Physiology and Pharmacology of Hypertension

Physiology and Pharmacology of Hypertension Introduction High blood pressure, or most usually termed as hypertension is one of the most common diseases that  affects the human population and approximately 1 billion individuals are afflicted by it and around 7.1 million deaths per year can be affiliated with it. (Chobanian, et al., 2003). However all these deaths are caused mostly by cardiovascular disease and another disease, death does not occur b hypertension on its own but by many of the acute linked diseases like Myocardia Infraction, strokes and renal failures. (Rodriguez-Cruz, 2009). As it is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity, it possesses important health challenge as the cost associated with treating it and reducing other risk factors associated with it a lot of active research is being done to understand the causes and the pathophysiology. Classification Normal blood pressure is considered to be 115/75 mmHg, whereas the 115 is the systolic pressure (occurs during contraction of the ventricles) and 75 is the diastolic pressure (occurs during the relaxation of ventricles). (Oparil Weber, Hypertension: A Companion to Brenner and Rectors The Kidney, 2005). An individual is treated with hypertension when their blood pressure is consistently over 140/90 mmHg, however doctors these days are becoming more cautious and start treatment when the pressure touches 130/80 mmHg . It is known that cardiovascular risk increases for every 20/11 mmHg increment. (Chobanian, et al., 2003) Hypertension can be broadly classified into two groups; primary/essential and secondary hypertension. About 90 to 95% population diagnosed with hypertension has primary type, for which the cause is not full known and seems to be more prevalent as people age; it may increase up to 75% in people aged over 75. (Rodriguez-Cruz, 2009) (Carretero Opari, 2000). Secondary hypertension is caused by an underlying medical condition which has altered the homeostatic pathway of regulating blood pressure. Secondary hypertension is more easily treatable as the underlying cause can be identified. Some commonly recognised diseases that may cause hypertension include Cushings disorder, kidney diseases and tumours. Another important cause is the genetic abnormality of the aorta. (Williams, 2010). Signs and Symptoms Moderate hypertension which starts from 140/90 is asymptomatic. Prolonged and sudden enhanced blood pressure is linked to headaches, sleepiness and visual disturbances; which in turn can cause nausea. (McPhee, Papadakis, Tierney, 2008)While it is known hypertension is more prevalent in elderly, children can be affected as well in the children the symptoms may be as more acute like epistaxis, and bell palsy. (Rodriguez-Cruz, 2009). Children usually exhibit hypertension due to some other underlying cause, and thus most cases are of secondary nature. (Rodriguez-Cruz, 2009).The signs and symptoms of secondary hypertension are dependent upon the ailment that is causing it and thus the indicators for Cushings syndrome would be different from the genetic one or drug induced one. (Williams, 2010) Pathophysiology The exact cause of the primary hypertension is not known. There are many risk factors including age, genetics, metabolic, race and â€Å"sedentary lifestyle which can cause obesity† and it has been estimated that 85%of the cases of hypertension have a higher BMI than 25. (Haslam James, 2005) Figure 1: This figure shows the key elements of the pathophysiology of hypertension and all the risk factors which increase the likelihood of contracting the ailment. Abbreviations used here: AME- apparent mineralocorticoid excess; CNS central nervous system; GRA glucocorticoid-remediable aldosteronism. (Oparil, Zaman, Calhoun, Pathogenesis of Hypertension, 2003) The pathophysiologic mechanism and the vascular irregularities are speculative and it is actively being researched upon. Blood pressure is the combined consequence of cardiac output and vascular resistance thus either one can independently or in combination cause hypertension. (Dreisbach Sharma, 2010). Different studies show that several factors may work independently or together to turn the neurohumoral systems on or off. In patients with a hyper-responsive system due to â€Å"changed vascular properties† an aggravated pressure flow is observed. (Randal, 1991). It has also been studied that there is a natural evolution of the disease thus man researchers suggest the one of the reason of the early elevations of the blood volume or the cardiac output may be the inadequate elimination of sodium by kidneys. Increased sodium levels can increase the osmotic pressure hence the blood volume. It chronic hypertension subjects the cardiac output and the blood volume is usually close to the normal. So it can be inferred that hypertension is maintained by the increase in vascular resistance by a decrease of elasticity of the walls as in aging or â€Å"by a reduction in lumen Diameter† (Khabunde, 2007) when the individual has been following a medically unhealthy lifestyle. These â€Å"changes in arterioles, which increase total peripheral resistance, result in an increase in diastolic and a secondary increase in systolic blood pressures† (Randal, 1991) Another factor that different studies have showed relate the decrease in sensitivity of receptors of the receptors in the vessels The decrease in receptors sensitivity modifies central nervous system (CNS) manipulation of sympathetic nervous system (SNS) distribution, resulting in two expressions. First, having an insensitive receptor requires a larger change in blood pressure to produce the same response as the receptor doesnt get activated. Secondly decreased receptors â€Å"sensitivity results in enhanced SNS activity for a given level of arterial blood pressure.