Position Statement: I believe that the promotion of Jeremy was justified (this is not a position

statement – it’s the start of a debate!).

Problem Analysis: Despite the fact that Jeremy was moonlighting his performance was unaffected.
His contribution to the team and deliverables has (have) been on time. He was a key player of the
project, an asset to the company and a top performer. His promotion has been purely based on
merit. Since the company didn’t have any direct policies against moonlighting (this sentence is
incomplete).

Criteria 1: Performance metric was unaffected.

Evidences: Jeremy’s performance has been one of the best in the team. He has led the programming
team with utmost efficiency. Despite the fact that he was moonlighting neither me nor the team
have (has had) any grievances against him. He has delivered his work effectively, on time and had
supplied the team with creative ideas.
Criteria 2: His loyalty lies with the company.

Time and again he has proven that his loyalty lies with the company, be it delivering his task on time
despite being a father recently (means?) or being truthful when confronted about his moonlighting
incident. He explicitly mentioned that he was in need of money during the recent time and if any
such situation arises, Zagante is his utmost priority.

Criteria 3: No existing precedence (This cannot be a criteria!).

There was no existing precedence in the company that Melanie (this has to be written in first
person) could leverage to take any decision that deviates from the one that was taken. To take any
other decision she would have to set a new precedence which could have repercussion since many
people were also suspected of moonlighting, with a project launch so near this would have been a
risk too big. Even after consulting the HR, no such rule/policy was found.

Criteria 4: Fresh perspective (This cannot be a criteria!).

While moonlighting, most of the people had other jobs in smaller start-ups. They brought to the
table a plethora of new ideas which could help rejuvenate some of the old methods being carried
out in the organization. As long as the work remained unaffected in the current job and there was
increase in productivity levels, moonlighting did more good than harm. Also, the opportunity helped
him learn a software that might be helpful for company in upcoming projects (you seem to be
supporting the idea of moonlighting – you might want to state a research or any documented
evidence that moonlighting has been benifical!).

Contingency Statement:

While it is imperative that business nip bad practises in the bud stage, managers need to ensure that
there is minimum disruption and day to day workings can still carry on while corrections happen in
the background. While actions of Jeremy are not 100% justifiable considering the asset, he is to the
company and the amount of resources that company would have to invest to replace him would
have been much bigger cost. Taking into account the personal relationship at work, it's quite hard to
just replace a team member as more often than not team dynamics do have a huge intangible role to
play. On these grounds keeping in view the amount of work and reputation that Jeremy already
manages he deserved the promotion (good statement).

Conclusion: Jeremy was in every way qualified for the promotion, while he had just taken a short
project of interest on the side his priorities were with the company. Promoting him would only boost
his morale more to focus on this job at Zagante.

Therefore, it was totally justified to promote Jeremy, as he had the skills and the experience to carry
out the job. (okay)

Plan of Action: The moonlighting aspect in the job needs to decrease as the person moves up the
managerial ladder. Senior management is expected to spend more time in refining things in the
organisation rather than learning spending time in other places.
There needs to be a proper policy that needs to come into place to avoid any confusion or ambiguity
going forward. There needs to be a system in place where all the employees are required to state
about their other work-related activities. They won't be forbidden from working elsewhere but need
to report.

Lastly for Jeremy's case, Melanie needs to set up a better monitoring system for him since he is now
a part of the management and is expected to spend more time in the smooth functioning of
operations. (good – however must be put in numbers)
Have a look at the following structure:

What I have mentioned down is just an example of how you can structure your writing…

When you present an analysis, you must state the position statement:

Jemery Hicks had been promoted basis his merit and performance in the organisation. There was
definitely an instance of moonlighting that was duly addressed and relevant action was taken to
manage the same…

You must then present your points of your support to the decision:

While I agree that moonlighting can have adverse effect on the culture of our organisation, I would
like to bring to the light the work that he has done and the laurels he has achieved in the project that
has won us an extension of the contract.

As soon as I became aware of him moonlighting, I immediately addressed the issue and conducted a
root cause analysis. To which I realised….

Once cannot ignore the contribution the lead programmer of our team has done to the effect of us
winning our clients. Here are some that I’d like to highlight:

This is where you mention the criteria (These are vague examples…)

1. Performance –
a. His performance has always been up to the mark.
b. There was never a drop in his performance even when he was apparently
moonlighting.
2. Team player –
a. His team admires him for his dedication and his intelligence
b. He is one such leader and manager that can get the work done on time within
strict deadlines.
c. There haven’t been any complaints whatsoever…

And on and on you can elicit information from the case and elaborate

Contingency: While I am completely aware that such behaviour will never be tolerated in the future, I
have set the expectations straight with him. His agreement towards the expectations and his
unwavering dedication to Zagante has made me consider him for the much awaited promotion.
Conclusion: I am sure you would definitely agree that not promoting Jeremy would mean a loss to the
whole team, the project, and the company as a whole. He continued to perform exceptionally well,
before, during, and even after the promotion. The data definitely support the decision I have taken.
Besides, to think about taking a stringent action, we do not even have a written policy around
moonlighting. Hence, any such adverse action, if I had taken, would have resulted in an unfavourable
situation at Zagante and at that point in time, looking at the current market situation, I was not in the
position to consider any such course that would impact Zagante.

Action plan:
To ensure such acts do not repeat, the following is what the HR leader and I have been working on:

1. A policy to highlight and address Moonlighting issues occurring at work premises

As employees are not aware of certain benefits that the company is providing, a session on benefits
have been arranged so that awareness is spread across centres.