INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY- GHAZIABAD

Post-Graduate Diploma in Management – Full Time

(Batch 2021 – 23)
End Term Exam: II (Take Home Exam)
Subject: Human Resource Management (HRM)
Faculty Name: Profs Vijay Lakshmi Singh / Harminder Pal Singh /
Ritesh Kumar / M. Venkatesan / A Uday Bhaskar / Nidhi Yadav
Exam Date: 28.12.2021 Time: 2 Hours 30 Minutes
Max. Marks: 80 (40 % weightage)

Note: All questions are compulsory.

Case 1:
A few days ago, Novel Inc., headquartered in Bengaluru, faced a problem with one of its project
completion. The employees deployed onto the project were not completing their assigned tasks
on time, forcing the firm with a hefty bill for overtime pay. Trusting in the power of monetary
incentives, the firm drew a plan: pay the employees for eight hours irrespective of the duration it
actually took them to complete their tasks, calculating that this strategy would extremely
motivate the employees to complete their tasks quickly.
Questions
a) What would the employees do? (4 Marks)
b) In the above case of instituting incentive pay, what other dimensions would you
think might have made the plan comprehensive? (4 Marks)
c) ‘Incentives should be used to provide recognition but not to drive behaviour.’
Comment. (6 Marks)

Case 2:
Sue Ann Scott was a receptionist at the headquarters of a large corporation. A high school graduate,
she had no particular skills other than an ability to organize her job duties and a pleasant personality.
Unfortunately, she did not have any particular plan for career development; nevertheless, she wanted
very much to improve her economic position. Recognizing her educational limitations, she began
taking accounting courses on a random basis in an evening adult education program.
Scott also took advantage of the corporation’s job bidding system by applying for openings that were
posted, even though in many instances she did not meet the specifications listed for them. After being
rejected several times, she became discouraged. Her depressed spirits were observed by Elizabeth
Burroughs, one of the department managers in the corporation. Burroughs invited Scott to come to
her office for a talk about the problems she was having. Scott took full advantage of this opportunity
to express her frustrations and disappointments. As she unburdened herself, it became apparent both
to her and to Burroughs that during interviews she repeatedly apologized for having “only a high
school education,” an attitude that had probably made it difficult for the interviewers to select her
over other candidates who were more positive about their backgrounds and skills. Burroughs
suggested that Scott might try taking a more positive approach during her interviews. For example,
she could stress her self-improvement efforts at night school and the fact that she was a dependable
and cooperative person who was willing to work hard to succeed in the job for which she was
applying.

Following Burroughs’s advice, Scott applied for a position as invoice clerk, a job for which she felt
she was qualified. She made a very forceful and positive presentation during her interview, stressing
the favorable qualities she possessed. As a result of this approach, she got the job. While the pay for
an invoice clerk was not much more than that for a receptionist, the position did offer an avenue for
possible advancement into the accounting field, in which the accounting courses she was taking
would be of value.

Questions
a) What are some of the possible reasons Scott did not seek or receive advice from her
immediate supervisor? (6 Marks)
b) Suggest all possible ways that Scott can prepare herself for career advancement. (6 Marks)

Case 3:

Company Background
Ovania Chemical Corporation is a specialty chemicals producer of polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) thermoplastic resins primarily used to make containers for soft drinks and bottled water,
as well as packaging for food and pharmaceutical products. Though smaller than other chemical
producers that produce globally, Ovania has competed successfully in the specialty chemical
business. Its main plant is located in Steubenville, Ohio, positioned along the Ohio River
midway between Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania, and Wheeling, West Virginia. In recent years, advances in technology have altered
the nature of chemical production, and like other firms in the industry, Ovania Chemical is
taking steps to modernize its facilities. Not surprisingly, these technological changes have been
accompanied by redesign in employee jobs. In fact, over the last three years, there have been
drastic changes in both the number and the kinds of jobs being performed by employees. The
latest change at the Steubenville plant involves the job transformation of the system analyzer
position.

The System Analyzer

Because chemical production involves highly integrated process technologies, someone is
needed who can monitor all of the individual components simultaneously. The system analyzer is
primarily responsible for this monitoring function. It is one of the most prestigious non-
managerial jobs in the entire plant, and its importance is likely to grow.

Formerly, the position was classified as that of a semiskilled maintenance technician, but as the
plant has become more automated, the requirements for the system analyzer job have become
much more extensive. Knowledge of pneumatics, hydraulics, information technology,
programming, and electrical wiring are all increasingly critical aspects of this job. The three men
who currently hold the position admit that they will be incapable of performing adequately in the
future. It is estimated that within two years, the tasks, duties, and responsibilities of the system
analyzer will have changed by more than 70 percent. For these reasons, the decision was made to
recruit and select three new people for the rapidly transforming position.

