Search results

Voyager Inn International (Bethesda) is negotiating a master contract with TourAmerica, an international tour operator, for hotel rooms during the 1995 tourist season. Issues under consideration include number of rooms during peak, mid-, and off-periods; room rates; breakfast prices; and the cost of ancillary services. The hotel manager is evaluated on the basis of several criteria, including adjusted daily rates, occupancy rates, and food and beverage profitability. To facilitate trade-offs among the various criteria, the manager articulates a utility scheme. This case is a role-play exercise, and must be used in conjunction with “TourAmerica” (UVA-QA-0464). Reporting forms for the evaluation of alternative contracts are provided with each case.

TourAmerica is negotiating a master contract with Voyager Inn International (Bethesda) for hotel rooms during the 1995 tourist season. Issues under consideration include number of rooms during peak, mid-, and off-periods, room rates, breakfast prices, and the cost of ancillary services. While the hotel manager is evaluated on the basis of several criteria, including adjusted daily rates, occupancy rates, and food and beverage profitability, and is also provided with a utility scheme to facilitate trade-offs among the criteria, TourAmerica uses an effective cost per registrant (adjusted for intangibles). These two approaches provide an opportunity to contrast measurement schemes and to justify the use of utility functions. This case is a role-play exercise and must be used in conjunction with “Voyager Inn International” (UVA-QA-0463).

Captain Joseph Brunetti was given the assignment to provide his superior officer an analysis of what to expect when the US Army implemented its new process to evaluate the performance of noncommissioned officers (NCOs), called sergeants. Brunetti had about 104 sergeants in his unit. The US Army created a new process in 2015 to evaluate sergeants to overcome the deficiencies in the Army’s old process, now 28 years old. Under the old process, almost every sergeant was rated at the highest levels, making it nearly impossible for the US Army to know whom to promote to higher ranks. Under the old process, very little counseling took place, so NCOs were not given guidance on how to develop themselves. Raters and senior raters (SRs) were not held accountable for their work in performance management, either. Under the new process, which included a forced distribution form of ranking, SRs had to offer counselings as well as options for future assignments. Brunetti, who had only limited experience in rating sergeants anyway, had to prepare for his boss what was called an “operations report” outlining what the organization could expect with the changeover to the new process and what may need attention as the process would continue in subsequent years.

This case has been developed from actual experiences and the assignment given to Brunetti also happened as described in the case. Since many of the individuals in the case are still employed by the US Army, the names of the individuals and the company units in this case have been disguised. Even so, the events of the protagonist’s tours of duty prior to the assignment described in this case did occur, but some of the locations within the USA have been changed. The other persons quoted from public documents or otherwise referenced in the articles are the actual persons so identified. The old NCOERs in Exhibit 3 are as these were written but the personally identifiable data about the individuals have been blackened out.

This case is suitable for both undergraduate and graduate courses in human resource management and especially on the topical material on performance management and performance appraisal. The case can also be used in both undergraduate and graduate courses in general management, for modules on human resource management. The Relevant Theory section below is centered on human resource management.

This relevant theory which undergirds this case centers on the broad concept of performance management and on performance appraisal instruments. The case underscores the important concept that performance management has to be more than “completing the appraisal form.”

An abstract is not available for this product.

On April 4, 2007, Don Imus, one of the company&s most popular talk show personalities made comments on the air regarding the Rutgers women&s basketball team. According to the transcription from Media Matters for America, Imus said, “ That&s some nappy-headed hos there. I&m gonna tell you that now, man, that&s some … woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like … kinda like … I don&t know.” At first, the comments did not seem out of the ordinary for one of radio&s “shock jocks.” However, as the public reaction grew, the situation changed considerably. Under pressure from the public, Moonves reluctantly suspended Imus. But it was too little too late. By the end of the day on April 11, analysts estimated that $2.5 million in advertising revenue was lost. On April 12, Moonves terminated Don Imus& contract.

After Moonves fired Imus, there was still a lot to consider. He really wanted a way for the company to meet the demands of the company&s stakeholders. In addition, he wanted to avoid any more distractions from the firm&s normal day-to-day operations.