† (Supiano, 2001) In hypertension there is has been shown evidence that changes in vascular endothelial function (VEF) can hamper normal vascular tone of hypertensive patients. Vascular tone can be changed by increase circulation of angiotensin II, or by the increased sympathetic activity (as discussed above). The altered sympathetic activity can lead to a decrease in production of nitric oxide which is a vasodilator or endothelin production could increase, which is a vasoconstrictor. (Khabunde, 2007). Type 2 diabetes can causes endothelial dysfunction â€Å"by enhanced oxygen free radical-mediated damage and decreased nitric oxide bioavailability.† (Khabunde, 2007). Other factors that maintain hypertension are caused by dysfunction in electrolyte homoeostasis especially deviations in sodium, calcium, and potassium concentrations. Sodium example has been already discussed above. In addition, calcium increases vascular contractility. It can also stimulate renin release; the same mechanism is thought to operate in obesity-mediated hypertension. Renin synthesis epinephrine, and activity of the sympathetic nervous system, which can be linked back to abnormalities seen in vascular tone. Potassium, however, helps decrease the blood pressure as it suppresses the release of renin. (Rodriguez-Cruz, 2009). This figure explains the different factors that directly affect the blood pressure, which is later affected by other different factors. In hypertension cardiac output is usually normal and therefore peripheral resistance sustains hypertension by the dysfunction in vascular function or decreases in lumen by a sedentary lifestyle. The figure is taken from Wikipedia. (Wikipedia, 2009) It can be seen the complexity of the system, as many mechanism works to sustain hypertension. In different individuals, it can be difficult to understand which systems are operational thus designing treatments can be difficult, and treatments are then usually more often designed to affect the regulatory factors rather than cause. (Randal, 1991) Treatment Treatment usually works to regulate the factors which maintain hypertension. Non-pharmacological treatments include lifestyle changes like decrease/halt in alcohol and cigarette consumption and if needed weight reduction with a more active lifestyle. Caffeine intake is also minimized as it increases the pulse rate. It is assessed that lifestyle interventions can reduce blood pressure by at least 10 mmHg in about 1 in 4 people with high blood pressure. (Association, 2009).Yet most of the times pharmacological interventions are used as they more affectively regulate blood pressure, there around 6 classes of pharmacological medications available which all perform at different levels to bring the blood pressure to normal. (Oparil Weber, Hypertension: A Companion to Brenner and Rectors The Kidney, 2005). ACE inhibitors: inhibits the assembly of angiotensin II, as a result, the vessels expand improving the blood flow. The tension in the circulation is regulated to normalcy by increase filtration by the kidneys. The decrease in levels of fluids also helps reduce blood pressure. This medication is used only when other medications are not working. Angiotensin-II receptor antagonists: they work in an analogous manner to ACE inhibitors. However, instead of stopping the production of angiotensin II, they prevent its action on the receptors. Again vessels are able to expand, improving blood flow and reducing blood pressure. Beta-blockers block the effects of sympathetic nervous system and the hormone epinephrine. This decreases the cardiac output as it relaxes the heart so the pulse rate is slowed down, lowering the blood pressure. Alpha-blockers: triggers the vessels to ease and expand. Giving them in combination with beta-blockers has a greater effect. Calcium-channel blockers: expand the arteries to reduce the muscle tension and also decrease the cardiac output by relaxing the heart muscles so it pumps more slowly, reducing blood pressure. Diuretics: help clear the unnecessary sodium and water thru kidneys, which decrease the osmotic pressure. They also relax the blood vessels reducing the strain on them. (Uren Rutherford, 2004) Treatment for hypertension is throughout ones life as hypertension is not curable; however, all the drug classes above help maintain the blood pressure quite well within the normal range. Summary The complexity of pathophysiologic mechanisms that lead to high blood pressure is such that selective antihypertensive treatment is rarely possible and a number of drugs and lifestyle changes are required to bring any change. Hypertension is widespread among middle-aged and elderly and controlling their blood pressure is a challenge we face as we still have not properly understood the underlying causes of primary/essential hypertension. (Oparil, Zaman, Calhoun, Pathogenesis of Hypertension, 2003). Bibliography Association, B. P. (2009, March 4). High Blood Pressure. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from Patients UK: http://www.patient.co.uk/health/High-Blood-Pressure-(Hypertension).htm Carretero, O. A., Opari, l. S. (2000, Jan 25). Essential hypertension. Part I: definition and aetiology. Circulation, 3(101), 329-335. Chobanian, A. V., Bakris, G. L., Black, H. R., Cushman, W. C., Green, L. A., Izzo, J. L., et al. (2003, December 1). Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension, 42, 1206-1252. Dreisbach, A. W., Sharma, S. (2010, Feb 19). Hypertension and Kidney. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from Emedicine: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/241381-overview Haslam, D., James, W. (2005). Obesity. The Lancet, 366, 1197-1209. Khabunde, R. E. (2007, January 04). Primary (essential) hypertension. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from Cardiovascular Physiology Concepts: http://www.cvphysiology.com/Blood%20Pressure/BP024.htm McPhee, S. J., Papadakis, M. A., Tierney, L. M. (2008). Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment 2008. United States: McGraw-Hill. Oparil, S., Weber, M. A. (2005). Hypertension: A Companion to Brenner and Rectors The Kidney (2nd ed.). United States: Elsevier. Oparil, S., Zaman, M. A., Calhoun, a. D. (2003). Pathogenesis of Hypertension. PHYSIOLOGY IN MEDICINE: A SERIES OF ARTICLES LINKING MEDICINE WITH SCIENCE, 761-776. Randal, l. O. (1991). Physiology and pathophysiology of hypertension. Journal of the Association for Academic Minority Physicians, 151-155. Rodriguez-Cruz, E. (2009, Nov 16). Hypertension. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from eMedicine: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/889877-overview Supiano, M. A. (2001, Dec 2). Hypertension: Classification, Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Evaluation and Treatment. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from Armenian Health Network: http://www.health.am/hypertension/hypertension/#Pathophysiology Uren, N., Rutherford, D. (2004, Sept 24). High blood pressure (hypertension). Retrieved March 8, 2010, from Net Doctor: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/hypertension.htm Wikipedia. (2009, June 8). Arterial Pressure. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arterial_pressure_diagram.png Williams, B. (2010, Feb 10). Secondary Hypertension. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from Hypertension: Overview, Causes, Symptoms, Risk factors, Treatment: http://www.health.am/hypertension/secondary-hypertension/

Mission Critical: A Closer Look into the Performance Appraisal Process Essay

The performance management cycle begins with objective setting where the appraisee ought to be oriented about performance expectations for the given performance period. Throughout the period, performance is measured officially through the performance appraisal exercise, where the appraiser is given the chance to give performance feedback through an interview. The performance management system is meaningfully linked to rewards based on outcomes or results. Following all these, modifications are implemented to objectives and activities, including the drafting of an individual development plan for closing competency gaps (Clarke, Rogers, & Miklos, 1996). Types of Performance Appraisal Systems Traditionally, employee performance has been evaluated solely by supervisors. Recently, however, organizations have realized that supervisors see only certain aspects of an employee’s behavior. For instance, a manager might see only 30% of his staff’s behavior; the rest is observed by customers, peers, and support staff in other parts of the organization. Furthermore, the staff might behave differently around her supervisor than around other people. Consequently, to obtain an accurate view of the staff’s performance, these other sources should provide feedback. The buzzword for using multiple sources to appraise performance is 360-degree feedback (Gruner, 1997). Sources of relevant information include supervisors, peers, subordinates, customers, and self-appraisal. According to Conway and Huffcutt (1997), there is often very little agreement in the way that two supervisors evaluate an employee or that a supervisor and a peer might rate an employee. Interestingly, supervisors whose self-ratings agree with others’ ratings tend to be better performers than supervisors whose ratings are not consistent with others’ (Witt, 1996). Supervisor Appraisals By far, the most common type of performance appraisal is the supervisor rating. In fact, Bernardin & Beatty (1984) estimated that over 90% of all performance appraisals are conducted using supervisors’ ratings of performance. Supervisors are best able to evaluate the extent to which an employee contributes to the overall success of the organization. Through supervisors may not see every minute of an employee’s behavior, they do see the end result. A superior may not actually see a staff sign up customers but will review the overall output for the day. Peer Appraisals Whereas supervisors see the results of an employee’s efforts, peers often see the actual behavior. Peer ratings usually come from employees who work directly with an employee. An employee may be rated by those in the same level or position. However, other employees in the organization, those who often come in contact with the employee, can also provide useful information. Research has shown that peer ratings are fairly reliable only when the peers who make the ratings are similar to and sell acquainted with the employees being rated (Mumford, 1983). Most important, peer ratings have been successful in predicting the future success of promoted employees as they correlate highly with supervisor ratings (Cederbloom, 1989). But even through peer ratings appear promising, few organizations use them. One reason could be that peer ratings are lenient when used for evaluation purposes bit not when they are used only to provide feedback (Farh, Cannella, & Bedeian, 1991a). Research suggests that certain employees are more lenient in their peer ratings than are other employees. Saavedra & Kwun (1993) found that high performers evaluate their peers more strictly than do low performers. This difference in ratings is probably because employees compare others to themselves. Thus, the average employee does not appear impressive to a high performer but may to a less productive employee. Though peers may provide a unique view of performance, employees tend to react worse to negative feedback from peers than they do to feedback from experts (Albright & Levy, 1995). Employees who score high in self-esteem, high in self-monitoring, and low in individualism react most favorably to peer ratings (Long, Long & Dobbins, 1998). Subordinate Appraisals Subordinate feedback, also called upward feedback is an important component of 360-degree feedback, as subordinates can provide a very different view about a supervisor’s behavior (Whetstone, 1994). However, with the exception of students rating teachers, formal methods are neither common nor well regarded by managers (McEvoy, 1990). Subordinate ratings can be difficult to obtain because employees fear a backlash