Suzanne Chalmers case study
Background
The Vice President, Thomas Chan, of API was summoned to a meeting with an employee, Suzanne Chalmers. Suzanne was one of API’s top talents in the fiber optics lights and was employed with them for four years. As soon as Chan spoke with Chalmers he had a preconception that the meeting would be about Suzanne wanting to resign as he has had numerous experiences of this in the company. His perception of the situation was that people leave the company because of money, even though they tell him it is because they are looking for more of a work/ life balance. Chan knows that every organization in this industry is having a hard time keeping up with the advances in technology and the competition. Most of the employees with API, where they have a specific skill and competence, end up going to a start up company where they can have more variety in their job. Chan feels that the issue is money, employees have generous share options, and employees are financially independent and young so they have less reason to remain with API. During the meeting between Chan and Chalmers, Chalmers informed Chan that she was leaving and that she needed time off to ‘recharge her batteries.’ Chan suggested that she take a few months off and come back refreshed. He spoke with Chalmers and enquired as to why she wanted to leave: “was it the work environment?” Susan replied only that the job was really routine but the environment was a great place to work. Chan then told her that if she took some time then returned he would ensure that when she came back she receive special treatment. Chalmers thanked him but told him that was not what she wanted and that she did not want to receive special treatment. At that point, Chan brought up the issue of money and asked if that was the reason she was leaving. He knew she was paid well by industry standards but that API was not able to compete in terms of share options. This was not the issue according to Chalmers. Chan suggested
The Vice President, Thomas Chan, of API was summoned to a meeting with an employee, Suzanne Chalmers. Suzanne was one of API’s top talents in the fiber optics lights and was employed with them for four years. As soon as Chan spoke with Chalmers he had a preconception that the meeting would be about Suzanne wanting to resign as he has had numerous experiences of this in the company. His perception of the situation was that people leave the company because of money, even though they tell him it is because they are looking for more of a work/ life balance. Chan knows that every organization in this industry is having a hard time keeping up with the advances in technology and the competition. Most of the employees with API, where they have a specific skill and competence, end up going to a start up company where they can have more variety in their job. Chan feels that the issue is money, employees have generous share options, and employees are financially independent and young so they have less reason to remain with API. During the meeting between Chan and Chalmers, Chalmers informed Chan that she was leaving and that she needed time off to ‘recharge her batteries.’ Chan suggested that she take a few months off and come back refreshed. He spoke with Chalmers and enquired as to why she wanted to leave: “was it the work environment?” Susan replied only that the job was really routine but the environment was a great place to work. Chan then told her that if she took some time then returned he would ensure that when she came back she receive special treatment. Chalmers thanked him but told him that was not what she wanted and that she did not want to receive special treatment. At that point, Chan brought up the issue of money and asked if that was the reason she was leaving. He knew she was paid well by industry standards but that API was not able to compete in terms of share options. This was not the issue according to Chalmers. Chan suggested