Your assignment # 7 relates to chapter 15 Cengage Activity Case 15-1 When Transfer Backfires by Mosley, Pietri, Mosley, designed to reinforce the learning objectives of the course, and in conjunction with the final exam will provide a measure of your material’s knowledge and critical thinking skills.
Instructions
*Your case analysis will require for you to complete the readings for Chapter 15 “Selecting, Appraising, and Discipline Employees”, and Case 15-1 from the textbook.
* Answer Case 15-1 questions 1 through 5 from the textbook.
* Your answers must be written in a short essay format APA Style of Writing, no less than a full page per answer (4 pages in total) in written content.
With multiple academic resources and citations to support the written content of the case study.
You will be graded on the following:
Rubrics
APA Formatting (Margins, Line Spacing, Running Head, Page Numbering, Paragraphs Indents, Proper Referencing, In-Text Referencing, Font Style and Size)= 2 pts
Originality Report (70% or higher)=1pt
Writing Volume (4 full pages)= 1pt
Referencing Sources (Textbook )= 1pt
TOTAL= 5
Case 15-1
When the Transfer Backfires:
Jane Smith abruptly rose and stormed out of the office of Robert Trent, the director of purchasing at a major eastern university. As she made her hasty exit, Trent wondered what had gone wrong with a seemingly perfect play—one that would have rid his department of a “problem” employee. How could his well-constructed plan, using the university’s formal transfer system, have failed so miserably, leaving him with an even more unmanageable situation?
It had all begun in January, when Trent decided something must be done about Smith’s performance and attitude. The process was made a little more awkward by the university’s not having a formal employee performance-appraisal policy and program. Each department was left with the right to develop and conduct its own employee appraisals. This meant each department could choose whether or not to appraise an employee, as well as choose the format and procedure to be used.
In January, Trent decided to conduct an appraisal of Smith. After writing down some weaknesses in her performance and attitude, he called her in to discuss them. He cited the various weaknesses to her, but, admittedly, most were highly subjective in nature. In only a few instances did he give specific and objective references and did not give Smith a copy of his findings. During the appraisal interview, he hinted possibly that she didn’t “fit in” and she “probably would be much happier in some other place.” In any event, he was satisfied he began the process for eventually ridding the department of her. He reasoned, if all else failed, this pressure would ultimately force her to quit. At the time, he hardly noticed she was strangely quiet through the whole meeting.
As time went by, Smith’s attitude and performance did not improve. In March, Trent was elated to learn an opening existed in another department and Smith was interested in transferring. The university’s formal transfer policy required Trent to complete the Employee Transfer Evaluation Form—which he gladly did. As a matter of fact, he rated Smith mostly “outstanding” on the performance and attitude factors. He was so pleased at having the opportunity to use the transfer system he called the other department manager and spoke glowingly of Smith’s abilities and performance. Although he had been the purchasing director for only eight months, having been recruited from another college, he even pointed with pride to Smith’s five years of experience.
In April, much to Trent’s dismay, it was announced that Smith lost the transfer opportunity to a better-qualified candidate. Robert Trent was shocked when Smith’s transfer was turned down. To further complicate matters, Trent realized he would have to face Smith in May when it was time to discuss annual pay raises, which included both merit pay considerations and a cost-of-living adjustment. This would be even more difficult because Smith’s performance and attitude had not improved since the January appraisal. If anything, they were worse.
Trent just finished the May meeting with Smith by telling her the bad news: Based on both performance and attitude, she should not be recommended for a cost-of-living or merit-pay increase for the new year beginning July 1. Smith, armed with the transfer evaluation forms (completed and given to her in March), threatened to use all internal and external systems for organizational justice due her.
As Trent pondered this dilemma, he fully recognized Smith’s unique status within the university community. She was the wife of a distinguished, tenured professor of business, and this situation provided additional pressure. As if this were not enough, he had to contend with the office social process pivoting around a weekly coffee group greatly influenced by Smith. It was not unusual for the former director of purchasing (who retired after 25 years of service) to attend these gatherings. Of course, Smith kept this group fully apprised of her continuing troubles with “this new, young purchasing director who is hardly dry behind the ears.”
1. What are the facts Trent must consider now?
2. What avenues are now open to Trent? What does this case say to you about the need for supervisors to act morally?
4. Do you believe some supervisors are untruthful where recommendations are concerned? Explain.
5. What three functions are salaries meant to perform?
To what extent should employee appraisals be used in salary adjustments? Explain.