if they unfavorably rate their supervisor, especially when a supervisor has only one or two subordinates. However, subordinates’ feedback can be encouraged if supervisors appear open to employee comments (Baumgartner, 1994) and if the ratings are made anonymously (Antonioni, 1994). Interestingly, subordinate ratings correlate highly with upper management ratings of supervisors’ performance (Furnham & Stringfield, 1994). Research indicates that subordinate feedback can enhance managerial performance, especially that of poorly performing managers (Walker, 1997). This improvement in performance holds especially for areas targeted for improvement (Clarke et al, 1996). Customer Appraisals Though it would be unlikely that an organization would ask customers to fill out a performance appraisal instrument on an employee, organizations do value customer feedback. Informally, customers provide feedback on employee performance by filing complaints or complimenting a manager about one of his subordinates. Formally, customers provide feedback by completing evaluation cards (Farh et al, 1991a). Self-appraisal Allowing an employee to evaluate her own behavior and performance is a technique used by 12% of a sample of organizations (Lazer & Wikstrom, 1977). Research on self-appraisal, however, has demonstrated that self-appraisals tend to suffer from leniency (Meyer, 1980) and correlate moderately (r=. 29) with actual performance (Mabe & West, 1982) and poorly with subordinate ratings (London & Wohlers, 1991). However, when evaluations are made with clear rating standards and social comparison information, agreement is increased between self- and supervisor ratings (Keeping & Sulky, 1996). The leniency found in the self-ratings of US workers may not generalize to other countries. Farh, Dobbins, and Cheng (1991b) found that the self-ratings of Taiwanese workers suffered from modesty rather than leniency However, Furnham & Stringfield (1994) and Yu and Murphy (1993) found leniency in the self-ratings of Mainland Chinese employees. Further research is still needed to investigate potential cultural differences in Mainland Chinese ratings. Self-appraisals of performance appear to be the most accurate when the purpose of the self-appraisal is for either research or performance appraisal review interviews rather than for such administrative purposes as raises or promotions (Williams & Levy, 1992), and when employees believe that an objective record of their performance is available with which the supervisor can compare the self-appraisal (Farh & Werbel, 1986). Systems for Evaluating Performance  Trait-focused appraisal systems. A trait-focused system concentrates on employees’ attributes such as their dependability, assertiveness, and friendliness. Though commonly used, trait focused performance appraisal instruments are not a good idea because they provide poor feedback and thus will not result in employee development and growth (Kingstrom & Bass, 1981). For example, in a performance review meeting in which the supervisor tells an employee that she received low ratings on responsibility and friendliness, the employee is likely to become defensive. Furthermore, the employee will want specific examples the supervisor may not have available (Kingstrom & Bass, 1981). Behavior-focused performance appraisal systems. Behavior-focused instruments focus on what an employee does. Instead of rating them on personal traits, a behavior-focused instrument would rate him or her on specific behaviors. For example, in the case of a bank teller, some behaviors that may be rated on are as follows: â€Å"Knows customers’ names†, and â€Å"Thanks customer after each transaction. The obvious advantage to a behavior-focused system is the amount of specific feedback that can be given to each employee. Further, the focus on behavior rather than traits does not only reduce employee defensiveness but reduces legal problems (Kingstrom & Bass, 1981). There are various methods for rating behavior, as follows: Graphic rating scales. The most common rating scale is the graphic rating scale. Such scales are simple, with 5 to 7 points accompanied by words such as good and poor anchoring the ends of the scale. The obvious advantage to graphic rating scales is their ease of construction and use, but they have been criticized because of their susceptibility to such rating errors as halo and leniency (Kingstrom & Bass, 1981). Behaviorally anchored rating scales. P. C. Smith and Kendall (1983) developed behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARSs), which use critical incidents (samples of behavior) to provide meaning to the numbers on a rating scale. To use the scale when actually rating performance, the supervisor compares the incidents she has recorded for each employee to the incidents on the scale. This can be done in one of two ways. The most accurate (and time consuming) method compares each of the recorded incidents to the anchors and records the value of the incident on the scale that most closely resembles the recorded incident. The value for each incident is summed and divided by the total number of incidents recorded for that dimension; this yields an average incident value, which is the employee’s rating for that particular job dimension (Smith & Kendall, 1983). In the second method, which is easier but is less accurate, all of the recorded incidents are read to obtain a general impression of each employee. This general impression is compared to the incidents that anchor each scale point. The scale point next to the incident that most closely resembles the general impression gained from the incidents then becomes an employee’s score for that dimension (Smith & Kendall, 1983). Evaluation of Performance Appraisal Methods We now come to the question of assessing which appraisal method is best. Research has shown that more complicated techniques such as BARS, forced-choice scales, and mixed standard scales are only occasionally superior to inexpensive and uncomplicated