Case 1:  Attempt all questions.  Answer comprehensively as you can.

 

Goal Setting

 

David Brooks was one of the most liked managers at the Financial Security Investments. In an industry known for its cutthroat competitiveness, high employee turnover, low loyalty, and high employee mobility, the 20 brokers who reported to Brooks had surprisingly long tenures and strong loyalty to the company. They were all high performers with well-established clients who would deal only with them. They also displayed an unheard-of level of cooperation in helping one another, training new brokers, and supporting others areas of the company. At Financial Security Investment, it is important to increase the number of clients on annual basis, increase the client’s investment portfolios and keep great relation with the clients. Increasing profit and reducing cost has been Brook’s deliverable while keeping the team motivated, engaged and committed! Brook's group had the lowest training costs and one of the best performance ratings among the five brokerage groups at Financial.

 

Brooks's brokers had nothing but praise for him. They described him as one of the fairest managers around. They said he really knew the business and took excellent care of his people. He provided them with extensive training, rewarded them fairly, supported them in their disputes with other departments and groups, and represented their interests with upper management. They all knew he demanded excellent performance, but they also knew they could count on him to be flexible in accommodating their personal lives and the ups and downs that are an inherent part of the investment business.

 

Brooks had been with Financial for close to seven years. Within his first three years there, he had received four quick promotions, leading to his current appointment as group manager three years earlier. Brooks liked his job. Working with brokers and clients was exciting and always offered something new. He got along well with his manager, who praised him for his group's excellent performance and relied on him to train new brokers and to resolve problems in other parts of the company. However, Brooks felt that he was somehow stuck. His several recent requests for promotions and his two applications for higher-level positions had been denied. He became particularly frustrated when he compared himself with Leslie Baskin, who joined the company a year after he did and was now being made an associate vice president in the strategic division.

 

Like Brooks, Baskin had been a group manager and until the new promotion, she and Brooks had reported to the same division manager. Baskin had managed three different groups in a very short time period, which some attributed to the brokers' extreme dislike of her. Although her groups performed well enough, their turnover rate was high. In many ways they were more like the rest of the industry than Brooks's group: they were fiercely competitive, cutthroat loners who cared only about themselves. Baskin herself matched that profile. She spends most of her time with upper management developing big accounts. She was always ready with a flashy proposal for the big projects. She managed to make her presentations when all the top executives were present. Although she never mentioned any of the people who had helped her put together her proposals, she always dropped the name of a few powerful people in her acknowledgements. She seemed to know the important people in the company, and she came through with some impressive clients. The fact that she rarely followed through and dumped her work on the other groups and the brokers seemed to escape the attention of upper management.

 

Brooks could not help but envy Baskin's success. He was also puzzled by how she had become successful given her actual performance. Yes, she had brought in some major clients, but overall her performance was lower than that of several other group managers, including himself. Her brokers disliked her and complained about her temper tantrums, her threats, her lack of support, and her unreasonable demands. Yet, she was going places.

Brooks shared his discontent with his manager and asked his manager to provide an explanation for Baskin’s promotion versus Brook’s promotion. His manager response was that “she is just really good” without providing any further information. Brooks is very frustrated and feels his manager is not considering all performance aspects when making his decision for promoting Baskin.

 

Brook has started to talk to other managers and has recently become aware of a document called “Goal Setting Document” that other departments in the organization are using to evaluate employee performance and want to learn more about this document and how it can help him receive a fair promotional opportunity. Brooks has decided to reach out to you as the HR department manager asking for help and support.

 

Discussion Questions

 

1)      As the HR manager, critically evaluate the current performance appraisal process at the Financial Security Investment including Brook’s manager’s behavior and decision making as well as the organization’s role in this process. (10 marks)

 

2)      Based on your knowledge of HR and performance appraisal best practices recommend at least two changes besides having a goal setting document to improve this process and provide your rational for each recommendation. (10 marks)

                                                

3)      Based on Brooks role and responsibility, develop a goal setting table with at least three deliverables that could be used for his performance review with his manager to help him build his case for a fair promotion opportunity. Ensure to include all the necessary information in an organized manner. (10 marks)

 

4)      Identify and critically analyze which HRM area is involved in this case. Be specific with your discussion. (10 marks)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:  Attempt all questions.  Answer comprehensively as you can.

 

Mary Corey’s Case

 

Mary Corey recently completed her fourth year with statewide Services Corporation. In her position as costumer support specialist, she consistently received high performance evaluations-until recently. Indeed, her most recent evaluation, completed three weeks ago, rated her as “Her supervisor, Helen Rowe, wondered why this previously strong employee had fallen so quickly.

 

Helen had just returned from meeting with her boss, Betty Allen, when again the subject of Mary came up. Betty suggested that Helen look through Mary’s past work records to try to find some clues about what happened and what they should do now.

