This essay is two-fold; part one identifies the issues in the presented case study, and part two contains a summary of two documents that identify with the problems in the case study-How come they make more than me?

Part one: the Problem-How come they make more than me?

The primary issue in the case is the lack of effective communication of human resource policies. In particular, the job grading system in the organization. Generally, grade structures exist to make communication about the different job levels much easier to understand for the managers and the employees. Job grades typically identify jobs that are bigger, smaller, or equal to others.

Thus, they help delineate the various roles in the organization. The challenge is that job grades involve grade and salary differences and boundaries. Therefore, if not well managed, they can compromise the credibility of the reward system in place, undermine employee engagement, and also affect the company’s overall performance. It can also result in grade structures that do not reflect the organizational value, and leave the employees focused on only getting to the next level, just as it is in the case study-How come they make more than me?

Example: How come they make more than me?

For example, on one hand, Jane is adamant that her current roles in grade 12 are almost similar to that of grade 14, yet the position has less workload and higher pay. On the other hand, the manager is concerned that Jane does not have what it takes to get to the next level. In this context, it clear that the communication system, such as the designated roles and qualifications in each job grade, is not clearly spelled out.

The secondary issue relates to the inadequate motivation system that is in place. For example, the case highlights that the organization has a job evaluation system. However, the employee’s rewards are not delivered consistently. Fran affirms that Jane is well versed in different roles and skills, and she is more of an administrative aide than a secretary. Ironically, there is a job opening in place, and the supervisor does not advocate for Jane’s promotion. If anything, the manager is concerned that Jane is unsuitable for the post

-How come they make more than me?

Part 2: Article Summary-How come they make more than me?

Mackenzie, L., Wehner, J., & Correll, J. S. (January 11, 2019). Why most performance Evaluations Are Biased and How to Fix Them. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/01/why-most-performance-evaluations-are-biased-and-how-to-fix-them

The article by Mackenzie and colleagues argue that performance evaluations are mostly biased. This is because performance evaluations use open boxes that comprise of forms that ask the supervisor broad questions about their employees. The reviews are also open-ended because they apply to everyone in the organization. So when asked about an employee’s performance, the managers need to remember the specific expectations for individual employee performance. Being open-ended, these evaluations are naturally ambiguous and also open to bias.

To cement their argument, the author analyzed the performance evaluation of female and male employees and concluded that women tend to receive short feedback. In contrast, men received long reviews of their performance. Furthermore, the evaluations for talent review meetings varied widely in essential criteria, with the majority of the reviews critiquing women’s personality rather than performance.

Recommendation

To this end, the authors recommend the approaches that managers can use to reduce bias in filling the evaluation forms. To begin with, the authors suggest that managers can reduce the constraint of the open box questions by fixing the ambiguity in the performance. Some possible approached to doing so include the use of rubrics for evaluations.

A rubric eliminates bias by allowing the evaluator to first fill the open boxes with assessments and feedbacks, and then allowing the evaluator to make the evaluations based on the above. Secondly, prompts are also useful in eliminating biases because they prompt the manager to identify specific and measurable outcomes for each employee.

Third, a consistency check may also help identify variations in the assessment. Lastly, the managers should have routine performance evaluations during meetings. Daily feedback can help identify variances, which could lead to the development of different expertise. Overall, the article identifies biases in performance evaluation and recommends the use of other approaches to mitigate against the biases.

Article SUmmary

Rohman, J., Onyeagoro, C., Bush, M. C. (2018). How You Promote People Can Make or Break Company Culture. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/07/how-you-promote-people-can-make-or-break-company-culture

Rohman and colleagues highlight that there is a positive association between effective promotion and organizational performance, employee motivation, and attribution of integrity to the leaders. There is also an impressive payoff of the company’s financial performance, stock prices, and even turnover rates. Additionally, the company enjoys a competitive advantage and heightened productivity and growth. Despite the payoff, Rohman et al. (2018) note that companies struggle with managing promotions.

This can be explained by the nature of promotions. Promotions are highly personal and relationship-driven. It is also an important indicator of how a leader aligns his actions with the company’s values. In retrospect, the authors outline recommendations for improving the promotion process by refocusing their energy on the employees. First, managers are encouraged to clarify their aspirations by defining their long term aspirations of the team members, such that if an employee’s long term aspiration is to work in the IT dept., then the manager should advocate for the employee in this position.

Approach

Secondly, the manager should encourage and support the employees when a new job comes out. For example, borrowing from the above case, rather than have the position fixed for someone, the manager should be open to consider the team members and their long term aspirations and where applicable to encourage them to apply for the position. Equally important is the need to explain how promotion decisions were made and why some employees did not make the cut.

Most importantly, the authors highlight that promotions should not only acknowledge a select few but also recognize the contribution of the other team members. Lastly, after the announcement of the preferred candidate, the management should not stop at that, but further seek to develop those who did not make it for the position through training and development. All said, promotion is an excellent way of motivating employees. However, effective promotions are focused on the ability of the teams in the dept., and their future development and training even after the select candidate have been identified.

References

Rohman, J., Onyeagoro, C., Bush, M. C. (2018). How You Promote People Can Make or Break Company Culture. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/07/how-you-promote-people-can-make-or-break-company-culture