graphic rating scales (Giffin, 1989). In fact, behavioral anchors sometimes bias supervisors’ ratings by forcing them to concentrate on specific behaviors (Murphy & Constans, 1987). Yet graphic rating scales are seldom superior to these more complicated rating methods. Although the more complicated techniques are only more psychometrically sound, they still have some advantages over graphic rating scales. Because employees are directly involved in creating techniques such as BARS, they tend to see performance evaluation results as being more fair. Furthermore, many supervisors who make such ratings prefer many of the more complicated behavioral approaches. Finally feedback from BARS may lead to greater increases in future performance than feedback from graphic rating scales (Hom, DeNisi, Kinicki, & Bannister, 1982). Though many of the behavioral methods yield similar results, the same is not true when comparing subjective and objective ratings. A meta-analysis by Bommer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, and Mackenzie (1995) indicated that objective and subjective results are only slightly correlated (r=. 39). Interestingly, there was a stronger relationship between objective and subjective ratings of quantity (r=. 8) than between objective and subjective ratings of quality (r=. 24). From a legal perspective, courts are more interested in the due process afforded by a performance appraisal system that in its technical aspects. After reviewing 295 circuit court decision regarding performance appraisal, Werner & Bolino (1997) concluded that performance appraisal systems are most likely to survive a legal challenge if they are based on job analysis, if raters receive training and written instructions, if employees are allowed to review results, and if ratings from multiple raters are consistent. Rating Errors Some of the errors that may be committed in appraising performance are discussed below: Distribution errors. A common type of error in evaluating employee performance involves the distribution of ratings on a rating scale; such errors are known as distribution errors. One kind of distribution error is called leniency error because certain raters tend to rate every employee at the upper end of the scale regardless of the actual performance of the employee. A related error is central tendency error, which results in a supervisor’s rating every employee in the middle of the scale. Still another error, strictness error, rates every employee at the lower end of the scale. These types of errors pose problems for an organization because two employees doing equal work will receive different ratings if one employee is supervised by a lenient rater and another by a strict rater. This problem can be eliminated partly by having several people rate each employee (Kane & Lawler, 1979), although this is not often feasible, especially in small brand offices with only one manager or supervisor. Halo errrors. A halo error occurs when a rater allows either a single attribute or an overall impression of an individual to affect ratings that she makes on each relevant job dimension. Halo effects occur especially when the rater has little knowledge of the job and is less familiar with the person being rated (Kozlowski, Kirsh, & Chao, 1986). Usually, halo error is statistically determined by correlating the ratings for each dimension with those for the other dimensions. If there are highly correlated, halo error is often said to have occurred. However, some authors argue that many times consistent ratings across several dimensions indicate not error but actual employee performance. Halo errors may or may not be a serious problem, but they can be reduced by having supervisors rated each trait at several times. That is, the supervisor might rate the employee on attendance one day and then rate her on dependability the next day (Balzer & Sulzky, 1992). Proximity errors. Proximity errors occur when a rating made on one dimension affects the rating on the dimension that immediately follows it on the rating scale. With proximity error, only the dimensions physically located nearest a particular dimension on the rating scale are affected; the reason for the effect, in fact, is the close physical proximity of the dimension rather than the overall impression (Balzer & Sulzky, 1992). Contrast errors. The performance ratings one person receives can be influenced by the performance of the previously evaluated person. These errors can occur between separate performance evaluations of the same person. That is, the ratings received by one person on one performance appraisal will affect the ratings made on an appraisal six months later (Bravo & Kravitz, 1996). Contrast effects occur only when the person making the evaluation actually sees the employee perform and rates the employee during both rating periods. Even if a new supervisor reads that an employee’s previous evaluations were excellent but observes poor performance by the employee, she will probably continue to give excellent ratings – even though the employee’s performance deteriorated. Smither et al (1988) call this rating error assimilation. Sampling Problems Recency effect. Performance appraisals are typically conducted once or twice a year. The evaluation is designed to cover all of the behaviors that have taken place during the previous 6 months to a year. Research has demonstrated, however, that recent behaviors are given more weight in the performance evaluation than behaviors that occurred during the first few months of the evaluation period. Such an effect penalizes workers who performed well during most of the period but tailed off toward the end, and it rewards workers who save their best work until just before the evaluation (Bravo & Kravitz, 1996). Infrequent observation. Another problem that affects performance appraisals is that many managers or supervisor do not have the opportunity to observe a representative sample of employee behavior. Infrequent observation occurs for two reasons. First, managers are often so busy with their own work that they often have no time to â€Å"walk the floor† and observe their employees’ behavior. Instead, they make inferences based on completed work or employee personality traits (Conway & Huffcutt, 1997). This problem can be alleviated somewhat by having several raters evaluate the employee. Other raters can be other supervisors, peers, and even customers. A meta-analysis conducted by Conway and Huffcutt (1997) indicated that supervisor ratings on the average correlate . 