Case No. 1: Unexpected Promotion: April 5, 2016

CASE NO.
1: UNEXPECTED PROMOTION
MGT 133- T
GROUP NO. 1
MEMBERS: SIGNATURE
Adajar, Julia Agatha _____________________________
Barcebal, Constantine _____________________________
Bravante, Marikon _____________________________
Carodan, Letticia _____________________________
Custodio, Janin _____________________________
Estabillo, Pamela _____________________________
April 5, 2016
This study source was downloaded by 100000839733589 from CourseHero.com on 07-12-2022 17:26:37 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/14045056/case-1/
CASE ANALYSIS PROPER
I. POINT OF VIEW
It was stated in the case that Lina Espiritu knew the management will be watching out on
her on how she will handle the situation with regards to Imelda Cruz. Therefore, for this
particular case, the group took the point of view of Lina, being the supervisor, to fix the
supervisor- employee relationship with Imelda.
II. SYNOPSIS
Lina Espiritu, popular in her work place, was promoted as supervisor, surpassing the
second in line; Imelda Cruz, who was shy and reclusive. As Lina Espiritu became the line
supervisor she was able to make improvements at the working conditions of her work place,
creating a high productivity rate while Imelda was becoming more hostile and less
productive. During this time, the management strongly suggested that conducting a
performance evaluation program might be the answer to this problem. Lina then had a talk
with Imelda at her office and established that Imelda should be as productive as everyone
else. Half way through their conversation, Imelda raced her voice and accused Lina of her
wanting to find a way to terminate her.
III. AREAS OF CONSIDERATION

1. According to Lina, she wanted her relations with Imelda to get better- not worse –
after her promotion, so there might be a conflict already between Lina and Imelda
prior to Lina’s promotion. Taking also into consideration that Lina was first in line in
the office while Imelda was just second.
2. The statement “Lina called Imelda into her office and launched into a plan for Imelda
to increase her production” may imply that what Lina did to Imelda was not a
performance evaluation, as what was suggested by the management, rather it was
more of directing what Imelda’s performance should be. This made Imelda
dismissive from what Lina was saying.
3. Imelda does not want to accept criticisms since it was indicated that she was
reclusive and with a chip on her shoulder.
4. Imelda felt demotivated in her work since she was not given a chance to be
promoted even if she was second in line and she felt and saw that none of the girls in
their section likes her.
5. Lina readily concluded that she needs to evaluate Imelda’s performance even though
she did not really know the root causes of Imelda’s problem/ attitude.
6. There was no clear and just evaluation program in the company since Lina readily
jumped into evaluating Imelda even if for her she did not know much about
performance evaluation except for the few she had with her predecessor.
IV. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Prior to the promotion, Lina and Imelda already had a conflict with each other because of
competition; given that Lina is first in line while Imelda is only second. Now that Lina has
been promoted, Imelda was demotivated with her work that can be implied by the decrease
in the productivity of her performance. Also, Imelda felt that her co-workers within their
section did not seem to like her and preferred Lina over her that might gave her the feeling
of none belongingness. This worsen the interpersonal problem of Imelda that affected her
attitude towards Lina.
Imelda is the main reason why there existed a conflict between her and Lina, her former
co-worker and now supervisor. She acted out because she felt victimized by her other co-
workers and Lina by allegedly feeling like they were “ganging up” on her. She believes she
is in danger of losing a job because Lina is now her supervisor, and given the fact that Lina
is well-loved by everyone, Lina will have the power to finally cut her loose from the company.
Problem Flow Diagram
Figure 1. Problem flow diagram for the identified problem
V. PROBLEM STATEMENT
How will Lina Espiritu, as the new supervisor, handle the situation wherein Imelda is acting
out despite her efforts of making a cohesive and healthy working relationship with her?
VI. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

A. Identification of Alternatives
1. Lina, being the supervisor, should talk to Imelda in a more informal setting to know the
root cause of her problem.
PROS
 Lina will know the real cause of Imelda’s attitude and will determine the
appropriate approach to be used in addressing such.
 There will be lesser tension between Lina and Imelda by having it in an informal
setting, since they might see the conversation as more interpersonal.
 Imelda will be now more accommodating to what Lina will say since she already
has the idea of what the conversation will be about.
CONS:
 Imelda might not accept the request for the meeting.
 The insights from Imelda might be subjective and be more positively self-
reflective of her.
2. Lina will head a general assembly wherein everyone would be participating to raise
different problems, not focusing on Imelda’s problem alone, but for everyone’s
empowerment.
PROS:
 Subjectivity will be lessen since opinions will be diverse and more factors will be
considered.
 Other problems within their workplace will be raised besides Imelda’s problems.
CONS:
 It might be more demotivating for Imelda if most of the opinions will be focused
on her.
 It will be time consuming since a lot of people will be involved.
3. Raise the concern to higher management