 

Helen closed the door to her office, sat at her desk, and pulled Mary’s personnel folder from her desk drawer. As she flipped through the materials in the folder. Mary’s story came into better focus.

 

About six months ago, around Christmastime, Mary’s started taking longer lunch breaks. Given the cramped quarters in which Helen’s Customer Support Department work and demanding routines they had to follow, it was easy to notice Mary stretching her regular lunch period by 10 or 15 minutes. Once she even stretched it for a full 25 minutes.

 

Since it was the holiday season, Helen took no specific action. However, her occasional remarks reminding Mary of the lunch break schedules would produce an uncharacteristically evasive, defensive response from Mary. On at least two occasions, she nodded off to sleep at her desk returning from lunch.

 

In January and February, she was 10 to 20 minutes late for work on six different days and called in sick on four other days. It was this time that Mary’s dealing with her coworkers deteriorated. Normally quit yet sociable, Mary’s became increasingly short tempered and given to periodic outburst of anger belligerence. Since Mary’s 36, was a single mother of two teenage girls, almost everyone in the office assumed there was something going on at home.

 

On February 23^rd, though, things took a disturbing turn. Mary left for lunch at her usual time, but did not return. She called in three hours later to say she had gone home because she had suddenly become ill. Her speech seemed slurred, somehow not quite right. She returned to work two days later, with a doctor’s note explaining she had been sick with a stomach flu.

 

Nonetheless, the pattern of lateness continued. Two weeks later, Helen gave Mary her first written disciplinary notice regarding her attendance and punctuality. During the discussion, Mary confessed to Helen: “I know I’ve been a little different recently. I’m just having some problems at home with my children. “She didn’t elaborate, and Helen didn’t’ probe.

 

For the next few weeks, Mary was on time every day and rarely left her desk during working hours. Her level of performance improved, as did her interaction with coworkers.

 

By April, however, Helen noticed Mary slipping back into her negative habits of lateness and irritability. Helen began to notice something else in Mary’s after-lunch behavior: She seemed to have real difficulty completing her work, making decisions, and solving problems. On one occasion there was a big argument between her and several coworkers. Mary went home, claiming she was “too upset to work.’’ She continued coming in late to work and was absent on two successive Mondays. However, after each absence, she produced a doctor’s excuse.

 

In early May, Helen issued a second written warning, this one concerning not only Mary’s punctuality and attendance, but also her deteriorating work performance. At this time, Helen made it clear that Mary’s continued employment was on the line: “I don’t know what’s going on, but you’re in danger of losing your job. I’ve tried to be understanding, but I’m losing my patience. You need to get straightened up and soon, or I’ll have no choice but to let you go.”

 

During the following weeks, Mary again improved her productivity and performance. She was obviously concerned about losing her job. By mid-July it was time for her formal performance evaluation. Although her evaluation was “less than satisfactory,” Helen did note that there had been some improvement in all areas recently.

 

Then, last week, the bottom fell out. On July 23^rd, Mary returned from lunch 45 minutes late, glassy-eyed and weaving slightly, fumbling with things and smelling strongly of peppermint. She sat at her desk for a full 20 minutes, rummaging through drawer, moving paper, nodding, spilling things, and creating quite a distraction among the other employees.

 

Helen came to her desk: Mary, what’s the matter here? Something’s wrong, and you don’t seem able to work at all. Are you ill? Can you work? Are you drunk? Tell me right now!”

 

Mary slowly looked up, taking a while to focus on Helen. After what seemed like a minute or so, during which time she appeared to be again listening to Helen’s remarks, Mary burst into tears. She grabbed her purse, pushed and stumbled pas Helen, and left.

The next day, one of Mary’s children called in, saying Mary couldn’t work because she was “in bed sick” Helen checked and Mary had only three remaining days of accrued sick leave available to her.

 

Mary did not return to work until today. She went to the ladies room for an hour. When she emerged, she went into Helen’s office and asked for an immediate transfer to some other department “where the pressure isn’t so great.” She seemed very agitated and would not look Helen in the eye. Helen told her to return to her desk and pick up on her work as well as she could until Helen could look into things more closely.

 

It was then that Helen met with her boss, Betty Alden. They were trying to decide what to do.  In thinking about where things stood now, Helen knew that Mary’s presence in the unit was becoming a source of contention and disgruntlement. Everyone knew that she had some kind of problem, and most people thought it was due to drugs or alcohol, or both, although no one had ever personally seen her use or abuse either. Since her work was now so erratic, the other employees in the unit had to regularly back up her work by either finishing it or correcting it. She seemed to have no remorse about her conduct and could not presently be counted on to make an effort to correct it.

 

Helen wanted to fire her. As she explained to Betty: “When she’s here, she fights with everyone, and I’ve never sure when she’s coming to work or how long she’ll stay. She’s hopeless. I hate to do this, but she has screwed up just too much.

