Case #2 Analysis:

Lorie Ann Cervo

BSBAMM-4B

The Unexpected Promotion

I. Time Context: September 13, 2010

II. Viewpoint: Human Resource Manager

III. Statement of the Problem: How can the Human Resource

Manager mediate with the conflicts between Lina Espiritu and Imelda
Cruz?

IV. Objectives: Short Range Objective: to resolve

the issues between the line supervisor, Lina Espiritu and her
predecessor, Imelda Cruz.

Long Range Objective: to prevent

future conflicts when it comes to performance evaluation and to
improve the current performance evaluation system and criteria.

V. Areas of Consideration:

Strengths:Career Advancements- the management cares for

the welfare of it’s employees that they take note of exemplary
performance thus giving employees more inspiration to strive hard
with their works.
Increase in the employee’s level of productivity
because of the new improvements that the new line supervisor is
implementing and so do the management is giving attention with
every staff’s performance because of the recent promotion of the new
line supervisor.

Weaknesses: Length of Service in the company was not

noted in the company’s performance evaluation criteria. It didn’t give
much weight on the evaluation.
 Hampered Production – due to the conflict between
the line supervisor and it’s staff/ predecessor, there might some
delays, or hampering that may take place in the production/ operation
of Lina’s department.

Opportunities: Promotion may imply a fact that the

company really cares for the employee thus following what do the
Labor code states. Art. 3. Declaration of basic policy. The State
shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal
work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the
relations between workers and employers. The State shall assure the
rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of
tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.

Threat: An aging employee may imply a smaller and

less-willing work productivity.

VI: Alternative Courses of Action:

ACA1: HR Manager may simply put the decisions on

his department with regards to the conflict between Lina and Imelda.

Advantage: Fair judgment

Disadvantage: It will only show that Lina doesn’t have any
capabilities in handling her staff.

ACA2: Lina should personally talk with Imelda,

have a closed door meeting with her regarding her concerns with Lina
and with the Management as well.

Advantage: Imelda could voice out everything with

her Line supervisor regarding her work concerns.
Disadvantage: Lina doesn’t have much competence
handling such task because she herself doesn’t have much background
with performance evaluation.

ACA3: HR Manager should redesign a

performance evaluation criteria or system that would cover all the
necessary things like the performance itself of the employees,
attendance, productivity, relation with other workers, staff and with the
superiors, stay in the company and so on.
 Advantage: a more detailed performance evaluation
system could prove that the company is fair when it comes to
promotions.
Disadvantage: another cost with the company since
improvement of the old system would require a meeting between the
department heads and other officers concerned.

VII: Recommendation:

I recommend ACA3.

VIII: Conclusion:

Human Resource Manager together with other Line managers

and the Board of Director that concerns with the HR should gather for
once to discuss the proposed solution. A detailed performance
evaluation system or criteria should be developed on the merit of
preventing an unfair or biased judgment when it comes to promotion.
Whereas, after an employee has gone through with the
performance evaluation, I am proposing to have it discussed with
every employees for them to know their areas of improvement and
some matters that the company would like to relay with the
employees.

IX: Management Lessons Learned:

The Theory of Contingency asserts that when managers make

a decision, they must take into account all aspects of the current
situation and act on those aspects that are key to the situation at
hand. Basically, it’s the approach that “it depends.” For example, the
continuing effort to identify the best leadership or management style
might now conclude that the best style depends on the situation. If one
is leading troops in the Persian Gulf, an autocratic style is probably
best (of course, many might argue here, too). If one is leading a
hospital or university, a more participative and facilitative leadership
style is probably best.