34 with peer ratings. Thus, even though the two groups tend to agree with one another, the agreement is certainly not perfect. Cognitive Processing of Observed Behavior Observation of behavior. Just because an employee’s behavior is observed does not guarantee that it will be properly remembered or recalled during the performance appraisal. Cooper (1981) indicates that raters recall those behaviors that are consistent with the general impression of an employee (a halo). And the greater the time interval between the actual behavior and the performance rating, the greater the probability that halo and distortion errors occur. Furthermore, raters who are familiar with the job being evaluated recall more judgments about performance but fewer behaviors than do raters who are unfamiliar with the job (Cooper, 1981). But even though memory-based ratings lead to more distortion, in many circumstances they are more accurate than ratings made immediately after the behaviors occur (Murphy & Blazer, 1986). The reason for these increases in halo and accuracy is not clear. Supervisors perhaps realize that it will be a long internal between observation of employee behavior and the formal evaluation of that behavior and that they will not be able to remember specific behaviors. Thus, they form an overall impression of the employee and an ideal and a poor employee and evaluate the employee on the basis of comparison with the ideal (Murphy & Blazer, 1986). Emotional state. The amount of stress under which a supervisor operates also affects her performance ratings. Srinivas and Motowidlo (1987) found that raters who were placed in a stressful situation produced ratings with more errors than did raters who were not under stress. This finding is important because performance evaluations are often conducted hurriedly as supervisors evaluated employee performance so that they can return to their â€Å"real† work. Raters who like the person being rated may be more lenient and less accurate in rating employees than are raters who neither like nor dislike their employees. But this does not mean that a person who is liked will always receive higher ratings than someone who is disliked. The rater may overcompensate in an effort to be â€Å"fair†. The rater’s feelings or affect, toward an employee may interfere with the cognitive processing of actual performance information (Srinivas and Motowidlo, 1987). Research has also indicated that racial bias exists in performance evaluations. Kraiger and Ford (1985) conducted a meta-analysis of 74 studies and found that White raters gave higher performance ratings to White employees and that Black raters gave higher ratings to Black employees. Interestingly, this bias occurred only with studies involving real organizations; laboratory research seldom reveal racial bias in rating. Communicating Appraisal Results to Employees Perhaps the most important use of performance evaluation data is to provide feedback to the employee and assess his or her strengths and weaknesses so that further training can be implemented. Although this feedback and training should be an ongoing process, the semi-annual evaluation might be the best time to formally discuss employee performance. Furthermore, holding a formal review interview places the organization on better legal ground in the event of a lawsuit (Field & Holley, 1982). Normally, in most organizations a supervisor spends a few minutes with employees every six months to tell them about the scores they received during the most recent performance evaluation period. This process is probably the norm because most managers do not like to judge others; because of this dislike, they try to complete the evaluation process as quickly as possible (Field & Holley, 1982). Furthermore, seldom does evaluating employees benefit the supervisor. The best scenario is to hear no complaints, and the worst scenario is a lawsuit. In fact, one study demonstrated that dissatisfaction and a decrease in organizational commitment occurs even when an employee receives an evaluation that is â€Å"satisfactory† but not outstanding (Pearce & Porter, 1986). Finally, in the â€Å"tell and sell† approach to performance appraisal interviews, a supervisor â€Å"tells† an employee everything she has done poorly and then â€Å"sells† her on the ways in which she can improve. This method, however, accomplishes little. There are certain techniques that will make the performance appraisal interview more effective, and these are discussed in the following sections. Both the supervisor and the employee must have time to prepare for the review interview. Both should be allowed at least 1 hour to prepare before an interview and at least 1 hour before the interview itself (Pearce & Porter, 1986). The interview location should be a neutral place that ensures privacy and allows the supervisor and the employee to face one another without a desk between them as a communication barrier (Rhoads, 1997). Performance appraisal review interviews should be scheduled at least once every 6 months for most employees and more often for new employees. Review interviews are commonly scheduled 6 months after an employee begins working for the organization. It is important to note that while formal performance review interviews occur only twice a year, informal â€Å"progress checks† should be held throughout the year to provide feedback (Rhoads, 1997). While preparing for the interview, the supervisor should