 

Betty, as unit manager, could see that a previously valued and productive member of her department had for some reason, fallen well below accepted work standards. Both Betty and Helen believed there must be some serious, extenuating circumstances affecting Mary, although they didn’t know for certain what it was. Betty was concerned whether there could be any legal problems in firing someone in this condition. Betty reminded Helen that the company did have an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and wondered whether they should try to involve Mary in the EAP before taking further action.

 

 

 

Case Questions

 

1.   Discuss the main issues in the case. Can Helen terminate Mary without running into legal problems?   Discuss.   (10 marks)

 

2.   What should Helen do now regarding the Employee Assistance Program? Explain how you would make a referral to the EAP if you were Helen.  (10 marks)

 

3.     Should Helen have acted sooner? If so, how? (10 marks)

 

4.    Apply at least two functional HRM areas by explaining how they are related to the case.  Be specific with your discussion.   (10 marks)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 3: Job Analysis Guides Reorganization at Bethphage

 

Bethphage, with approximately 3,000 employees, is a nonprofit organization that provides living and rehabilitative services for individuals with developmental disabilities through operating entities in 15 states and several foreign countries. Dr. David Jacox, CEO, and the Board of Directors identified that due to continuing growth the structure of the organization needed to be reexamined. Previously Bethphage had the parent corporation serving as headquarters and providing corporate functions. Then there were four regional corporations throughout the United States and internationally, each with its own board of directors.

 

Concern about coordination of efforts and the legal issues associated with having so many “governing” bodies led to a need for an organizational restructuring. Job analysis efforts tied to HR activities provided key information for the parent company board and senior managers throughout all entities. The process of changing Bethphage’s organization structure took several years and was done in several phases. Three years ago, Bethphage took a comprehensive look at all jobs. To provide Bethphage’s Board, Dr. Jacox, and senior managers with an understanding of the jobs in the organization, a job analysis of all jobs and entities was required.

 

Raul Saldivar, Senior Vice-President of Human Resources, and a committee of managers and executive directors from throughout Bethphage guided the comprehensive look at all jobs in the firm. Like many organizations, Bethphage had a small HR staff that was busy with many other HR activities. Consequently, Saldivar gave the responsibility for conducting the job analyses and preparing the job descriptions and specifications to Kelli Jorgensen, Bethphage’s Compensation and Benefits Manager. Jorgensen developed an extensive 12-page job analysis questionnaire tailored to the various job functions common throughout Bethphage. Then questionnaires were distributed to all employees in all locations. In spite of grumbling from some employees about the questionnaire length, over 90% of the questionnaires were returned within the allotted period to the appropriate departmental and agency managers for review.

 

They were then sent to Jorgensen and the HR staff. At that point several HR interns from a local university began the arduous task of writing approximately 300 job descriptions and specifications. Once draft descriptions were available, Jorgensen coordinated their review by the appropriate managers and team leaders. Then the drafts were revised, reviewed by the compensation committee, and prepared for use in developing a coordinated compensation system. The entire process of conducting the job analysis and developing final job descriptions and specifications took four months of intensive effort. The process of developing the compensation and performance appraisal systems took another nine months, and the refinement and implementation of all components of the “new and improved” HR activities took over a year.

 

Once the compensation system had been installed for most of the jobs below the senior management level, the next phase of reorganization proceeded two years later. Bethphage redefined its executive structure, beginning by establishing one Board of Directors for the entire organization and dissolving the separate regional corporations. A revised management structure was created by the addition of a Senior Vice-President of Operations, Linda Timmons, to whom all regional directors report. The structural reorganization affected only about 15—20 jobs at the managerial level; those jobs were analyzed and redesigned before developing new job descriptions, compensation groupings, and ranges.

 

Now that all phases of the reorganization have been completed, Saldivar and Jorgensen have established procedures so that all jobs are reviewed each year and the compensation structures are updated. Several beneficial outcomes are based on the comprehensive job analysis developed by Bethphage: The HR department has been able to use the job analysis process for developing job descriptions for new jobs. Bethphage’s new compensation program enables the HR department to ensure a more equitable system of pay increases and to provide a more accurate method for developing pay structures and determining pay levels.

 

Over the past few years, Bethphage also has provided managers with a better system for conducting performance evaluations to ensure that they are promptly and accurately completed, and that a pay-for-performance system is developed and used. As a result of all these activities managers throughout Bethphage are now using the HR department on a consultative basis for organizational decisions of all types. The job analysis activities were the foundation for all of the actions taken by Bethphage.

 

 

Questions

 

1. Discuss why job analysis was an essential part of the corporate change process at Bethphage?            (20 Marks)

 

2. How does the process described in the case illustrate the linkage between job analysis and other HR activities?            (20 Marks)