CASE 1 Jane and Fred are new supervisors attending their first training workshop. They have not yet covered material on performance reviews, but are discussing their personal philosophies about them over lunch. Jane doesn't believe a fair performance review can be made of an employee's work unless work assignments have been discussed and expectation agreed on, in advance. She thinks work should be assigned in measurable terms so both she and the employee can track performance as the work progresses. Fred thinks this approach is dangerous. He feels employees should be given only a general idea of what is to be accomplished, and thinks employees who participate in establishing performance objectives will set them too low. He prefers to leave performance objectives vague to see what the employees accomplish on their own. If their standards don't measure up, he will let them know there and then. Who do you think will be best at performance reviews? Jane, because: Fred, because: CASE 2 Diane had just completed a performance review discussion with one of her employees and is upset about it. She told another supervisor at morning tea "I appraised Tia this morning. I had to call him out of the budget meeting because I remembered all my reviews were due today. I couldn't believe his reaction. he said he had no time to prepare and expected me to have an example to support each criticism I made. About all he did, really, was to criticise my position on a couple of issues. I told him several things I didn't like about his performance, and then tried to help him by telling him how to correct his faults. All I got back was anger and silence. You would think he would be grateful for some feedback, but I guess people today don't really care about improving. Normally he's a pretty good employee but he was really upset during the review. What do you think is the matter with him anyway? What is `wrong' with Tia