when planned. After a few
weeks went by, Kennison tried to cover for the work not being
done by the subcontractors but to no avail. The situation dete-
riorated when one of the home purchasers, who visited the work
site, reported to Davis that their home was way behind schedule.
After a quick talk with Kennison, several of the subcontractors
had to be fired by Davis because they continued to not show up
when scheduled without notification. Worse, now other subcon-
tractor]s (e.g., painters) were quitting because the homes were
not ready to work on.
Questions
1. What appraisal method best describes how Davis and
Hodgetts evaluated Kennison’s work?