The analysis has to be more detailed – you need to have minimum 600 words elaborating

criteria and the evidence that support the criteria leading to the decision that you have taken
in the case.

Case Analysis

Jeremy Hicks has been moonlighting while being employed at Zagante Systems (You might
want to rephrase the sentence – something on the lines of, ‘I had been aware that there was
an instance of moonlighting with Jeremy Hicks in the recent past, however considering
the…’. Despite being aware of his activities, I decided to go ahead with my decision of
promoting him to the Group Manager position, keeping in mind his brilliant performance and
contribution to the organization at large (good statement). He has (had been and has been)
consistently performed well (quantify it) and has come up with creative solutions to problems
that could have brought the team to a halt (example!).

The following are the parameters that I used (considered) while deciding on Jeremy’s
promotion:-
Jeremy’s work and deliverables at Zagante Systems have never suffered. He has shown great
potential by successfully completing the beta test schedule ahead of time.
He is a great team-player and has always kept the morale of the team high by infusing
enthusiasm amongst the team members. This enabled the team to stay prompt on all
occasions. Additionally, the company has no explicit policies regarding moonlighting. Hence,
Jeremy cannot be penalised on this basis (this statement can go against you! It means that
you discount your boss’s perspective on moonlighting. .

I have considered the (following) repercussions of allowing Jeremy to moonlight, one of

which being the whole team following his steps. I strongly recommend that a policy should
be implemented to address the same issue at an organizational level. (the placement of the
paragraph does not justify the organisation of analysis.)

Taking into consideration the above mentioned points, I saw no substantial reason to impede
Jeremy’s promotion. Mentioning the activities of Jeremy would serve no purpose to the
organisation and was frankly hidden to avoid future infractions of company resources to
engage in moonlighting (unclear meaning!).

To avoid such situations in the future, I suggest the following action plan:
-I have already addressed the issue with Jeremy where he reassured me that this instance
would not be repeated again (This does not look like an action plan!).
-A company-wide learning drive should be (‘should be’ must not be used in an action plan
scenario – it sounds more like a suggestion or advice) implemented which would educate the
employees about the repercussions of moonlighting.

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
2. 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.