Search results

The reading and discussion on case will enable participants to appreciate importance of reward management in performance management system for both employee and organizational good; to develop insight on the effect of perceived discrimination on the motivation of employees; to internalize the effect of perceived unjust, subjective, non-communicative, non-transparent policies on the behavior and productivity of employees and overall organizational culture and climate; and to comprehend the importance of HR and OB issues with respect to performance management system for the benefit of employee morale, motivation and organizational culture.

The effectiveness of an employee is the key factor for the employer. All the profit that the company or the organization makes depends on the employees’ productiveness. The case needs to be understood in the overall context of performance management system (Ferreiraa and Otley, 2009) with focus on elements of appraisal and compensation via rewards and recognition as per objective standards. Performance management systems (PMSs) is a more general descriptor if the intention is to capture a holistic picture of the management and control of organizational performance. Performance management policies and practices refer to the processes of setting, communicating and monitoring performance targets and rewarding results with the aim of enhancing organizational effectiveness (Fee, McGrath-Champ and Yang, 2011). PMS includes both the formal mechanisms, processes, systems and networks used by organizations, and also the more subtle, yet important, informal controls that are used (Chenhall, 2003; Malmi and Brown, 2008). Otley (1999) proposed a framework which highlights five central issues which need to be considered as part of the process of developing a coherent structure for performance management systems. The five areas addressed by this framework include identification of the key organizational objectives and the processes and methods involved in assessing the level of achievement under each of these objectives, formulating and implementing strategies and plans, as well as the performance measurement and evaluation processes, process of setting performance targets and the levels at which such targets are set, rewards systems used by organizations and the implications of achieving or failing to achieve performance targets and types of information flows required to provide adequate monitoring of performance. While the case touches upon all the aspects of the PMS framework, it revolves round the reward episode and elaborates on the way it affects all stakeholders, those who got the benefit, those who felt discriminated and those were mere observers to the episode. Objective performance appraisals are needed to ensure that every employee produces the best performance and that the work performed is rewarded with reasonable increases in pay scales or special additional allowances or incentives. This system carries crucial importance as it helps managers to decide which rewards should be handed out, by what amount and to whom. Additionally, performance appraisals may increase an employee’s commitment and satisfaction (Wiese and Buckley, 1998) The case readers need to notice that when organizations fail to follow objective appraisal or reward standards, the same rewards become a cause of contention. The reward which was handed over to the employees in this case was in addition to the annual appraisal. Though the role of rewards has been well-recognized in motivating the employees to continue performing at high level and encourage others to strive for better performance, what needs to be recognized that rewards’ per say does not serve purpose. They need to be dealt within the context of performance management system. Using rewards to favor or discriminate a few employees by using subjective standards backfires and does no good as the person who is favored cannot take pride in it and is not motivated to perform better or equally well as he/she also knows that the work has no relation to the reward, it is personal favor, on the other hand, the one who is discriminated feel discouraged and demotivated to perform. Rewards have the potential to both help and harm the organization if dealt in a callous and careless manner. Use of rewards to favor or discriminate certain people due to subjective preference can be suicidal for the organization and irreparably damage the trust of the employees in the management. It has been well stated that fairness and objectivity are the core principles using an assessment of the nature and size of the job each is employed to carry out (Torrington et al., 2005). If any organization decides to include rewards as a motivating mechanism, it needs to cull out unambiguous and transparent criteria for rewarding. If employees perceive procedural or distributive injustice from the management, it is not only detrimental for the employee’ relations and teamwork, it also tarnishes the reputation of the organization and jeopardizes the culture of the organization. Reward management needs to be closely related to performance appraisals, job evaluations and overall performance management systems. The current case elaborates on one such instance where unjustified inequity in reward system not only disturbed the employees concerned but it had bred a negative image of the organization among other employees too, organizational citizenship was replaced with contempt and feeling of apathy.

Post graduate students and working professionals can benefit from this study.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

Human resource management.

Organizational Justice Theory serves as a useful frame for discussion of this case, focusing on perceptions of fairness in the workplace. Such perceptions are shaped by outcomes, procedures, information and interpersonal treatment. Perceptions of justice in these four dimensions are associated with job performance, citizenship behaviors and some mental health outcomes. The Exit, Voice, Loyalty, Neglect (EVLN) Model outlines four potential responses (exit, voice, loyalty and neglect) to perceived job dissatisfaction, serving as a useful framework for students to discuss potential employee reactions to Starbucks’ decisions.

