Search results

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.”

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.

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.

Human resource management and leadership development.

MBA course on Human Resource Management.

This case present the talent management practice at Steelcase. It highlights the approach taken by the company in managing its high performers. The approach taken by Steelcase links leadership development with performance management and succession planning. It also describes the distinct characteristics that make the approach taken by Steelcase different from other companies that implement talent management. This case presents policy options that companies can consider in developing a talent management program.

Understand and describe the interconnection between various talent development activities. Compare and assess policy options in developing talent management programs. Analyze how Steelcase nurture a high performance culture among its employees. Describe the leadership behaviors Steelcase is seeking to develop among its leaders.

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

This case aims to enhance students’ scholarship and understanding of performance management systems with respect to the formulation of key performance indicators (KPIs). Specifically, working through this case and the assignment questions, students will be able to:▪ critically analyse process-based and outcome-based performance indicators;▪ recommend the right mix of process- and the outcome-based KPIs;▪ apply the specific, measurable, aligned, realistic and time-bound (SMART) framework to the KPIs;▪ create SMART KPIs; and▪ propose when to involve team members in decision-making.

The Director of the Centre for Learning and Innovative Pedagogies (CLIP), Dr Tanushree Sharma, was in for a surprise when the Dean and the Advisor to the school expressed their dissatisfaction with her approach to framing performance indicators for the management of the Centre.

They categorically advised her to change her process-based orientation to an outcome-based one and create tangible ground-level outcomes. Their feedback made her realize why, in spite of having rolled out several initiatives, the Centre was struggling to demonstrate its impact on student learning and faculty development. It dawned on her that the Centre’s inability to showcase a tangible impact on the school could mar the collective hard toil of the team.

Accepting the feedback and recognizing the merit of designing outcome-based SMART performance indicators, she started working towards them. Although she was able to conceptualize a broad framework, she was uncertain about whether to include only outcome-based KPIs. She was also unsure whether to unilaterally create and assign the key responsibility areas (KRAs) and KPIs or co-create them with her team members. A confluence of factors weighed heavily on her mind – the pressure of limited time, remote working because of the pandemic, moderately experienced team members, voluntary team membership, lack of positional power and her limited organizational influence. With less than a month to the proposal submission, she had no time to waste.

The case is suitable for courses on performance management systems, human resources and leadership; however, it is particularly relevant to framing KRAs and KPIs, developing outcome-based KPIs and applying the SMART framework to developing KPIs. It can be used in both postgraduate and undergraduate programmes at business schools.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 6: Human Resource Management.

Quality Wireless has received customer complaints about long hold times at its call center. To address these complaints, it put into place certain process changes at its call center. After one month, the company will now decide whether improvement has taken place.

To develop an understanding of process capability and how an improvement can be statistically validated. To understand the “check” phase of the plan-do-check-act cycle of Deming, using basic statistical principles.

The first company under the Amara Raja Group was established in 1984, i.e. Amara Raja Electronics Limited (AREL) followed by Amara Raja Batteries Limited (ARBL). Its founder leveraged the presence of his family in Renigunta, a rural village in South India, and chose to start the industry there to create employment opportunities. Preference is given to local population in all ARG enterprises. Despite its strong people orientation, the HR department/function at ARG got strengthened only after Jaikrishna strived to make it central to business. The department's evolution has been demarcated in three phases. The first and second phase saw few initiatives, and during the third phase the HR department was structured according to the Dave Ulrich Strategic HR Model. While this structure had been successful until now, certain sections in ARG still doubted its sustainability.

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.

Students should be able to: identify the elements of business processes; analyze efficiency measures; identify and define causes of poor efficiency in business process; analyze the results of a simulation model; propose process redesign alternatives based on the analysis; and acknowledge the challenges for improving public service processes.

The process to get a passport seems to be very simple, but Jose Hernandez, a Manufacturing Plant Director, has had bad experiences the past three times he has visited the passport office. He and his family have spent more than 3 h to get the passport for his little daughter, Maria. In this case, the authors illustrate the process analysis performed by Jose to find effective and efficient solutions to the problems that he found. The case study guides students through the analysis of a business process in public service from the perspective of the users. The students participating in the case analysis will not only learn to diagnose and describe the process but also to redesign it to achieve significant improvements. Furthermore, the students will realize that adding more resources to the process may not solve the fundamental issues, but analytical and creative skills are needed. In addition, the teaching notes provide a discussion about the existing challenges to improve public service processes.

Management and engineering undergraduate programs, operations management and business process design in Master of Business Administration programs.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only.

CSS 9: Operations and Logistics.

Quality Wireless has received customer complaints about long hold times at its call center. To address these complaints, it put into place certain process changes at its call center. After one month, the company will now decide whether improvement has taken place.

To develop an understanding of process capability and how an improvement can be statistically validated. To understand the “check” phase of the plan-do-check-act cycle of Deming, using basic statistical principles.