| Course | COM 140 Managing Performance and Developing Teams |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Performance management critique |
| Length | About 1,029 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for COM 140 Module 1
From Forms to Conversations: Linking Performance Management to Strategy at a Retail Distribution Center
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
COM 140: Managing Performance and Developing Teams
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
From Forms to Conversations: Linking Performance Management to Strategy at a Retail Distribution Center
Every January, the supervisors at the Aurora distribution center of Ridgeline Outdoor Supply, a composite Denver retailer, spend two weeks completing performance reviews. Each of the center's 110 employees receives a four-page form rating eight traits, such as dependability and attitude, from one to five. Most employees receive threes and fours, raises follow the ratings, and the forms are filed. When asked, neither supervisors nor employees could name anything that changed because of the reviews. This paper describes the system, critiques it against research, links Ridgeline's strategy to individual expectations and proposes a different approach.
The Current System
The system has three features. It happens once a year, so feedback about a problem in March arrives the following January. It rates traits rather than results, so a picker who makes few errors and a picker who makes many can both be rated dependable. And it ties ratings directly to pay, so supervisors avoid low ratings that would upset employees, and employees argue about ratings instead of discussing how to improve. Meanwhile, Ridgeline's strategy has changed: online orders now make up forty percent of sales, and the company has promised same-day shipping for orders placed before two in the afternoon. The review form does not mention online orders at all.
What Research Says
DeNisi and Murphy (2017) reviewed one hundred years of research on performance appraisal and performance management published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Early research concentrated on rating formats and rater errors, assuming that more accurate ratings would solve the problem. Later research recognized that appraisal happens in a social context, in which raters have goals of their own, such as keeping good relationships or avoiding conflict. The authors concluded that the field had paid too little attention to whether performance management actually improves performance, and called for research and practice focused on that question.
Pulakos and O'Leary (2011) made a related argument. Organizations keep redesigning forms, rating scales and software, but the formal system is not where performance is managed. What matters is what managers do every day: setting clear expectations, giving informal feedback in the moment, helping employees solve problems and building trust. Formal systems often get in the way by turning performance management into an annual administrative task that both parties dread.
Ridgeline's system fits these critiques. It is built around ratings, the social pressures DeNisi and Murphy described produce inflated scores, and the yearly form substitutes for the everyday conversations Pulakos and O'Leary describe.
From Strategy to Expectations
Kaplan and Norton (1996) introduced the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Rather than relying on financial measures alone, the scorecard sets objectives and measures from four angles, money, customers, the firm's own operations and its capacity to learn and improve, and links them so that improvements in learning and processes drive customer and financial results. They argued that the scorecard helps managers translate the vision, communicate it, link it to goals at every level and learn from results.
| Ridgeline strategic goal | Distribution center measure | Team expectation | Individual expectation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Same-day shipping for online orders | Share of orders shipped same day | Pick and pack team ships 98% same day | Picker meets accuracy and pace standards; flags stock problems |
| Fewer returns from wrong items | Pick accuracy | Team accuracy of 99.6% | Picker scans every item; checks size and color |
| Safe, stable workforce | Injuries and turnover | No lost-time injuries | Follows lifting rules; trains one new hire a quarter |
The Proposed System
The redesign keeps an annual pay decision but separates it from development. Each quarter, supervisors hold a twenty-minute conversation with each employee covering three questions: what went well, which obstacles slowed the employee down, and the one or two priorities for the coming quarter. Expectations come from the table above, so they reflect strategy. The conversation is recorded on a single page. Supervisors also receive brief training in giving feedback during the work itself, so that the quarterly conversation summarizes feedback already given rather than surprising anyone. Trait ratings are dropped.
Separating Pay From Development
Keeping a pay decision is realistic, since employees expect raises to reflect performance and Ridgeline's budget requires a decision each year. But mixing pay and development in one meeting means employees spend the meeting defending themselves. Under the new system, the pay decision is made in December from the year's team and individual results against the expectations in the table, and communicated in a separate short meeting. The quarterly conversations stay about improvement. Employees who disagree with the pay decision can ask the distribution center manager to review it, which addresses the fairness concerns that often surround ratings.
Preparing Supervisors
Pulakos and O'Leary's argument places the weight on supervisors, so the redesign invests in them. Before the first quarter, each supervisor attends two short sessions: one on giving specific, timely feedback on the floor, practiced with role plays drawn from real situations such as a picker who skips scans, and one on running the quarterly conversation so that the employee talks more than the supervisor. The distribution center manager sits in on one conversation per supervisor each quarter and gives them feedback in turn.
