Reference no: EM131716608

Materials

Job descriptions are a critical tool used for job orientation and training and, importantly, in annual employee performance evaluations. When the duties and responsibilities listed in the job description do not reflect current job content, employee/management disagreements can arise, as this case illustrates.

Both employees and managers agree that Brenda Batten has been an exceptional employee. As a senior technical representative (STR) for Blackhawk Aironics, she is valued for her knowledge in airplane instrumentation. One manager described her as “simply an expert in the complex technology of satellite weather systems.”

Recently, Blackhawk Aironics implemented a new work reorganization plan. STRs such as Brenda now work largely by telecommuting with managers and engineers at company headquarters and with customers scattered throughout North America. Additionally, under the new work plan, STRs were given more freedom to deal directly with customers and engineers without supervisory intervention. This greatly facilitated customer service needs and demands in an aviation market everyone considers highly dynamic.

Brenda’s current job description reflects the technical dimensions of her position but not the telecommuting requirements now performed. Personal competencies such as decision making, self-motivation, problem solving, and communication skills are not covered.

Brenda met with her manager, Martin Eaton, for her annual performance review. Unfortunately, unlike past meetings, which were highly satisfactory, this meeting quickly developed into a disagreement. At the center of the controversy were the factors to be used to measure Brenda’s new job demands. Martin wanted to put major emphasis on the tasks and duties listed in her current job description. As he explained to Brenda, “I hardly see you anymore, and I have no objective criteria or performance data by which to measure those behaviors you now use.” Brenda, in response, acknowledged that some things in the current job description were still important aspects of her job, but overall the description did not capture the full scope of her new duties and responsibilities. Brenda concluded that she was satisfied with Martin’s evaluation of the technical aspects of her job, but that she was not pleased with the overall evaluation of her performance. As she told Martin, “It’s simply not fair; you just don’t know what I do now.”

Questions

1. Given the facts of this case, is it possible for Brenda and Martin to reach a satisfactory result? Explain.

2. How could an organization go about identifying and measuring the personal competencies of employees?

3. How might the company prevent this problem from recurring? Explain