This case was developed from secondary sources, including news reports, company annual reports and websites. The case has been classroom tested with undergraduate students in Principles of Management (online and face-to-face) Human Resource Management (online asynchronous) and Labor/Management Relations (online synchronous).

In June 2020, Starbucks became immersed in controversy when its dress code policy conflicted with its public support for national protests over police brutality against Black Americans, including the death of George Floyd while in police custody. While publicly supporting the protests in a series of tweets, an internal memo forbidding employees from wearing Black Lives Matter attire was leaked to the press, generating national outcry, threats of a boycott and forcing Starbucks to reverse course immediately. This case examines the benefits and challenges of a corporate dress/uniform policy, and the implications of corporate involvement in social justice issues.

This case can be used in a wide range of undergraduate and graduate courses, but particularly in Principles of Management and Human Resources courses.

Fingerhut, based in Minnetonka, Minnesota, is a direct-marketing company that sells a smorgasbord of consumer goods through an array of specially targeted catalogs. In November 1996, an article in the Star Tribune, a major Minneapolis newspaper, drew attention to a class-action lawsuit pending against Fingerhut that suggests the firm made its profits by exploiting the poor. Several civil rights groups rallied around the suit and submitted amicus curiae in favor of the litigation. The case illustrates issues in ethics and management communication. Discussions focus on the constituencies. Is Fingerhut exploiting its customers or providing them with an affordable method of obtaining valued consumer goods on credit? Do retailers have a duty to offer products at reasonable prices? Are the high interest rates reasonable given the risk? What are the options: pawn shops, rent-to-own? What is the profile of the typical Fingerhut customer? Discussions also focus on the issues communicating to the constituencies. How much damage will the lawsuit do to Fingerhut's image as an ethical, socially conscious company? What communication strategies can the firm employ? Should it react to the lawsuit? What should it tell its employees?

Erick Wilson and Richard Hyche, managers of Hughes Family Furniture Store in Charlotte N.C. are exploring new ways to motivate their sales force to sell more of one of their most profitable items, a Furniture Protection Plan. They are considering a new compensation plan but are concerned about how this new change might affect their sales force.

The case was created via an interview of the protagonist in 2018 at the US Military Academy by the authors.

The case describes the dilemma First Lieutenant Williams faces when his platoon sergeant unexpectedly leaves. Organizational norms and accepted practices suggest Lieutenant Williams should choose the most senior squad leader, Staff Sergeant Boyer. The departing Platoon Sergeant even recommended Staff Sergeant Boyer. However, based on recent observations, Lieutenant Williams felt Staff Sergeant Boyer may not be the best fit. Instead, the lieutenant considered choosing the newest squad leader, Staff Sergeant Harrison, who seemed to be highly proficient, but had yet to prove himself. Before the lieutenant could fully weight his options, Staff Sergeant Boyer confronted him about a decision.

This case is designed for use in undergraduate courses on leadership and management. The case was not only designed primarily for teaching a lesson on organizational justice, but can also be used to integrate lessons on communication, power and influence, and decision making. Each of these elements is present in the case. The instructor can choose to incorporate them into the lesson for a more wholly encompassing lesson or choose to focus on only the organizational justice aspects at play in the case.

The case was compiled using secondary research, including the following sources, all of which are cited in the References List section of the case: Company annual reports, press releases and company websites and news media, podcasts, video recordings, websites of trade associations and other public domain sources.

This case highlights the decisions facing Moderna, Inc. (Moderna) related to pricing of its COVID-19 vaccine in the European Union (EU) in July of 2021. The CEO, Stéphane Bancel, must balance the need for improving shareholder returns with the call to act responsibly during a global pandemic. Should Moderna raise prices or hold prices constant? What other options might be available to the CEO?

At the authors’ institute, instructors use this case in a second-year marketing elective in pricing at the MBA level. Within the elective, the case enables a discussion on concepts of value realization through pricing and leadership decision strategies. The case may also be used in at the Executive MBA level, in a course of strategic leadership.

