Colin Powell School The City College for Civic and Global Leadership of New York MASTER IN...
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Question:
Transcribed Image Text:
Colin Powell School The City College for Civic and Global Leadership of New York MASTER IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PSM 1810, Strategic Human Resource Management Case Study -Division of Water Resources Mini #6 - due April 26, 2023 - by midnight Required (along with all course content to date!): 1. CASE STUDY: Change at The Division of Water Resources Submit a 1-page (max!!) document addressing the below. NOTE: This is NOT an essay, but a tool to present information in the clearest possible manner. The reader should be able to find any of the questions instantly (therefore, I strongly recommend using the headers/titles provided below). Your responses must get to the point quickly, yet reflects the reality of the case: 1. Managerial Challenge: In one sentence, what is THE managerial challenge that Dickson is facing in this case? 2. Recommended Approach: In a few sentences, and in preparation for Krabel's meeting, outline the criteria you believe Dickson should adopt when deciding on nominees. 3. Recommended Nominees: Create a chart that shows - in priority order and based on #2 (above) - the 4 individuals YOU recommend that Dickson nominate for a merit increase. For each nominee you recommend, provide a “to the point” rationale for the nomination. 4. Relevant Course Topic: Thinking about the topics/content covered in this course to date, what single topic do you think is MOST applicable to this case. Name that topic - in no more than 4 words. The Electronic Hallway Ⓡ Case Teaching Resources FROM THE EVANS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Box 353060 University of Washington Seattle WA 98195-3060 THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES (A) www.hallway.org Ten months ago Roberta Dickson had taken over the Water Planning Division of the County of Santa Clara Rose, California. Her mandate was to better the use, quality, and encourage preservation of water resources in this fast-growing county. The Water Planning Division was one of five divisions in the county's Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Dickson judged most people in the division to be competent professionals. They were a close knit group with a lot of personal loyalty to each other, but not to the work facing the division. Part of her charge when hired was to try to raise the level of productivity and activity in the group. Previous management had been faulted for passivity and inconsistency in managing the division. It was time to determine annual merit raises under the county's personnel system. In two weeks Dickson was to attend a meeting of all division heads in the department at which decisions regarding the distribution of merit raises would be made. Her boss, Jim Krabel, the department director, would chair the meeting. A few days ago Krabel had explained to Dickson how the merit system worked. "It's very simple and has worked very well for us over the years. Here's how we do it: Rate your people according to the county's forms (see Attachment 1) and use that to identify your top people. Bring up to four names of individuals you think deserve a merit out three people in each division will recei a merit increase." Others would receive whatever cost-of-living adjustment was approved by the county supervisors. increase. Dickson had developed a management philosophy over the years that included a commitment to give employees honest and timely feedback about their job performance. In keeping with this approach, she had conducted mid-year feedback sessions with each of the twenty-one employees in her division. These discussions were more or less like performance reviews, but there was a lot of give and take and money was not an issue. She purposely held those meetings outside of the normal appraisal/merit pay cycle. With a few exceptions, the sessions had gone very well and the staff responded positively both in their subsequent work performance and by their favorable comments to co-workers and to Dickson regarding the sessions. Each person left the meetings with a clear idea of aspects of their work on which to concentrate on sustaining or improving. Dickson was This case study was made possible through the generous contributions of the Pew Charitable Trusts as part of their support for this national curriculum development project. The case was prepared by Jon Brock, Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington. The Electronic Hallway is administered by the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. This material may not be altered or copied without written permission from The Electronic Hallway. For permission, email hallhelp@u.washington.edu, or phone (206) 616-8777. Electronic Hallway members are granted copy permission for educational purposes per the Member's Agreement (www.hallway.org). Copyright 2001 The Electronic Hallway The Division of Water Resources (A) committed to help them as needed. A typical comment was, "No one's ever taken that sort of interest in my work." Most employees noted that their appraisals in past years consisted of the division head's secretary bringing them a completed appraisal form and asking them