MGT 350_OL1 Human Resource Management Spring 2020, Case Study 2
Please read the Case study in the textbook titled ‘The Hotel Paris’ New Ethics, Justice and Fair Treatment Process’ (p.451). Then, respond to the questions below. (You do not need to answer questions 14-31, 14-32 or 14-33 in the textbook.) A fully-developed response of approximately 250 words is expected for each question. Paragraph breaks are highly recommended. As before, a reasonable amount of bold and italics is suggested to make your responses more readable and impactful. Please keep special formatting to 10-20% of total words.
Limited use of bullet points is suggested for one question of your choice. You should upload your file via Canvas -> Assignments -> Case Submission -> Case 2 Submission
* Due Sunday, April 12, 2020 by end of day (Central time), submitted via Canvas
Question 1: Results of surveys “indicate a significant upward movement in the employees’ perception of ‘consistent and equitable treatment of all employees’” at the Hotel Paris. In your own words, please give a comprehensive summary of their new process. (If you use more than 2-3 words in-a-row from the case, be sure to use quotation marks in order to avoid any potential plagiarism issues.)
Then, provide an explanation of why you think these positive results occurred at Hotel Paris. [20 points]
Question 2: Taking this one step further, please consider whether your current (or previous) place of employment offers “consistent and equitable treatment of all employees.” If not, please explain why you feel this way. Be sure to apply the terminology and concepts presented in our textbook: procedural justice and distributive justice as part of your response.
If you believe that your current (or previous) company/organization is always fair, then please support your answer by giving a detailed answer with several specific and relevant examples. Please do your best to make your response informative, interesting and comprehensive. ALL RESPONSES WILL BE KEPT PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. [40 points] Question 3: Please read the following hypothetical scenario related to performance evaluations and answer the following questions.
“John,” said supervisor Stacy Krause, “could you stop by my office about 15 minutes before you clock out? I want to give you your annual performance appraisal. It won’t take long, and I know you’ll want to leave by five o’clock, since it’s Friday.”
John had forgotten that it was “that time of year” again, but he was looking forward to the meeting because he wanted to discuss some possible new performance standards for his job. Nevertheless, John was slightly worried about the appraisal because he didn’t think his performance had been up to par over the past year.
Promptly at 4:45, John knocked on Ms. Krause’s office door and was asked to come in. As he entered, John found his supervisor rushing to get some last-minute orders prepared in order to be filled by the late shift. As John sat down, Stacy began, “I’ve filled out your performance appraisal, so why don’t you look it over and sign it. You’ll see that I’ve given you excellent ratings on all the factors. I was really impressed with how everyone pitched in to get the Seattle order out this month, so everyone in the crew got ‘excellent’ ratings this year. I’m sure that you all realize how important this account is to the company. Well, I don’t have anything else to add; just keep up the good work, and I’ll try to get you a good raise.”
John looked the appraisal over and signed it. He could tell that Stacy was really busy, so he thought he had better leave. Besides, he didn’t want to ruin his chances for a salary increase. However, as John left Stacy’s office and went to clock out, he felt disappointed with his annual performance appraisal.