You are the Total Rewards Manager for Front Appliance Company. You are usually a pretty relaxed, friendly, and easy-going manager. Although you are a no-nonsense, competent executive, you are one of the most popular managers in the company. This particular morning, however, you feel a challenge ahead.
As chair of Front’s job evaluation committee, you called a late-morning meeting at which several jobs were to be considered for re-evaluation. The jobs had already been rated and assigned to Pay Grade 4. But the Office Manager, Ortho Janson, was upset that one of his employees was not rated higher. To press the issue, Ortho had taken his case to two executives who were members of the job evaluation committee. The two executives (Production Manager Peter Strong and Marketing Manager Margo Arms) then requested that the job ratings be reviewed. Peter and Margo supported Ortho’s side of the dispute, and you are not looking forward to the confrontation that is almost certain to occur.
The controversial job is that of receptionist. Only one receptionist position exists at Front Appliances, and Rebecca Reichart held it. Rebecca has been with the firm 14 years, longer than any of the committee members. She is extremely efficient, and virtually all the executives in the company, including the president, have noticed and commented on her outstanding work. Peter and Margo are particularly pleased with Rebecca because of the cordial manner in which she greets and accommodates Front’s customers and vendors, who frequently visit the plant. They feel that Rebecca projects a positive image of the company.
But before you can finish, Peter interrupts: “I suggest we start with Rebecca.” Margo nods in agreement. When you regain your composure, you quietly but firmly assert:
(Fill in what you would say.)
Then you proceed to pass out copies of the receptionist job description to Peter and Margo, who are visibly irritated.
evaluated using the criteria as stated in the Case rubric. The following is a review of the rubric criteria:
• Assignment-Driven: Does the submission fully address all aspects of the assignment? Is the assignment addressed accurately and precisely using sound logic? Does it meet minimum length requirements?
• Critical Thinking: Does the submission demonstrate graduate-level analysis, in which information derived from multiple sources, expert opinions, and assumptions has been critically evaluated and synthesized in the formulation of a logical set of conclusions? Does it address the topic with sufficient depth of discussion and analysis?
• Business Writing: Is the submission logical, well organized and well written? Are the grammar, spelling, and vocabulary appropriate for graduate-level work? Are section headings included, if submission is in written form? Are paraphrasing and synthesis of concepts the primary means of responding, or is justification/support instead conveyed through excessive use of direct quotations?
• Effective Use of Information: Does the submission demonstrate that the student has read, understood, and can apply the background materials for the module? If required, has the student demonstrated effective research, as evidenced by student’s use of relevant and quality (library) sources? Do additional sources used provide strong support for conclusions drawn, and do they help in shaping the overall submission?
• Citing Sources: Does the student demonstrate understanding of APA Style of referencing, by inclusion of proper citations (for paraphrased text and direct quotations) as appropriate? Have sources (e.g., references used from the Background page, the assignment readings, and outside research) been included, and are these properly cited? Have all sources cited in the submission been included on the References page?
• Timeliness: Has the assignment been submitted to TLC (Trident’s learning management system) on or before the module’s due date?
Full Answer Section
(I pass out copies of the receptionist job description to Peter and Margo, who are visibly irritated.)
(Continuing the meeting, in a conversational tone, as if Rebecca were present):
"Now, let's turn our attention to the receptionist position. As you can see from the job description, the core responsibilities include greeting visitors, managing the switchboard, handling mail, and performing basic clerical tasks. These responsibilities were the basis for assigning this role to Pay Grade 4. Our task today is to objectively assess whether this job description accurately reflects the position's requirements and if the corresponding pay grade aligns with its value to the organization. We need to look at the job itself, not the individual performing it. This ensures fairness and consistency across all roles within Front Appliance Company."
(Addressing the group, including Rebecca):
"Rebecca, I want to acknowledge your outstanding contributions to Front Appliances. Your dedication and positive interactions with our customers and vendors have been noticed and appreciated by everyone, including myself. However, it's essential to understand that job evaluation and performance reviews are distinct processes. Job evaluation focuses on the inherent value of the position within the organization, while performance reviews assess the individual's contributions within that role. This separation is crucial for maintaining objectivity and ensuring equitable compensation practices. We are here to assess the requirements and responsibilities of the receptionist role, irrespective of who occupies it."
(Addressing the question about maximum pay rates):
"In my view, establishing maximum pay ranges for each job is a necessary component of a structured and equitable compensation system. While exceptional performance deserves recognition and reward, exceeding the established pay range for a specific role can create internal inconsistencies and potentially undervalue other positions. Imagine if we made exceptions for some and not others. It would be difficult to maintain equity. It's important to have a system that is both fair and sustainable for the long-term. Instead of exceeding the range, we should acknowledge and reward outstanding performance through other mechanisms, such as bonuses, promotions, or expanded responsibilities. This allows us to recognize and appreciate exceptional contributions without compromising the integrity of the overall compensation structure."
(Addressing the question about salary increases for employees at the top of their pay range):
"Reaching the top of the pay range doesn't signify the end of growth opportunities. There are several ways an employee at the top of their range can achieve salary increases and continue professional development. Rebecca, given your long tenure and exceptional performance, several of these options could be particularly relevant to your situation:
- Job Enrichment/Expansion: We can explore expanding the receptionist role to incorporate additional responsibilities that align with your skills and contribute greater value to the company. Perhaps you could take on some administrative tasks, mentor new employees, manage specific projects, or handle more complex customer service inquiries. This would justify a re-evaluation of the job description and potentially a higher pay grade.
- Promotion: Your experience and proven abilities position you well for advancement within Front Appliances. Actively seeking and applying for higher-level positions is a great way to increase your earning potential.
- Performance-Based Bonuses: A well-structured bonus system can reward outstanding performance, regardless of where an employee sits within their pay range. This allows us to recognize and incentivize exceptional contributions without disrupting the established pay structure.
- Professional Development Opportunities: Investing in your professional development through training programs, workshops, or certifications can enhance your skills and make you even more valuable to the company. This could open doors to new opportunities and career advancement.
These are just a few possibilities. The key is to focus on recognizing and rewarding exceptional performance in ways that are both fair and consistent with company policy. We want to ensure that valued employees like Rebecca, who consistently exceed expectations, feel appreciated and have opportunities for continued growth and financial reward."
Sample Answer
"Good morning, everyone. Thanks for making time for this meeting. As you know, we're here to review several job evaluations, and I appreciate your input. Before we dive in, I want to briefly reiterate the purpose of our committee. We're here to ensure fair and consistent job evaluations across the company, based on the responsibilities and requirements of the position itself, not the individual holding it."
(Peter interrupts: “I suggest we start with Rebecca.” Margo nods.)
"I understand your desire to discuss Rebecca's situation, and we will. However, I want to follow our established process. We evaluate the job first, and then consider the individual's performance separately. This ensures objectivity and avoids potential biases. Let's stick to the agenda and discuss the jobs in the order they were initially presented. We’ll get to the receptionist position, I promise."