Search results

The HR President of Lupin and the Head of Learning and Development, were looking with satisfaction at the latest attrition figures. The annualized attrition rate for managers had been showing a steady decline, and was pegged at 1% for the first quarter of 2010–11, much lower than the industry average of 35%¹. It had been a long, arduous journey and figures were looking decent for now. However, the HR President knew that this was just the beginning. With competition intensifying in the industry, the war for talent was going to heat up further. He wondered how they were going to manage talent in an industry which was fast-growing, insular and obsessed with domain knowledge.

On a fine afternoon in January 2015, Divakar Kaza, President, Human Resources, at Lupin Ltd., took a sip of coffee from his cup, and shared the good news he had just received, with Rituraj Sar, head of Learning & Development. Lupin had just won the ‘Outstanding Company of the Year’ Award at the CNBC-TV18 India Business Leadership Awards, 2014-15¹. The accomplishment was heartening, given that it reinforced similar recognitions in the recent past. Lupin had won the NDTV Business Leadership Award for the Indian Pharmaceutical Company of the year in 2012, backed up by the same acclaim in 2010 by Frost & Sullivan².

The case describes the dilemma of Mr Mehta, Regional Head HR of AXZ, a large IT company in India. Mr Mehta had received an appeal from an employee Mr Rajesh Kumar who alleged that he was wrongly appraised by his manager Mr Yogesh Desai. Both Desai and Kumar have presented their perspectives to Mr Mehta. While Mr Mehta understands Mr Desai's challenges in performance appraisal process, he also is concerned about Rajesh, who is a talented employee with rare skill sets. Apart from the case specific issues related to the two employees, Mr Mehta is also concerned about the problems arising from the current performance appraisal system, especially after AXZ acquired UTVC, which had a very different performance appraisal system. The case also provides an opportunity to discuss the challenges associated with bell curve implementation and discrimination in performance appraisal processes in organizations.

Premal Seth, Head, Human Resources, of Technosol, sat in his Bengaluru office at 9 pm dreading the traffic he would have to negotiate if he stepped outside to catch a bite and equally dreading going up for coffee to the coffee shop 100 meters from his office. It was the first week of April (the week after the finalization of performance appraisals and ratings of all employees) and he would often bump into known and unknown people within the company who were disappointed, upset, sad, or plain angry at how the manager had ranked him/her or how unfair the performance management system was. Deciding not to get up at all, he focused on the various pending grievance emails. As he was going through them, an email from Vasundhara Rao, a senior subject matter expert, located in Ahmedabad, caught his attention (for details about the case characters, refer Exhibit 1).

This case puts students in the shoes of the Ebola response leadership teams of Firestone Liberia and its parent company, Bridgestone Americas, as they worked together to respond to the deadly 2014 Ebola epidemic. While the companies had received positive press for their containment of the virus on their rubber farm in Liberia, which was home to 8,000 employees and 80,000 Liberian citizens, the situation off the property was worsening. With death counts rising and hospitals across the nation closing as staff caught the virus, the Liberian government declared a national state of emergency. The teams now faced the possibility that the government might attempt to take control of the farm's medical center. How could they balance their duty to care effectively for employees against the demands of the Liberian government? Should they try to fend off the government or cooperate to meet the government's demands? Students will learn how to do a methodical situation analysis that considers ethical obligations and strategic implications, and to distill their recommendation into a briefing for senior leadership.

This case encourages students to consider how they would communicate and support the implementation of a company’s policy for annual performance reviews. Analysis may include considering how to build commitment from line management for the process and practice of colleague performance reviews and an exploration of the relationship between appraisals and performance management, human resources (HR) strategy and business strategy. Managers may perceive that performance reviews are taking them away from the more important and pressing tasks that directly relate to their own performance on the job – and not appreciate the strategic significance of the appraisal process.

Topics were identified as case preferences and a shopping list of questions were generated for field interviews. Two field interviews were completed. The company involved was not disguised, however the HR Director’s name (David White) is a pseudonym.

