Peter Quinones HRM Incident 2 The Controversial Job 1.

David is more than justified to insist that the job be evaluated and not the person. I believe this is the proper method to evaluate the payment rates of a given company because this will quantify the value of that given position based on its usefulness and potential it can provide for the company. To use the example provided, a receptionists pay should never equate to that of an employee, which provides throughput for company. It should be noted that this case is slightly different due to the experience and abilities of the employee in question. Although this may sound contradictory, the point I am trying to make is that the job position should be evaluated for its potential value to the company. Since Davids job is to evaluate the positions and not the people, he should do just that. It makes sense to understand that a receptionist can only bring so much value to a company and its Davids job to properly asses and quantify this. His job, at least to my understanding, is not to evaluate the employee and how well they do their job. Being that her job is currently just to be a receptionist, she should be paid accordingly for her job completion. Now, should they want to increase her job description to include customer relations being that the employee has a profound ability to ascertain this task, undoubtedly, management should quantify her value in this added job task and pay the employee accordingly. (The person should be evaluated in this case) Yes. As mentioned in the previous response, there is only so much value a receptionist could bring to a given company. For example, it wouldnt make much financial sense to pay a receptionist equivalent to an operations manager. Even in this example where the receptionist has elevated value due to her interpersonal skills, ultimately she does not provide attainable financial betterment to the company outside of her job description. Therefore, the employee should be paid based on their quantified value as an asset to the company. There is very little she can do without changing positions. Nonetheless, she can still look to her managers for extra compensation for revenue derived from her presence. It is fairly common for a company to provide extra compensation to an employee that has increased throughput for the company. For instance, she could talk with David beforehand and discuss compensation for value or income she directly creates through her efforts. (i.e. taking on heavier workload, adding a new task to the job, bringing new customers to the company)

2.

3.

A Benefits Package Designed for Whom? 1. Well its not very practical to assume that all of them will not appeal to Robert. Who doesnt enjoy health benefits, paid holidays, and discounted lunch? I think the question should be, Which aspects of Becos benefits program are MOST likely to appeal to Robert? With the response to this revised question, we are not being asked which aspects appeal to Robert; the question here is now which aspects are MOST appealing, with the understanding that all aspects of the program will appeal to Robert, just at different weights. As I mentioned previously, I believe every benefit is weighed by the employee, none are deemed unappealing. Therefore, we should try and hypothesize which will be MOST appealing to Robert. Given his age, academic achievements (emphasizing his desire for greatness through hard work), and social involvement (Chairman of his fraternity), Robert would be especially interested in the health benefits provided by the company (being that he is young and its safe to assume he has no insurance nor the money for it), the company lunchroom 70% discount (will also be appealing to his assumed financial situation), 12 paid holidays (he has a heavy social background through the fraternity therefore time to exercise and maintain social relationships would certainly be appealing), and of course the encouragement and payment for advanced education. (If additional schooling is still an option for him this would definitely be the most appealing. If it was not an option, it is now.) 2. Well first we must describe and elaborate on what exactly is Todays working environment. I would describe todays working environment as money oriented, labor oriented, and facilitating a Survivalist mentality. So to appeal to Robert, benefits such as these will be also appealing: compensation for partial automobile payment (money oriented), compensation for fuel used to drive to work and its related tasks (money oriented), motivating payment schemes to encourage output and opportunity for employee to gain financial rewards (labor oriented), promotion availability after time spent with company (labor oriented), and a benefit to ensure or increase job security (Survivalist aspect of environment).