The Front Appliance Company is currently in the process of reviewing several job for re-evaluation. Ted Smith, the Total Rewards Manager, heads this initiative, but has been met with resistance by three other managers. These executives feel the receptionist position should be rated higher than it has already has been since the incumbent’s attitude projects positively towards the company and its customers. Ted, as the chair of Front’s job evaluation committee, professionally disagrees stating the job, not personality, should only be considered. The executives are visibly irritated, but Ted proceeds with his approach on job evaluations. As a result of these proceedings, justification will be presented proving Ted’s insistence the evaluation
…show more content…
Unfortunately for Production Manager Peter Strong and Marketing Manager Margo Arms, their personal feelings about the receptionist, Rebecca, have clouded their ability to look at the position objectively. It may be factual Rebecca is a stellar employee who exhibits a superior work ethic and amenable qualities which benefit the organization as a whole. However, Rogelberg (2007) reveals job evaluation is a “systematic, objective process of determining the worth of jobs to an organization . . . that evaluates jobs and not the people in those jobs” (p. 395). Peter and Margo’s belief that Rebecca should be in a higher-rated position is a clouded, subjective view of the receptionist position and counterintuitive to the overall goals of the job evaluation process. Instead of exclusively looking at possible job content, such as knowledge, skills, or work complexity, the two executives, however, based their premise for a higher rating on the performance of Rebecca, not job evaluation. Without a doubt, Rebecca 's work performance is outstanding and has never been questioned, but the task at hand is to determine the worth of the receptionist position, not the worth of the employee. Additionally, Peter and Margo’s mindset could establish an unsound and fiscally restrictive precedent for the company if incumbents’ performance set positional valuation at Front …show more content…
Regardless of how well the employee is performing the job, a maximum rate of pay must be reached. An obvious observation is one which indicates the more a company spends on employee wages, it reduces the amount the company retains in its coffers. Companies which value their greatest assets, its employees, should employ practices to remunerate its workers as highly as they can. However, the fiscal bottom line will prevail when it comes to how much it can pay and still remain economically solvent. In order to counterbalance for this restriction, many companies increasingly utilize other means to provide increased compensation for its employees who are at the highest ranks of their own particular pay
Unfortunately for Production Manager Peter Strong and Marketing Manager Margo Arms, their personal feelings about the receptionist, Rebecca, have clouded their ability to look at the position objectively. It may be factual Rebecca is a stellar employee who exhibits a superior work ethic and amenable qualities which benefit the organization as a whole. However, Rogelberg (2007) reveals job evaluation is a “systematic, objective process of determining the worth of jobs to an organization . . . that evaluates jobs and not the people in those jobs” (p. 395). Peter and Margo’s belief that Rebecca should be in a higher-rated position is a clouded, subjective view of the receptionist position and counterintuitive to the overall goals of the job evaluation process. Instead of exclusively looking at possible job content, such as knowledge, skills, or work complexity, the two executives, however, based their premise for a higher rating on the performance of Rebecca, not job evaluation. Without a doubt, Rebecca 's work performance is outstanding and has never been questioned, but the task at hand is to determine the worth of the receptionist position, not the worth of the employee. Additionally, Peter and Margo’s mindset could establish an unsound and fiscally restrictive precedent for the company if incumbents’ performance set positional valuation at Front …show more content…
Regardless of how well the employee is performing the job, a maximum rate of pay must be reached. An obvious observation is one which indicates the more a company spends on employee wages, it reduces the amount the company retains in its coffers. Companies which value their greatest assets, its employees, should employ practices to remunerate its workers as highly as they can. However, the fiscal bottom line will prevail when it comes to how much it can pay and still remain economically solvent. In order to counterbalance for this restriction, many companies increasingly utilize other means to provide increased compensation for its employees who are at the highest ranks of their own particular pay