to sign it right away since it was "due this afternoon in the personnel office." A few days later merit raises would be announced. Rob Segal, a long time employee respected for his perspective and wry observations, said "people are always depressed around here in the three months after merit raises are announced." Most employees had no idea how the distribution of merit increases was determined. Dickson had been unable to discern how the process worked until she pinned her boss Krabel down. Now she knew and had read through the forms and regulations. She set about determining (1) how to carry out the process of rating people according to the regulations of the system; (2) how to prepare for Krabel's merit raise meeting; and (3) how to continue providing useful feedback to the staff as she had last spring. How would she decide which four people to bring forward? Her greatest concerns were to avoid the post-merit-award "depression" that Rob Segal referred to, continue to have productive discussions with employees about their work, and to have the merit raises send a useful signal to her staff. What steps could she take under the county's system to meet these goals? With twenty-one people, only three merit raises to give out, and four nominees, it would be difficult to both choose and explain the decision. She began to think about who might be in the running. The following ten people were left after her "first cut." Robert Dorr: With the division for nine years as Hydrologist III; no merit raises in five years. Salary $45,522. He served largely as a liaison with the water districts in the large cities, a complex and thankless task. His view of the process: "The high paid people have been passed over for years on this merit raise stuff." Jim Wallace: With the division six years, other jobs previously in the county; a Hydrologist III. Salary $39,620. Generally glum lately, since he recently came in second for a promotion to a division director slot in another division. He is well regarded around the division, but taking the recent passover hard and letting it affect his work. Dave Davis: Water Engineering Specialist, with the division for nine years. Lack of formal training in water engineering keeps him out of the higher prestige hydrologist job categories. Extremely conscientious, excellent institutional memory, good attention to detail. He had and made good use of the relationships he'd built up all around county government in the interest of the division. Salary $27,555. At the top of the specialist 2 The Division of Water Resources (A) salary range and apparently blocked from the higher-leading Hydrologist job series, he has received merit raises for the last three years. Linda Weinberg: As a half-time employee, a year ago a successful grievance gave her an upgrade to a Hydrologist II ($31,614) after four years as Hydro I. She was an outspoken critic of the personnel system, citing what she saw as its discrimination against professional part-time employees, most of whom were women. Although she could be creative and insightful, she had been worn down by the fight for a promotion, and her anger and low morale had been affecting others in the division for years prior to and since the resolution of the grievance. In talking about merit raises, Linda thought that "fairness" should be an important criterion for the merit raise decision. Barney Vance: New to the division as a transfer 6 months ago when RIF'd from another division. Lowest paid professional employee at $28,418, bottom step Hydro I. Considered by his peers to "really have gotten screwed" prior to Dickson's arrival by being assigned lead for a very politically touchy and technically complicated project with high stress, loneliness, and a lot of flak. Although he worked diligently during his seven hours, he consistently refused to coordinate with co-workers or with the county engineering department, often resulting in confusion and a lot of rewriting of policies. His salary concerned him since he and his wife had three small daughters to raise. Eric Hansen: Had been living year-to-year for five years in the division, with a job funded by annually expiring grant money. His wife was employed with a local firm as a secretary, but was considering taking some time to have a family. Because he was not a "regular" employee, he was ineligible for the fringe benefits that most of the other employees enjoyed, but was eligible under the system for a merit raise. Eric frequently handled sensitive matters related to the volatile county board of supervisors and their staff and was consistent in his "can-do" attitude and willingness to spend long hours solving problems. He was generally well regarded for his judgment on intertwined political and technical issues. His county-wide and interdepartmental approach to his assignment was a skill that would be a useful characteristic to develop in other staff, many of whom viewed issues in strictly technical terms. Most perceived that good work "came naturally" to him. He ranked eleventh in salary at $30,919, a Hydrologist II. Bill Jordan: The "old-timer" of the group, Bill made $45,817 as a Hydrologist III. His work showed inattention to detail, little interest in parallel issues, and laziness with respect to deadlines, procedures, and inter-agency relations. Despite his disinterest, with two children in college and three others growing up, Bill wasn't about to seek a new job. On the other hand, Bill felt that: "Personality clashes have kept me from getting top-notch assignments, but I do the best I can with what I've got. Yet it seems that merit raises always go to Krabel's pets. If there was something in it, maybe some of the rest of us could get motivated." 