PROS:
 There will be less bias since the higher management’s approach should be more
objective.
 There might be a higher chance that Imelda will conform since it will come from a
higher level of command.
CONS:
 The higher management might still not know the most appropriate approach to
implement since he does not have direct supervision of Imelda.
 It might appear that Lina cannot really handle the situation, thus decreasing her
reliability being the supervisor.
 Response of the higher management might not be easily given because of other
prioritized works.
B. Evaluation of Alternatives
The criteria generated includes (1) time efficiency, the length of time that the results will
be evident; (2) feasibility of implementation, if the alternative can be easily done; (3)
effectiveness, the level of how it will address the problem directly; and (4) reliability, if the
approach reflects less subjectivity/ bias.
In the areas of time efficiency and feasibility of implementation, alternative 1 appeared to

be the highest since the actions will only depend on Lina and Imelda, and so direct solution
can be given. Unlike in alternatives 2 and 3, where availability and participation of other
parties will still be needed. On the other hand, alternative 3 showed the highest
effectiveness and reliability. This is where Imelda might be most receptive of the solution to
be taken since the order will come from a higher level of command. And since the solution
will be coming from the higher management, it is expected to be more objective. Overall,
alternative 1 gathered the highest total among the three alternatives.
Table 1. Criteria Evaluation of Each Alternative
ITEM ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3
Time efficiency (15%) 15 10 8
Feasibility of 13 11 10
Implementation
(15%)
Effectiveness (40%) 32 28 35
Reliability (30%) 22 25 27
Total (100%) 82 74 80
VII. DECISION/ RECOMMENDATION
Based on the criteria generated, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each
alternatives, it appeared that Alternative 1 should be recommended to Lina Espiritu, which is
to conduct meeting with Imelda Cruz but this time to be held in an informal setting. This can
be an avenue for Imelda to disclose her problems with Lina’s supervision or anything that
causes her productivity to decrease. In this way, Lina can know the root causes of Imelda’s
interpersonal problem and in return will determine the most appropriate approach to be
done. And since it was indicated that Lina does not know much of performance evaluation, it
can also be recommended for her to first have the full knowledge about their company’s
standard evaluation program before proceeding to any action, to attain effectiveness and
objectivity of approach.
VIII. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
WHAT WHO (person WHEN WHERE (place HOW (details

responsible) (duration of of on how the
(activities)
activities) implementation) activities will
be done)
IX. CONTINGENCY PLAN
In case of failure of the recommended alternative, the 2nd best alternative will be chosen
which is to raise the concern to higher management. This can be done through a formal meeting
for the higher management to have a grasp of the situation and be able to come up with the
decision that could best handle the situation. With the higher management in charge, this
somehow eliminates the bias existing between Imelda and her co-workers, thus creating a more
reliable decision. And since the higher management has the authority, Imelda and Lina are
deemed to follow and respect the decision made by the management.
X. HR CONCEPTS APPLICABLE TO CASE

 Underutilizer Employee – Imelda Cruz has the ability to do her job given that she is
second in line after Lina in the office but she is not doing her work properly which is
maybe due to lack of motivation or she has interpersonal problems.
 Productivity measurement and evaluation system (PMES) / Supervisor
Evaluation – Lina planned to perform this evaluation for Imelda to regain her
productivity.
 Job description – Lina was promoted to line supervisor and was engaged with a
problem that could be solved by a program which she barely knew. It’s either the job
description was not clear for that position or she was not oriented on what a
supervisor’s job description is.
 Job Relationship – Lina wants her relationship with Imelda to get better and for
Imelda to like her co-workers as well.
 Team / Peer Ratings – one of our alternatives is to conduct a general assembly in
order for the employees to raise their problems with each other.
 Varying Standards – the company does not have a standard performance
evaluation program thus criteria for evaluation could be biased.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Case No. 1: Unexpected Promotion: April 5, 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case No. 1: Unexpected Promotion: April 5, 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE NO.

Barcebal, Constantine _____________________________

Bravante, Marikon _____________________________

Carodan, Letticia _____________________________

Custodio, Janin _____________________________

Estabillo, Pamela _____________________________

III. AREAS OF CONSIDERATION

IV. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Figure 1. Problem flow diagram for the identified problem

VI. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

3. Raise the concern to higher management

In the areas of time efficiency and feasibility of implementation, alternative 1 appeared to

Table 1. Criteria Evaluation of Each Alternative

ITEM ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3

Time efficiency (15%) 15 10 8

VII. DECISION/ RECOMMENDATION

WHAT WHO (person WHEN WHERE (place HOW (details

IX. CONTINGENCY PLAN

X. HR CONCEPTS APPLICABLE TO CASE

You might also like