Job Analysis and New Position Analysis

Ovania’s Steubenville plant manager, Jack Sarabe; the HR manager, Emily Claire; and two
senior engineers, Dave Packley and Mark Young, formed a selection committee. With the help
of two consultants, they first conducted a job analysis for the new position of system analyzer.
Although they had to project into the future regarding the specific nature of the job, they
collectively felt they had created an accurate depiction of the requirements for someone who
would occupy the position. Figure 3.1 shows a list of the major performance dimensions of the
job and a subsample of specific tasks characteristic of each dimension.

From this list of tasks, the selection committee then delineated a set of personal qualities required
for anyone who would hold the system analyzer position. These qualities included the twelve
abilities shown in Figure 3.2. The numbers beside each ability indicate the tasks (see Figure 3.1)
to which it is related. The abilities marked with an asterisk (*) were considered by the committee
to be “critical.” Any applicant not scoring well on each of the critical dimensions would be
considered unqualified for the job.

Anticipated Selection Process

The committee hoped to gain “new blood” for the redesigned system analyzer job and therefore
wanted to recruit externally for the best available talent they could find. However, as a matter of
policy, management was also deeply committed to the idea of promoting from within. After
deliberation, the committee decided to recruit both internally and externally for the new position.
It was also decided to especially encourage current system analyzers to “reapply” for the job.

Because there was a two-year lead time before the newly transformed position would be put in
place, the committee was very careful not to include in the selection battery any skills or
knowledge that could reasonably be trained within that two-year period. Only aptitude or ability
factors were incorporated into the selection process, rather than achievement tests.

The three present system analyzers were white males. However, since Ovania Chemical had a
rather unenviable history of employment discrimination charges, the decision was made to have
applicants undergo a battery of tests but not look at their previous experience. This strategy was
thought to encourage minorities and women to apply for the new position regardless of their
prior experience in the field, which in the case of these two groups of applicants might be
somewhat sparse.

It should be noted, however, that there was some concern about prejudice if a woman or minority
member were to get the job. Several people at the company had commented that a woman would
not get down into the treatment tanks to check gauge readings. All of these factors, taken
together, made for a very sensitive selection process. Ovania’s managers, however, were
dedicated to making the procedures and decisions fair and objective.

Fifty-six employees applied for the new position of system analyzer. Twenty-one were female;
fifteen were African American. Only two of the three current system analyzers reapplied for the
new position. The company decided that an overall total score of 800 on the twelve tests would
be the cutoff score in order for an applicant to be seriously considered for the system analyzer
position. This criterion resulted in the primary pool of twenty candidates shown in Figure 3.3 It
should be noted that although each of the aptitude tests has been published, standardized (100
points possible for each test), and validated for other jobs, the same is not true of the system
analyzer job because it’s a new position. Therefore, whether the tests are predictive depends
upon content validity judgments made by the managers of the company. The final cutoff scores
and methods for combining the multiple predictors are problematic for the selection committee
as well.

Questions
a) How would you go about conducting a job analysis for a job that does not yet exist? (5
Marks)
b) What reasons did the selection committee have for selecting only those factors that could
not be acquired in a two-year training program? (5 Marks)
c) Should the concern for women getting down into the dirty treatment tanks have been a
selection issue? Explain. (5 Marks)
d) Would this test battery and selection procedure be defensible in court? Explain. (5
Marks)

Fig. 3.1: Performance Dimensions (Duties and Tasks)

MAINTAINING SPARES AND SUPPLIES
1. Anticipates future need for parts and supplies and orders them.
2. Stocks parts and supplies in an orderly fashion.
3. Maintains and calibrates test equipment.
TROUBLESHOOTING
4. Applies calibration standards to verify operation by subjecting the system to known standards.
5. Decides whether the problem is in the sensor, in the processor, in the process stream, and/or in the sample system.
6. Uses troubleshooting guides in system manuals to determine the problem area.
7. Uses test equipment to diagnose the problem.
8. Makes a general visual inspection of the analyzer system as a first troubleshooting step.
9. Replaces components such as printed circuit boards and sensors to see if the problem can be alleviated.
HANDLING REVISIONS AND NEW INSTALLATIONS
10. Makes minor piping changes such as size, routing, and additional filers.
11. Makes minor electrical changes such as installing switches and wires and making terminal changes.
12. Uses common pipefitting tools.
13. Uses common electrical tools.
14. Reads installation drawings.
RECORD-KEEPING
15. Maintains system files showing historical record of work on each system.
16. Maintains loop files that show the application of the system.
17. Updates piping and instrument drawings if any changes are made.
18. Maintains Environmental Protection Agency records and logbooks.
19. Disassembles analyzers to perform repairs onsite or back in the shop.
20. Replaces damaged parts such as filters, electronic components, light source, lenses, sensors, and values.
21. Uses diagnostic equipment such as oscilloscopes, ohmmeters, and decade boxes.
22. Tests and calibrates repaired equipment to ensure that it works properly.
23. Reads and follows written procedures from manuals.
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
24. Observes indicators on systems to ensure that there is proper operation.
25. Adds reagents to systems.
26. Decides whether the lab results or the system is correct regarding results (i.e., resolves discrepancies between lab
and analyzer results).
27. Performs calibrations.

