PHILIPPINE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

648 Taft Avenue cor. Pedro Gil Street, Malate, Manila, Metro Manila

Seniority in the Organization

A Case Analysis on
Human Resources Management

Submitted by:

Espiritu, Roxanne C.
Santos, Lou Marvin C.
Vargas, Myline P.
Group 7, MBA – COA Class

Submitted to:
Professor Gloria A. Bumanglag

Third Trimester
AY 2020-2021
I. Title

The title of the case analysis is “Seniority in the Organization”

II. Time Context

The time context for the case analysis is set in the present year for a span of six months.

III. Problem Statement

Based on the underlying facts, the existing problem is that the current HR policy on
promotion is not comprehensive enough to consider all qualified employees vying for
the same position.

This was chosen as the problem statement for the following reasons:

1. Rod Santos and Roger Santiago, the employees vying for the managerial position,
are qualified but only Rod was considered due to the seniority policy;
2. Art Real’s first consideration was Roger but that intention was watered down for the
same reason; and
3. There is passive resistance in the department, particularly Roger, on the decision of
the HR department.

IV. Viewpoint

The viewpoint of the case analysis will be towards Art Real, the newly-promoted Plant
Superintendent of sections A and B. This is because he has the recommending authority
to pick who shall be promoted and he has bargaining authority to the HR department.

V. Objectives

(Short-term)

1. To create a holistic promotion policy which fairly assesses the capability of the
qualified personnel for promotion.
2. To pacify resistance in the organization.

(Long-term)

1. To create an environment where employees with potential can fairly compete with
each.
2. To retain deserving employees in the organization.
VI. Areas of Consideration

SWOT Analysis

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
There is an existing policy of promoting While there is an existing policy, it is not
employees from within the organization holistic, hence, this disregards other
on a company-wide basis. major considerations (e.g. technical and
leadership skills) which misses employees
with potential.

Both Rod Santos and Roger Santiago Art Real’s intention to promote Roger
were from prestigious schools and both Santiago was watered down due to the
received very satisfactory ratings in their seniority rule of the organization.
posts.

Rod Santos acted what a manager should Roger’s reaction to Rod’s compliment was
be in praising his subordinates. unbecoming but is understandable.

Roger Santiago is technically proficient in Roger was not informed by Art in advance
his job. about the decision to promote Rod as the
new manager of Section B.

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Since Rod Santos is aware about Roger Roger’s dissatisfaction with the decision
Santiago’s interest in the position, the may cause him to leave the organization,
higher-ups may reconsider their case, losing them a talented employee.
since both of them are qualified for the
position.

The HR can do mediation on both parties There will be discord in the department if
to ease the issue on their policy. the issue between Rod and Roger is not
resolved. Hence, this may affect the
department’s performance.

The HR Department can reconsider their

existing policy should Art raise the merits
of considering employees with shorter
stay in their company but are also
qualified.
VII. Alternative Courses of Action

Art Real can choose any of these actions within his duties as the Plant Superintendent

Alternative Course Mediate on Rod and Reconsider Rod’s Compel the HR

of Action Roger’s Conflict Promotion Department to Revise
Policies on Promotion
Advantages This will allow Art to If the organization is This opens the
communicate to Rod solely considering possibility of
and Roger about his merit, the case considering both
decision. showed that Roger is Roger and Rod to
the more technically apply for the position,
The HR Department proficient of the two. while not disregarding
may be able to justify Rod’s seniority in the
its current policy to organization.
Roger.
Also makes the policy
more comprehensive
because this reflects
more than just the
seniority and the
performance ratings
of future applicants.

Disadvantages This perpetuates the Rod will be unjustly This may take time to
current culture of the stripped of his create and implement
organization to position, since he is in the short-run.
promote employees also qualified for the
based on seniority and job. The HR Department
performance. itself may initially
This sets a bad resist with the
Loss of talent due to precedent to an suggestion.
disgruntled employees organization that a
leaving the disgruntled Applicants may find
organization. employee can just the revised process
contest even if the daunting to follow.
Roger will likely other personnel is
remain disgruntled on doing fine in their
the decision. job.

Loss of confidence in
the organization
VIII. Recommendation

The decision matrix below shows the chosen alternative course of action for this case
analysis. Each alternative course of action was rated from 1 to 3, in which a mark of 3 is
the most favorable.

CRITERIA ACA 1 ACA 2 ACA 3

Ease of implementation 2 1 2
Time Frame 2 2 3
Cost-efficient 2 1 2
TOTAL 6 4 7

Compelling the HR Department to revise their policies on promotion is the chosen

alternative course of action for the case. This was because it solves the current problem
by making the promotion selection more comprehensive, allowing them to pick the
employee that has more holistic qualities for the position. Picking this alternative course
of action does not mean Roger will automatically be promoted, but instead, this only
gives him a chance to compete against Rod.

While opting to go for the status quo and proceeding to mediation between the affected
employees is also desirable, this does not solve the perennial issue on the seniority
policy on promotion. On the other hand, reconsidering Rod’s position as the manager
without just reasons sets a bad precedent to the company. This also breaks their current
policy which can cause employees to lose confidence with them.

The timelines for the creation and implementation of the rules on selection and
promotion is gleaned on the next table.

Processes Stakeholders Involved Timeline

1. Designation of a committee to Art Real, the HR 1 week
revise the current seniority policy Department, the
on promotion. Executives

2. Deliberation for additional tests, HR Department 1 month

interviews, etc. needed for
inclusion in the revised and more
comprehensive guidelines in
promoting employees.

3. Presentation of proposed revisions Art Real, HR 1 month

to the affected stakeholders via Department,
survey/questionnaires for feedback Superintendents of
 Processes Stakeholders Involved Timeline
and fine-tuning. Other Departments
4. Dissemination and implementation HR Department, Rod 1 month
of the revised guidelines for Santos, Roger Santiago
promotion of qualified applicants.

5. Assessment for applicants vying for HR Department, Rod 3 weeks

the same position in accordance Santos, Roger Santiago
with the revised guidelines.
6. Receipt of feedback (as to the Art Real, HR 2 months
fairness of selection, choosing the Department,
most qualified applicant, etc.), as Superintendents of
regards to the effectiveness of the Other Departments
revised guidelines.

IX. Pullback Position

Should the chosen alternative course of action fail to solve the organization’s problem at
large, Art Real should engage in mediation of the employees concerned as there may be
personal problems involved in the issue.