review the ratings she has assigned to the employee and the reasons for those ratings. This step is important because the quality of feedback given to employees will affect their satisfaction with the entire performance appraisal process (King, 1984). Meanwhile the employee should rate her own performance, using the same format as the supervisor. The employee also should write down specific reasons and examples that support the ratings she gives herself (King, 1984). At the outset of the interview, the supervisor should communicate the following: 1) the role of the performance appraisal – that making decisions about salary increases and terminations is not its sole purpose; 2) how the performance appraisal was conducted; and 3) how the evaluation process was accomplished. It is advisable that the supervisor also communicate her own feelings about the performance appraisal process (Kelly, 1984). The review process is probably best begun with the employee communicating her own ratings and her justification for those ratings. Research indicates that employees who are actively involved in the interview from the start will be more satisfied with the results. The supervisor then communicates his ratings and his reasons for them (King, 1984). At the conclusion of the interview, goals should be mutually set for future performance and behavior, and both supervisor and employee should understand how these goals are met (Cederbloom, 1982). On the whole, the performance appraisal process, with its inherent difficulties, may be leveraged on to improve organizational productivity. Proper management of this process shall help motivate employees, and ultimately, bring more to the enterprise’s coffers.

Cunninghams vs Ewells

During the great depression of the1930s there were many families who couldn't make ends meet. How each family copes with their struggles during hard times, has always been a source of great topics for many writers. One such author is Harper Lee who wrote â€Å"To Kill A Mocking Bird†. In the book the author writes of several families, who were going through those hard times. Two of the families in particular stood out for me, the Cunningham and Ewells. Although they did share some things in common they were very different. The equalities were few, and aside from being from the country, having lots of children and having had trouble with the law, the similarities ended. The Cunninghams were from the outskirts of Maycomb, a place called Old Sarum. Apparently this was land that existed in their family for generations. They were considered poor by Maycomb's standards but still tried to make it. Although most of their land had been repossessed and mortgaged, they still owned some. Their land was the primary means of supporting the family and, since money was scarce, many times they would use some of their crops to barter for other necessities or services. The Cunninghams were very proud and hard working people and accepted nothing that was given to them, unless they earned it. For example Mr. Atticus Finch provided legal services to the Cunninghams and did not expect payment of any kind. Mr. Walter Cunningham, however, brought Atticus various things from his farm throughout the year until he reached a point which he considered fair payment for his services. These actions earned the Cunninghams the notion of being proud and honest people. The Cunninghams did have a run in with the law one time, which caused several of the boys to be sent to â€Å"prison†. The prison was more like a state industrial school, were the boys actually were fed and given an education. Some of them went on to higher education and became professionals. So once again they capitalized on an unfortunate event but, used it to progress. The Ewells on the other hand, despite being poor country folk, having many children and having trouble with the law were very different from the Cunninghams. They too, lived outside the town of Maycomb, but they lived in an old abandoned Negro's cabin behind the town dump. They were poor regardless of the economy phases. The Ewells primary source of income was from relief checks they received from the government. Most of the time Mr. Robert Ewell spent the family money on drinking. The Ewells were truly guests of the county of Maycomb. The Ewells children had little or no education. In fact the only reason the children went to school was to be able to continue receiving their relief checks. Since the requirement was that the children had to at least show up for the first day of school in order to collect the relief money, they sent their kids to school on the first day and that would be the extent of their school year. They did not make any strides to better themselves and resisted any help which would allow them to do so. The Ewells were very prejudice. They hated blacks. This is what led to their encounter with the law. But unlike with the Cunninhams, the Ewells were the plaintiffs. They accused an innocent man, Tom Robinson, a Negro, of rape. One time, Tom Robinson, went by the Ewell's cabin and helped Mayella Ewell with a house chore, only to find an enraged Robert Ewell charging towards the cabin. It was then that Tom Robison was thrown in prison and the Ewells began a trial which ended with the conviction of Tom Robinson and his death. It was clear to all of Maycomb that the Ewells were the type of folk to stay away from and most did. Except for one time when Boo Radley came to the deffense of Jem and Scout Finch who were being attacked by a drunk, Mr. Bob Ewell. On that day Mr. Bob Ewell was found dead. The town sheriff called it an accident and no one was apprehended for his death. It is easy to see how two families can share some common traits but, be completely different human beings. The Cunninghams down on their luck because of the economy but, still trying to make it in an honest and proud fashion. The Ewells who were completely the opposite. They were lazy, dishonest, uneducated people and happy to live that way.

