Crew members at Burger King are evaluated using the form in Exhibit 1.126 Compare this form with the one illustrated in Exhibit 11.4. Years ago Burger King used a form like the one in Exhibit 11.4. Why do you think they made the change? One of their restaurants found that ratings on two of the dimensions on the new form were considerably lower than on the other four. On the dimensions Executes Against Priorities and Delivers Excellent Service, ratings averaged about 3.1. On the other four dimensions ratings averaged 4.4. We don't have data for other restaurants, so comparisons can't be made. Do you think a problem exists? Are crew members simply worse on execution and service? Without any data, speculate on why rating differences exist, assuming some type of error is occurring. What three questions would you like to ask crew members and/or the restaurant general manager to identify the source of the problem? If corporate headquarters were to see this same pattern across stores, what might be their reaction? Connistently folowe itreugh on cosponsied bus and Gakia aheod tor schedile aruays in orte? - Exhicts posion and aninumiam for the job and Bunger King al a triarit - Brometes BRcC values and estios wirtin ble ieam - While aenving as a role model to diteis RELRAERES FKCAL 1 ENT SERQICE - Groets eseh guest prompty with a smile and a fiendly, poscive attitude - Respects guests' opinions and responds to comptaints immediately and thoroughly - Makes a difference by personaliang service 10 expeed aach guesf's expectations TAKES MITHATTYE * Wiling to take on ardditional thaks when necessayy - Rocognties and takes ouvnership of mistskes - Cses 'dowr fime to stay ahead Extibrrs OPTIMis. * Approaches wark in an energetic manner * Maintains and upbeat attibidt and is accepting of others - Agrees to haip when asked TREATS PEORLF WITH OICNITY AND RESPECT - Accepting of others with diflernnt backgrounds and 5-850NCTPich EXPRCTATIOES Carisiffentiy displyy the belnavint beyonid wher the rexpected for the role Sela an exampirt for otherth. 4 AHIOVI? IACPYECTATIO rote. At times doeti not exhibit the behminor at expertiod for the developirigt or lefrthirg retialt expected. Boen thot atgple to noy perast experidnces * Cocperates well with edhers and responds to requests for halp SIEP 44: MANAGER - Here s where you previde cverall supporting comments deacribing the enployes w perlormanoe. foosie nole ary extremely high or low ratings given. Highlight what wemt well and why, and ehat could have been beting and why: STEP II5: MANAGER - Assign an overal rating. Use whole numbers only plesse 1. is STEP HE: OK istast step. All we nned now is somie signatures and dates. Employeg's Signature Generai Manager's Signature Wage Action Amount Dale Date Souge: The BURGER KING' tradzmiaks and farms are uied with perwission frum Burpar King Cicrponation: Chapter 11 Performance Appraisals 379 on the individual dimensions but also in assigning the overall evaluation. The weights (shown in the far-right column of Exhibit 11.4) would not be used, and the overall evaluation would be based on a subjective and internal assessment by the rater. Appendix 11-B for this chapter gives an example of the rating scale and appraisal form used by Pfizer Pharmaceutical to assess leadership, one of the competencies tracked by Pfizer. Pay attention to how long and involved Pfizer's form is-and this