Case 8: The Controversial Job (chapter 11)
1. Do you feel that David was justified in insisting that the job, not the person, be evaluated? Discuss. In my opinion, David is acting professional and justified to insist that the job should be evaluated and not the person. The purpose of the committee was to review certain jobs and not an individual employee. The committee need to keep personalities out of the evaluation process. It is a formal method to estimate the payment rates of a company because this will quantify the value of a given position based on its efficiency and potential it can provide for the company. A job has to cover the company’s missions, philosophy, policies and targets; and that’s why it has to be evaluated and capable to be updated to make sure it includes these elements. Evaluating jobs also gives executives the opportunity to recognize who are the overachievers and slackers.
2. Do you believe that there is a maximum rate of pay for every job in the organization, regardless of how well the job is being performed? Justify your position. Yes, I do believe that there is a maximum rate of pay for every job in the organization. A job should have its maximum pay rate depending on many factors. In most cases jobs that do not require high level of education are the jobs that do not lead to a live long career. In this case, there is a limit of value that a receptionist like Beth Smithers could bring to the company. It wouldn’t make much financial sense to pay a receptionist equal to an operations manager. Even in this example where the receptionist has elevated value due to her interpersonal skills, ultimately she does not provide attainable financial betterment to the company outside of her job description. Therefore, the employee should be paid based on their quantified value as an asset to the company; and a job should have a maximum rate of pay.
3. Assume that Beth is earning the maximum of the range for her pay grade. In what...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document