Fig. 3.2: Abilities and Tasks

Numbers represent tasks cited in Figure 3.1. Asterisks indicate abilities considered critical by the committee.
Skills Task Numbers
*Finger dexterity 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27
*Mechanical comprehension 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 7, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 11, 17
*Numerical ability 11, 3, 4, 24, 10, 21, 12, 13, 14, 27
*Spatial ability 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, 19, 20
*Visual pursuit 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27
*Detection 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 19, 20, 23, 7
Oral comprehension 1, 2, 5, 6, 26, 7, 8, 9, 19, 21, 25
Written comprehension 1, 15, 16, 17, 18
Deductive reasoning 1, 5, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 21, 20, 22, 2, 26, 27
Inductive reasoning 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 21, 20, 22, 2, 26, 27
Reading comprehension 3, 6, 14, 7, 22, 23, 21, 9, 27
Reading scales and tables 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 21, 23, 24, 27, 2, 6, 14

Fig. 3.3: Pool of Candidates

Case 4:
Jack B. Kelley, Inc. (JBK) is a trucking company—a common carrier that hauls bulk
commodities in tanker trucks for its customers around the United States and parts of Canada. It
specializes in transporting compressed gas, liquid carbon dioxide, and a variety of specialized
chemicals. It can deliver them on demand or will set up a regular distribution system for repeat
loads.

The company defines a three-part corporate vision of being “(1) A great place for our
customers”; “(2) A great place for people to work”; and having “(3) The financial strength to
accomplish 1 and 2.” Especially at a company where most employees drive trucks delivering
liquid and gas chemicals, it’s clear that safety is important not only for being “a great place” to
work but also as a basis for providing the best service to customers and maintaining financial
strength. “When drivers operate safely, they take better care of their equipment,” notes Mark
Davis, JBK’s president. And, in fact, safety records are one of the company’s basic performance
measures.
In support of these corporate objectives, safety training has an important place at JBK. It is the
responsibility of Lee Drury, safety director at JBK, who started out with JBK as a trainer and has
since put together a team of employees focused on safety. Safety training begins as soon as the
company hires new drivers. Groups of about four or five new employees meet in JBK’s
corporate training facility for six days of classroom training and hands-on practice.

The first session introduces a variety of topics including the company’s drug-use policy, the
types of commodities transported, the satellite tracking and communication system installed in
the trucks, and the company’s history and culture. On the afternoon of the first session, drivers
climb into a 15-passenger van to practice using the company’s satellite tracking system, which
records and reports safety issues such as incidents of speeding or heavy braking, as well as other
measures such as the amount of time the truck has been driving and idling. The trainers
emphasize that the electronic reporting relieves them of paperwork and helps them become safer
drivers, free to concentrate on the road.

The second day of training begins with lessons on managing driver fatigue. Then much of the
remainder of the day is devoted to hands-on training in loading and unloading cryogenic liquids
and compressed gases. This practice is repeated on each of the remaining days of training. The
goal is that by the end of the orientation training, employees will know how to load and unload
each product JBK transports for its customers.

The third day of orientation training includes a visit to corporate headquarters, where the new
drivers meet employees in the billing department who will handle their paperwork. They also
meet Davis, who stresses JBK’s commitment to safety. Davis emphasizes that JBK’s goals
include “zero accidents, zero incidents, and zero personal injuries.” During the remaining
orientation days, the lessons on handling products are extended and reinforced with further
practice. Drivers also learn how to refresh their memory on details by checking the company’s
online information system.

After the orientation period, JBK’s drivers move to their home terminals, where each one is
assigned to a driver trainer. There, training continues until the terminal manager and safety
director determine that the new driver is fully prepared to work alone safely and professionally.
Even then, a regional trainer rides along with the driver on at least one round trip to verify that
the driver is handling the job well. After orientation is behind them, drivers are fully prepared,
but training continues to be available. The company provides refresher training to its experienced
drivers, as well as the computer system where they can look up information on products they
may not handle often.

Questions
a) How is training at Jack B. Kelley related to its organizational needs? (6 Marks)
b) If you were involved in preparing JBK’s safety training program, how would you assess
employees’ readiness for training? In what ways can (or does) the company’s work
environment support the training? (8 Marks)
Case 5:
Research has shown that the performance appraisal process, particularly the inter-action between
employees and managers, is a key determinant affecting employee motivation and productivity.
Understandably, managers can view the appraisal of employee performance as a “catch-22” in
which the slightest mistake can cause employee resentment, as this case illustrates.