Killing ‘em softly: terminating projects within a video game studio is a case study on human resource management (HRM) and project management in a creative setting. This disguised case is based on a real situation that was documented through individual and group interviews at a major video game studio. Several HRM and project management concepts can be discussed through this case including employee retention, planning and staffing and intracompany communication. It seeks to help students develop a multi-level, interdisciplinary and critical analysis of a common HRM situation in project-based creative sectors and invites them to devise action and communication plans to handle the termination of a project.

This disguised case is based on real events and depicts tensions as they unfolded within a Canadian major video game company. Data for this case were collected through eight individual interviews followed by two group interviews with the employees involved. Early drafts of this case were also presented to respondents in order to ensure the validity of the case. Follow-up interviews, as well as the analysis of company documents were later used to complete the case’s final edits.

This case can be used in HRM, project management and creativity management courses/modules at the undergraduate and graduate levels. It is relevant for business students in an HRM major, as well as for general administration students who plan to work in creative sectors. The case is also suitable for students in arts programs who aspire to manage creative teams or projects. It can be used as a take-home individual or group assignment, or as an in-class group activity.

The learning outcomes of this study are as follows:

1. the benefits of differential pricing over uniform pricing;

2. the differences between second- and third-degree price discrimination;

3. the rationale for charging different prices for segments having different willingness to pay; and

4. how different prices for the same product can lead to perceptions of unfairness and how companies might manage such an issue.

This case outlines the decisions that Adar Poonawalla, the CEO of Serum Institute of India (Serum), had to make in late April 2021 concerning its pricing for the COVID-19 (Covid) vaccine. Serum was the world’s largest manufacturer of vaccines, and its Covishield vaccine had received regulatory approval, but faced an unusual challenge and opportunity. In most countries, governments had procured Covid vaccines from manufacturers and then delivered the vaccines to consumers free of cost. But in India, there was a three-tier pricing system. While the Government of India had committed to free vaccines in government-run public hospitals, it also allowed vaccine makers to directly sell vaccines to state governments, as well as private hospitals, who were at liberty to charge consumers for the vaccines. This created an interesting pricing dilemma for Serum: as different customers had different willingness to pay, should Serum use differential pricing? Would such a tiered pricing system be considered fair? How many different price points should Serum maintain? By exploring these and related decisions that Poonawalla had to make, the case is intended to teach price discrimination.

The case is intended for graduate-level courses in marketing, pricing and economics. This case illustrates the principles of differential pricing/price discrimination. More specifically, it highlights pricing strategies motivated by second- and third-degree price discrimination in an emerging market’s health-care context. From the information in the case, the student can learn to apply the concepts of second- and third-degree price discrimination in marketing. After working through the case and assignment questions, instructors will be able to help students understand the following concepts:

Teaching objective 1: the benefits of differential pricing over uniform pricing.

Teaching objective 2: the differences between second- and third-degree price discrimination.

Teaching objective 3: the rationale for charging different prices for segments having different willingness to pay.

Teaching objective 4: how different prices for the same product can lead to perceptions of unfairness and how companies might manage such an issue.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 8: Marketing

In 2009, Brigade Enterprises Limited, with operations in the real estate sector and construction in South India, prepared a blueprint for implementing Total Transformation in the organization. A central communication channel was identified as a “must” area for improvement. Aided by Wipro Consulting Services, active and passive measures were adopted to make the internal communication vibrant, which would, it was envisioned, change organizational culture and bring about attitudinal change. However, the review after 18 months pointed towards gaps in the existing model. Should BEL continue with the existing strategies or amend? Given the organizational dynamics, what new changes, if necessary, can be initiated?

Consumption and consumer behaviour are driven by social and cultural factors. The global movement against racism and skin colour bias has created a situation where companies need to relook at the way they are marketing skin lightening and cosmetic products in an emerging economy like India.

The case study was developed by collecting data from news articles and published research.

Johnson and Johnson in June 2020 decided to stop selling products under the category of Skin lightening popularly known as fairness creams in Asian markets, especially India. This created a dilemma for popular brands like Hindustan Unilever (HUL), Loreal and Procter & Gamble which have brands under this category. Among all these brands the biggest challenge is for HUL which is a major player in this segment. The case discusses the cosmetic industry in India and how HUL responded to this situation.

The case is intended for use in graduate-level courses in consumer behaviour, new product development, integrated marketing communication and marketing. Market environment, cultural and social factors and the importance of considering these factors in developing the product and marketing strategy is the focus of this case.