Reference no: EM132788399

Case A

The idea of having to go through a checklist in your job may sound a little demeaning. Isn't that what fast food restaurants use to train low-skilled employees what to do, step by step? That may be quite true, but it's also what pilots use to be sure the complicated systems of jumbo jets are all in order before flying you to your destination. That type of thinking is why Dr. Peter Pronovost of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine ran into opposition when he proposed a five-step checklist that would not only save money, but save lives. In the United States, hospital-acquired infections affect 1 in 10 patients, killing 90,000 of them and costing as much as $11 billion each year. Many of those infections are acquired when an IV line delivering medication becomes infected. Dr. Pronovost's checklist is simple and straightforward, including steps such as: Doctors must wash their hands before inserting an IV, and the patient's skin must be cleaned with antiseptic at the point of the insertion. When Michigan hospitals put the checklist into practice, they not only saved over $175 million in eighteen months because they didn't have to treat infections, but they saved nearly 1,500 lives! Such impressive evidence would seem to convert even the toughest critic of checklists, but the hospitals found the same truth that many trainers face: employees don't always comply with rules that are for their own good or for the good of others. They need to be convinced. It turns out that doctors are just as stubborn as production employees who refuse to wear safety goggles or a hard hat. Dr. Pronovost found that doctors don't like being told what to do. They especially resented being reminded of the checklist by the nurses who were put in charge of managing the checklists. The organizational culture of the hospitals, including the roles of doctors and nurses, got in the way of patient safety. Dr. Pronovost learned to overcome the resistance by bringing both doctors and nurses together in training and appealing to their common concern for patient health. He asked, "Would you ever intentionally allow a patient's health to be harmed in your presence?" They'd say "Of course not." Then he would hit them with "Then how can you see someone not washing their hands and let them get away with it?" Saving lives, saving money. It's all in the training.

Question 1. How can HR professionals overcome resistance to training?
Question 2. What method should hospitals use to evaluate IV checklist training?
Question 3. Develop a checklist that would make a process more efficient or safe for your employer or college.
Question 4. What is the best way to train an employee to use your checklist? How would you evaluate your training?

Case B

Ann Fudge has built her career by breaking through the barriers that have frustrated women and minorities in gaining access to the top levels of management. Not only did she break the "glass ceiling" to work her way to head of a division at Kraft Foods, but as a woman of color, has headed one of the nation's largest advertising and communication companies. After graduating from Simmons College with a bachelor's degree in management and earning an MBA from Harvard, Ann Fudge embarked on a career with General Foods (which later became part of Kraft Foods) as a marketing assistant. Her early career efforts were met with tremendous success. Her performance excelled, propelled by a knack for developing successful marketing campaigns. As a brand manager, she was credited with rekindling the excitement behind Kool-Aid, Log Cabin Syrup, and Stove Top Stuffing. She did this while controlling costs and increasing product quality. For her efforts, senior managers at Kraft rewarded her with a promotion to head of the Beverages, Desserts and Post division of the company. This division had annual revenues in excess of $5 billion and accounted for more than 15 percent of the entire company's revenues. After just a year into the job, Fudge stunned everyone. She announced that she was quitting. She was leaving her job-not to focus completely on raising her children or for a bigger challenge in another organization. Rather, she was quitting so she could spend time on herself. After more than twenty years of working incessantly and infrequently seeing her family, she had had enough. Fudge wanted to go cycling, enjoy her house, and sit on her front deck and read a book. She wanted to meditate, and to have a "normal" life of eating a home-cooked dinner with her husband. For two years she did just that. After her self-imposed sabbatical, she decided to return to the world of work.

In late 2003, Fudge was lured back to corporate America with an opportunity to take the helm of the advertising and communication company Young and Rubicam. A company with revenues of about 40 percent of her previous job, she was taking over an organization that was having serious problems. The past several years, under its previous leadership, the company was neglected. Executive greed was rampant. But more important, the organization was losing customers-so many that it had lost nearly two-thirds of its revenues. Fudge said she was excited by the challenge of turning around Y&R. She wanted to make a difference and build a company that worked with independent businesses in an effort to identify problems and implement workable solutions.

Fudge left Young and Rubicam in late 2006 to increase her commitment to community involvement and become more involved in the nonprofit sector. Her current involvement includes the board of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Council on Foreign
Relations.