Marcus Singh, a naturalized U.S. citizen from India, is a research economist in the Office of
Research and Evaluation in the city of Newport, Oregon. He is forty years old and has worked
for the city of Newport for the past ten years. During that time, Singh has been perceived by his
supervisors as an above-average performer. However, due to the small size of the department and
the close working relationship between employees and management, a formal evaluation of
employees was considered unnecessary. About ten months ago, Singh was transferred from the
department’s Industrial Development unit to the newly formed Office of Research and
Evaluation. Other employees were also transferred as part of an overall reorganization.

Out of concern for equal employment opportunity, plus the realization that employee
performance should be evaluated formally and objectively, Victoria Popelmill, department
director, issued a directive to all unit heads to formally evaluate the performance of their
subordinates. Attached to her memorandum was a copy of a new performance appraisal form to
be used in conducting the evaluations. Garth Fryer, head of the Office of Research and
Evaluation, decided to allow his subordinates to have some input in the appraisal process. (In
addition to Garth Fryer, the Office of Research and Evaluation comprised Marcus Singh, five
other research economists—Jason Taft, Susan Mussman, Richard Gels, Marsha Fetzer, and Juan
Ortiz—and one administrative assistant, Connie Millar.) Fryer told each of the researchers to
complete both a self-appraisal and a peer appraisal. After reviewing these appraisals, Fryer
completed the final and official appraisal of each researcher. Before sending the forms to
Popelmill’s office, Fryer met with each researcher individually to review and explain his ratings.
Each researcher signed the appraisal and indicated agreement with the ratings.

About one week after submitting the appraisals to the director, Fryer received a memorandum
from Popelmill stating that his evaluations were unacceptable. Fryer was not the only unit head
to receive this memorandum; in fact, they all received the same note. On examination of the
completed appraisal forms from the various departments, the director had noticed that not one
employee was appraised in either the “fair” or “satisfactory” category. In fact, most employees
were rated as “outstanding” in every category. Popelmill felt that the unit heads were too lenient
and asked them to redo the evaluations in a more objective and critical manner. Furthermore,
because the department’s compensation budget for salary increases was largely based on a
distribution of employee ratings, evaluating all employees as outstanding would result in raises
that exceeded the company’s budget limits.

Garth Fryer explained the director’s request to his subordinates and asked them to redo their
appraisals with the idea of being more objective this time. To Fryer’s astonishment, the new
appraisals were not much different from the first ones. Believing he had no choice in the matter,
Fryer unilaterally formulated his own ratings and discussed them with each employee.
Marcus Singh was not pleased when he found out that his supervisor had rated him one level
lower on each category. (Compare Figures 5.1 and 5.2.) Although he signed the second appraisal
form, he indicated on the form that he did not agree with the evaluation. Jason Taft, another
researcher in the Office of Research and Evaluation, continued to receive all “outstanding”
ratings on his second evaluation.

Like Singh, Taft has a master’s degree in economics, but he has been working for the city of
Newport for less than two years and is only twenty-four years old. Taft had also worked closely
with Garth Fryer before being transferred to his new assignment ten months ago. Recently, the
mayor of the city had received a letter from the regional director of a major government agency
praising Jason Taft’s and Garth Fryer’s outstanding research. Marcus Singh’s working
relationship with Garth Fryer and Jason Taft and with others in the department has been good.
On some occasions, though, he has found himself in awkward disagreements with his coworkers
in areas
where he holds strong opinions.

After Singh and Taft had signed the appraisals, Garth Fryer forwarded them to Popelmill’s
office, where they were eventually added to the employees’ permanent files. When pay raises
were awarded in the department three weeks later, Marcus Singh did not receive a merit raise. He
was told that it was due to his less-than-outstanding appraisal. He did, however, receive the
general increase of $1,200 given to all employees regardless of their performance appraisals.
This increase matched the increase in the CPI for the Newport, Oregon, area.

Singh has refused to speak one word to Garth Fryer since they discussed the appraisal,
communicating only through Connie Millar or in writing. Singh has lost all motivation and
complains bitterly to his colleagues about his unfair ratings. While he reports to work at 8 a.m.
sharp and does not leave until 5 p.m. each day, he has been observed to spend a lot of time
reading newspapers and surfing the Internet while at work.

Questions
a) What do you see as the problems in this case? Explain. (5 Marks)
b) Could these problems have been avoided? How? (5 Marks)
c) Comment on the advantages and disadvantages of using peer evaluations in the appraisal
process. (5 Marks)
d) What can be done to resolve the problem with Marcus Singh? (5 Marks)

Fig. 5.1: Employee Appraisal Form

Fig. 5.2: Employee Appraisal Form