The Carrot Seed Is a Delightful Classic Picture Book

The Carrot Seed, first published in 1945, is a classic children’s picture book. A little boy plants a carrot seed and takes care of it diligently even though each member of his family gives him no hope that it will grow. The Carrot Seed by Ruth Krauss, with illustrations by Crockett Johnson, is a story with a simple text and simple illustrations but with an encouraging message to be shared with preschoolers through first graders. Summary of the Story In 1945 most children’s books had a lengthy text, but The Carrot Seed, with a very simple story, has just 101 words. The little boy, without a name, plants a carrot seed and every day he pulls the weeds and waters his seed. The story is set in the garden with his mother, father, and even his big brother telling him, â€Å"it won’t come up.† Young readers will wonder, could they be right? His determined efforts and hard work are rewarded when the tiny seed sprouts leaves above the ground. The final page shows the real prize as the little boy carries his carrot off in a wheelbarrow. Story Illustrations The illustrations by Crockett Johnson are two-dimensional and just as simple as the text, with emphasis on the boy and the carrot seed. The features of the little boy and his family are sketched with single lines: eyes are circles with a dot; ears are two lines, and his  nose is in profile. The text is always placed on the left side of the double-page spread with a white background. The illustrations found on the right side are yellow, brown, and white until the carrot appears with tall green leaves and a bright orange color highlighting the prize of perseverance. About the Author, Ruth Krauss The author, Ruth Krauss was born in 1901 in Baltimore, Maryland, where she attended the Peabody Institute of Music. She received a bachelor’s degree from the Parsons School of Fine and Applied Art in New York City. Her first book, A Good Man and His Good Wife, was published in 1944, with illustrations by the abstract painter Ad Reinhardt. Eight of the author’s books were illustrated by Maurice Sendak, beginning in 1952 with A Hole Is to Dig. Maurice Sendak felt fortunate to work with Krauss and considered her to be his mentor and friend. Her book, A Very Special House, which Sendak illustrated, was recognized as a Caldecott Honor Book for its illustrations. In addition to her children’s books, Krauss also wrote verse plays and poetry for adults. Ruth Krauss wrote 34 more books for children, many of them illustrated by her husband, David Johnson Leisk, including The Carrot Seed. Illustrator Crockett Johnson David Johnson Leisk borrowed the name â€Å"Crockett† from Davy Crockett to distinguish himself from all the other Daves in the neighborhood. He later adopted the name â€Å"Crockett Johnson† as a pen name because Leisk was too hard to pronounce. He is perhaps best known for the comic strip Barnaby (1942–1952) and the Harold series of books, beginning with Harold and the Purple Crayon. The Carrot Seed and Children The Carrot Seed is a sweet delightful story that after all these years has remained in print. Award-winning author and illustrator Kevin Henkes  names The Carrot Seed as one of his favorite childhood books. This book pioneers the use of minimal text reflecting the here-and-now of a child’s world. The story can be shared with toddlers who will enjoy the simple illustrations and understand planting a seed and waiting seemingly endlessly for it to grow. On a deeper level, early readers can learn lessons of perseverance, hard work, determination, and belief in yourself. There are numerous extension activities that can be developed with this book, such as: telling the story with picture cards placed in a timeline; acting out the story in mime; learning about other vegetables that grow underground. Of course, the most obvious activity is the planting of a seed. If you’re lucky, your little one will not be content to plant a seed in a paper cup  but will want to use a shovel, sprinkling can...and don’t forget the wheelbarrow (HarperCollins, 1945. ISBN: 9780060233501). Recommended Picture Books for Small Children Other books young children enjoy include Maurice Sendaks best-known classic picture book, Where the Wild Things Are, as well as more recent picture books like by Katie Cleminson and Pete the Cat and His Four Groovy Buttons by James Dean and Eric Litwin. Wordless picture books, such as The Lion and the Mouse by Jerry Pinkney, are fun as you and your child can read the pictures and tell the story together. The picture book  And Then Its Spring  is perfect for young children eager to plant their own gardens. Sources Ruth Krauss Papers, Harold, Barnaby, and Dave: A Biography of Crockett Johnson by Phillip Nel, Crockett Johnson, and the Purple Crayon: A Life in Art by Philip Nel, Comic Art 5, Winter 2004