This case is suitable for third or fourth year undergraduate or postgraduate studies in hospitality management, human resource management or a human resource management course that specializes in strategic HRM, performance management, performance appraisal or employee engagement.

There has been a gradual shift from performance appraisal to performance management to reflect a more strategic approach to human resource management practice (Bach, 2005). A performance management system typically includes the following components: regular performance appraisal, mission statement and values statement, individual objectives, performance standards or competencies, unit objectives, company-wide objectives, performance-related pay, training and reward or recognition system (Armstrong, 2002). Collectively these components have a strategic focus and connect individual, team and organizational performance.

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.”

After completing this case, students should be able to: identify and compute relevant cash flows in relation to a real estate project and compute the net present value (NPV). Determine the target return or cost of capital (by looking at historical economic indicators). Design or formulate a sensitivity analysis to determine the drivers of the project value. Evaluate real estate and other investments taking qualitative and quantitative factors into consideration. Demonstrate the computation of a break-even rate to determine the minimum or maximum revenue or cost required for a project to be viable.

This case study is about the Golden Beak Securities Pension Fund that wanted to invest in a Hostel Project in one of the universities in Ghana. Most universities in Ghana faced an acute shortage of on-campus accommodation. Also, the Government of Ghana, in 2017, implemented a programme to make Senior High School in Ghana free. This was expected to increase the number of students who will enter the existing universities. The project was therefore seen as strategic, as it would help ease the pressure of on-campus accommodation while providing diversification for the pension fund. As part of the investment committee’s (IC) quest to improve the skill set available to it, especially in relation to real estate investments, Esi Abebrese was appointed as one of the members of the IC of GSB. Her main task was to collect information on key macroeconomic variables, as well as granular information on project costs and revenues and conduct investment appraisal. Esi was scheduled to make a presentation to the IC on the 15th of October 2019 following which the Committee will debate and make a decision. The project had an estimated cost of GH¢52m with a total number of 3,424 student beds and ancillary facilities. Undertaking the project required moving funds from investments in money market securities with one of the banks in Ghana. The investments in the money market securities were currently yielding about 16% a year. The determination of the cost of capital was critical and Esi and Nana eventually settled on a long-term weighted average cost of capital of 14%. This was after considering the trend of inflation, monetary policy rates, treasury rates, stock market returns and a report on returns on commercial real estate properties in Ghana. An exit capitalisation rate of 20% was also estimated for the purposes of determining the value of the property at the end of the investment horizon. Esi also obtained estimates of cost and revenue for the project and proceeded to carry out a feasibility analysis on the project. This consisted of an NPV analysis and sensitivity analysis on various factors to determine the drivers of the project value. The IC had to take several factors (both quantitative and qualitative) into consideration before making a decision. Esi believed that these factors included the diversification of the fund’s assets, the return on investment, potential oversupply of hostel accommodation, the social responsibility of providing student accommodation and the impact of any prolonged shutdown of the university.

Masters/advanced undergraduate.

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

CSS 1: Accounting and Finance.

Human resource management and organizational change.

Students on an introductory course on Human Resource Management or a specialization course of HRM such as change management and organizational development. This case study can be taught at the MBA level.

This case study can serve as the base for understanding and identifying the various characteristics that relate to revolutionizing HR functions with the help of digitalization. It can also be elaborated further to include the challenges that a company has to face after it decides to establish IT software based on operations. This case is an evolutionary story of a large-scale Pakistani company, Pak Electron Ltd. (PEL) which has been in operation for almost 60 years. The top management decided to move from a traditional administrative system towards setting up an HR department for the first time. The case states the salient features of the traditional administrative system, issues faced by the company in the setup of a new HR system and digital HR system along with the employees’ views and perceptions on these systems.

Students are expected to learn the following: the various characteristics of a paper-file based traditional administrative system; the various features of an IT-based modern HR system; the decision background and basis for making the switch to the new contemporary HR system; and the reaction of employees against changes in organizational systems.

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

CSS: 6: Human Resource Management.

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.