Your assignment: Look over the following list from the Overview page: As you recall we began the course by considering many different internal and external factors that might impact relationships at work. For example: Employer Rights Company Policy & Work RulesManagement Actions Wage and Salary PlansEmployee Privacy Employee BenefitsSupervisory Actions Work DesignEconomic Conditions Available InformationWork Assignments TechnologyEmployee/Co-worker Actions Performance ManagementLabor Unions Company PracticesLaws & Regulations HRM ProceduresWrite a 2- to 3-page paper in which you select one internal or external factor from above and analyze how it can positively or negatively impact work relationships. Be sure to bring in employer examples (stating employers by name). Also provide specific examples (for example, if you discuss “work assignments” provide actual examples of work assignments and how they could impact the workplace). Bring in 2 additional library sources (or more) to help strengthen your submission.
hrm_520_mod_1_slp.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Kevin C. Gilmore
Dr. Patricia Taylor
HRM 520, Module 1 Case
Trident University International
January 20, 2017
Good afternoon ladies and gentleman of the Masonic Light Enterprises Corporation. I’m Kevin
Gilmore and I’m the Vice President of the Human Resource department and I’m here to discuss our
current evaluation system of forced ranking. For those of you that are not aware of what it is, let me
explain to you what it consist of. It is a management tool that uses intense yearly evaluations to identify
our best and sadly worst performing employees in our organization. In theory, this ranking system is
supposed to improve the quality of our workforce. Employees are ranked into three categories: The top
20 percent are your grade “A” employees, these people are deemed to believed will lead the future of
our company. Then there’s the “B” players, the steady and reliable but not the top performers. These
employees are given smaller raises and encouraged to improve, the 70 percenters. Finally, the “C”
employees, these employees contribute the least to the success of the organization, the 10 percenters.
They’re given no raises or bonuses, and often times are asked to transfer or fired. You can pretty much
find this make up in any organization.
Why It Matters to You? This organization layout tends to be popular with large corporations that
have hundreds or thousands of employees, but we are a small corporation with less than 2,000
employees. Is forced ranking a bad thing? The long term goal should be ideally to increased
productivity, profitability, and shareholder value. But sometimes a company culture can shift due to
forced ranking, creating a more competitive atmosphere and decreasing morale, which is not a good
thing.
Besides what I’ve just mentioned there are other weak spots to this system. Companies can
inevitably make mistakes using forced ranking, by placing employees in the wrong category, dismissing
someone who might go on to be a super star in another organization or discouraging top performers by
ranking them as average simply to fill an allocation. Are there strong points to this system? Yes. By
identifying top employees, organizations can jar managers out of contentment, combat inflated
performance ratings, and reduce favoritism, nepotism, and promotions that may be based on factors
other than performance. When using this system it doesn’t promote a goodwill atmosphere. It can lead
to a cutthroat, unethical atmosphere that is not conducive to a teamwork environment. Additionally,
using this system has resulted in legal trouble for companies like Microsoft, Ford, Goodyear, 3M, and
Capital One, which have fought discrimination lawsuits filed by former employees who claimed forced
ranking was used to discriminate on the basis of race or age. Let’s face it, everyone is not fair when it
comes to dealing with people of different races and this could be a financial liability for our corporation.
This brings be to my main point. There is another system I think would better suit our organizations
need better than the current system we use.
It’s called Management by Objectives (MBO). This system is a process in which a manager and an
employee agree upon a set of specific performance goals, or objectives, and mutually develop a plan for
reaching them. MBO is principally used as a tool for strategic planning, employee motivation, and
performance improvement, it is intended to improve communication between employees and
management. This will eliminate placing employees in the bottom, middle, and top performers, thus
eliminating potentially placing someone in a category by mistake. In this system both the employee and
supervisor will know what the expectations are to be successful, and the employee will know how to
achieve a top evaluation. So, how do we implement this new system? A successful MBO program
requires each employee to produce five to ten specific, measurable goals, then these goals are proposed
to their manager in writing. Once discussed by both employee and manager the goals are approved. The
manager will ensure that these goals are consistence with the policies of the organization. The manager
will compare the employee’s performance periodically with his or her goals in order to identify any
problems and take corrective action as needed well before the employee annual evaluation. This will
give the employees time to correct any deficiencies.
I think the Management by Objectives will better sever the organization by continuing to employ top
performers. This system involves both manger and employee in establishing achievable goals that both
agree that are attainable. If the employer fails to meet the stated goals there is no one to blame but
themselves. This will potentially alleviate potential lawsuits because both parties are involved in the
decision making process. Thank you for your time, and to allow me to discuss this very important issue
with you. Are there any questions?
Reference:
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Mail-Op/Management-byObjectives.html#ixzz4WXxZgWE0 Bateman, Thomas S., and Carl P. Zeithaml. Management: Function and
Strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1990. Retrieved January 20, 2017
Dinesh, David, and Elaine Palmer. “Management by Objectives and Balanced Scorecard: Will Rome Fall
Again?” Management Decision. July-August 1998.
Pelissier, Raymond F. Planning and Goal Setting for Small Business. Washington, D.C.: Small Business
Administration, n.d.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Recent Comments