Question 1. Describe what has happened in this case to Ann Fudge in terms of career stages.

Question 2. Do you believe that Fudge suffered a mid-life career crisis? Defend your position.

Question 3. What can organizations do to prevent talent like Ann Fudge from leaving their organizations? Explain.

Case C

Imagine you're the VP of human resources for a Fortune 100 company. You've spent your entire career attempting to enhance the workplace for employees to support their productive work in the organization. While you understand that bottom-line decisions often dominate many of the matters you have to address, you've worked hard to ensure that employees were treated with respect and dignity in all interactions that affected them. You aligned the hiring process to serve the strategic needs of the organization, as well as implemented an effective performance management system. You truly believe in the progress you've made in helping the organization achieve its goals. You simply couldn't imagine doing things differently. However, concern that the performance management process is becoming less effective because managers are inflating employee ratings has led 15 percent of all large organizations to adjust their performance management process to what is frequently called "rank and yank." Under such a system, managers are evaluated as a 1, 2, 3, or 4, with 1 being the highest rating and 4 the lowest. In many cases, managers are required to give a 4 rating to the lowest 10 percent of employees each year. Those individuals receiving a rating of 4 for two consecutive years are often let go from the organization. The intent behind this system is that throughout the two-year process, evaluators are to meet frequently with the four employees, counsel them, and provide necessary development opportunities.

Employees in organizations that employ such a performance management system often view this process as unbearable. They view the performance management process as punitive, one in which the organization is attempting to rid itself of higher-paid older workers. In at least one case, Ford Motor Company employees have filed a lawsuit to stop this practice-and prevailed. Ford removed the punitive nature of its evaluation system-and focused it more on counseling and performance improvement of the lowest rated employees rather than elimination from the organization. What long-term effect does a performance management system that focuses on rank and yank have on the organization? Only time will tell.

Question 1. What type of evaluation process would you say is being used in this case? Describe the elements to support your position.
Question 2. What effect, if any, do you believe rank and yank evaluation systems have on managers? Do you see these effects as positive or negative? Defend your position.
Question 3. What role does such a system have in distorting performance appraisals?

Case D

Imagine working in an organization where employee morale is low, turnover is high, and the costs of hiring are astronomical. If that were the case, you'd imagine such affected employers do whatever they can to find, attract, and retain quality employees. But you couple this goal with the reality of the economic picture-you simply cannot throw good money at employees who will jump ship for an extra $1,000. You recognize that statistics say that 41 percent of all employees have no loyalty to their employers and will move on if a better offer comes. What a dilemma! These issues clearly are a concern for organizations like Genentech or Zappos. But they don't fret over them. That's because they have found that treating employees with respect, and giving them such things as bonuses, rewards for longevity, on-site child care, on-site lunches, and sending employees home with prepared dinners works.

Genentech is a California company that "develops and produces drugs that cure diseases," according to the company Website. Genentech celebrated its eleventh year on Fortune's "Best Places to Work" list in 2009. The primary reasons for this recognition are the important work that they do and the strong company culture that values equality and communication, but any discussion of how great Genentech is always circles back to benefits that show a real respect for employees. In addition to traditional benefits like retirement and health care, they provide family- friendly perks such as unlimited sick leave, personal concierge service, flexible work scheduling, childcare, nursing mother's rooms, onsite nurses, adoption assistance, and company sponsored family events. The list of innovative benefits goes on to include unusual benefits like pet insurance, free snacks, and paid six week sabbaticals every six years! Zappos, the online shoe retailer, takes life a little less seriously than Genentech with perks to match their fun-loving culture like pajama parties, nap rooms, regular happy hours, and a full-time life coach. Have these benefits worked for Genentech and Zappos? If you translate longevity to morale and loyalty, you'd say they have. Both boast low turnover rates and high employee ratings for satisfaction.

Question 1. Describe the importance of employee benefits as a strategic component of fulfilling the goals of HRM at Genentech and Zappos.
Question 2. Explain how Genentech and Zappos use employee benefits as a motivating tool.
Question 3. Do you believe the incentive benefits such as those offered at Genentech and Zappos can be used in other organizations? Why or why not?

Attachment:- HRM.rar