The Burden on Supervisors
Eight supervisors each oversee about fourteen employees, so quarterly conversations require about five hours per supervisor per quarter, less than the two weeks now spent on forms each January.
Judging the New System
After a year, Ridgeline can compare same-day shipping, pick accuracy and turnover with the year before, and ask employees whether they know what is expected of them. A short survey before the change and again after four quarters will ask whether employees received useful feedback in the past month and whether they understand how their work affects online customers. If results improve and supervisors report that the conversations take less effort than the old forms, the approach can be extended to Ridgeline's stores.
Conclusion
DeNisi and Murphy and Pulakos and O'Leary explain why Ridgeline's annual form does little to improve performance, and Kaplan and Norton show how strategy can reach each employee's work. Quarterly conversations built on clear expectations turn performance management into a tool for results.
References
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
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75-85.
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
Reading the COM 140 Module 1 assignment instructions
COM 140 opens with performance management and strategy, and Module 1 usually asks students to examine a performance management system and explain how it should connect to the organization's goals. Your own Module 1 instructions come first; the retailer used here is invented for illustration. Describe the current system and how it works in practice. Critique it using research. Explain how strategy should flow down to individual expectations. Propose changes, with reasons. Consider the burden on managers and employees. Cite sources in APA 7 form and keep the paper focused on improving performance rather than rating it. Explain how pay decisions will be handled if they stay in the system.
How the COM 140 Module 1 example is put together
The Aurora distribution center employs 110 people in receiving, picking, packing and shipping, and every January supervisors complete a four-page form rating each employee from one to five on eight traits. DeNisi and Murphy's Journal of Applied Psychology review traced appraisal research from rating formats and errors to the social context of performance management. Pulakos and O'Leary's Industrial and Organizational Psychology article argued that the formal system matters less than whether managers set expectations, give feedback and support development throughout the year. Kaplan and Norton's Harvard Business Review article described the balanced scorecard as a management system linking long-term strategy to short-term action. The goals table connects Ridgeline's aims, such as shipping online orders the same day, to expectations for teams and individuals. The redesign replaces the annual form with short quarterly conversations and a one-page record.
COM 140 Module 1 rubric: what earns full marks
Critiques in this course score well when they describe the current system concretely, judge it against research and propose changes that are realistic for the organization. This example shows how the annual form works in practice, uses DeNisi and Murphy and Pulakos and O'Leary to explain its weaknesses and uses Kaplan and Norton to connect strategy to daily work. The goals table makes the link visible, and the redesign considers supervisors' time. Keeping the focus on improving performance, as the course description asks, rather than on perfecting ratings, is what separates strong papers here.
Common COM 140 Module 1 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Performance management papers often criticize annual reviews without saying what should replace them. Propose a specific alternative and explain how it works. Another weakness is treating strategy as something only executives need to know; show how company goals become team and individual expectations. Use research to support your critique rather than opinion alone. Consider the time managers have for conversations. Keep the paper focused on improving performance. Finally, say how you would know whether the new system works better than the old one. Plan how supervisors will be prepared, since a new system run by untrained managers tends to slide back into the old habits.
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 Aspen University 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.
More COM 140 and Business Administration sample papers
- COM 140 Module 2: Goals and Measures
- COM 140 Module 3: Feedback and Coaching
- COM 140 Module 4: Addressing Poor Performance
- COM 140 Module 5: Teams as the Unit of Performance
- COM 140 Module 6: Forming and Developing Teams
- COM 140 Module 7: Team Conflict and Decisions
- COM 140 Module 8: Leading a High-Performance Team
- MGT 474 Module 6: Project Risk Management
- MGT 424 Module 2: Traits and Skills of Leaders
- BUS 305 Module 8: Team Communication and Culture
- MGT 215 Module 1: CRM as a Business Strategy
COM 140 Module 1 questions, answered
What does COM 140 Module 1 usually ask for?
Aspen's COM 140 opens with performance management and strategy, so a paper examining a performance management system and linking it to organizational goals is typical. Read your classroom prompt.
Why is performance management often called broken?
Pulakos and O'Leary argued that organizations rely on formal forms and ratings instead of the everyday manager behavior, such as setting expectations and giving feedback, that actually improves performance.
What has a century of appraisal research shown?
DeNisi and Murphy concluded that research focused too long on rating accuracy and should focus more on how performance management improves performance.
Where can I find a free COM 140 Module 1 sample paper?
The example above critiques an annual review system at a retail distribution center and links performance to strategy.
How does strategy connect to individual performance?
Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard translates strategy into measures that can be cascaded to teams and individuals, so daily work connects to company goals.