3 The Division of Water Resources (A) Jeff Rider: A transfer from the Resource Division one and a half years ago, Jeff had not been eligible for a merit raise the last two years, as his tenure in each position was too short. His current Hydro I salary was $29,430. Jeff worked quietly without a lot of fresh ideas or political sensitivity, but with a great attention to accuracy and a real willingness to learn. Recently Jeff had taken to staying after hours to talk with Dickson about the division's mission and her ideas on working more closely with other divisions in order to avoid duplication of efforts and encourage more coherent policy. Those conversa ions seemed to often translate into results. Leslie Malina: Self-effacing and with low self-esteem, worked harder for longer hours than anyone--and with good results for water quality. She had been promoted to a Hydrologist II ($31,614) during the past year on the coattails of Linda Weinberg's grievance. Leslie had taken on larger and larger responsibilities at a dizzying rate over the past year and was generally respected by all those within and outside the division with whom she had contact. But Leslie had little idea of her value to the division. George O'Conner: An independent, reliable, top-notch technician, paid $42,019 as a Hydrologist III. The last merit raise he received was four years ago, a year after being hired into the division. Bored with his work after years of poor supervision and not feeling appreciated, George had been discreetly job-hunting for about a year. Dickson had talked with him about task reassignments to bring him new challenges, and he had shown interest in that. She hoped he wouldn't quit before a challenging reassignment could be found. 4 The Division of Water Resources (A) Date Employee Name Employee SSN Rater's Name A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q CRITERIA TOTAL Attachment 1 SANTA CLARA ROSE COUNTY PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL WEIGHT COMMENTS OF RATER: COMMENTS OF EMPLOYEE: Rater's Signature DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR NEXT 12 MONTHS ANCHOR Date ACCOMPLISHMENT OF JOB WORK RELATIONSHIPS WITH CO-WORKERS DEPENDABILITY AND RELIABILITY GATHERS AND USES INFORMATION PUNCTUALITY JOB KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WORK RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS, CLIENTS, AND THE PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATION IMAGINATION AND INITIATIVE Employee's Job Category Rater's Dept. RATER COMMENTS MEETS DEADLINES MAKES DECISIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE POSITION COST CONSCIOUSNESS QUANTITY OF WORK WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS SAFETY SUPERVISION OVERALL SCORE 5 Reviewer's Signature Employee's Signature Date Date Colin Powell School The City College for Civic and Global Leadership of New York MASTER IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PSM 1810, Strategic Human Resource Management Case Study -Division of Water Resources Mini #6 - due April 26, 2023 - by midnight Required (along with all course content to date!): 1. CASE STUDY: Change at The Division of Water Resources Submit a 1-page (max!!) document addressing the below. NOTE: This is NOT an essay, but a tool to present information in the clearest possible manner. The reader should be able to find any of the questions instantly (therefore, I strongly recommend using the headers/titles provided below). Your responses must get to the point quickly, yet reflects the reality of the case: 1. Managerial Challenge: In one sentence, what is THE managerial challenge that Dickson is facing in this case? 2. Recommended Approach: In a few sentences, and in preparation for Krabel's meeting, outline the criteria you believe Dickson should adopt when deciding on nominees. 3. Recommended Nominees: Create a chart that shows - in priority order and based on #2 (above) - the 4 individuals YOU recommend that Dickson nominate for a merit increase. For each nominee you recommend, provide a “to the point” rationale for the nomination. 4. Relevant Course Topic: Thinking about the topics/content covered in this course to date, what single topic do you think is MOST applicable to this case. Name that topic - in no more than 4 words. The Electronic Hallway Ⓡ Case Teaching Resources FROM THE EVANS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Box 353060 University of Washington Seattle WA 98195-3060 THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES (A) www.hallway.org Ten months ago Roberta Dickson had taken over the Water Planning Division of the County of Santa Clara Rose, California. Her mandate was to better the use, quality, and encourage preservation of water resources in this fast-growing county. The Water Planning Division was one of five divisions in the county's Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Dickson judged most people in the division to be competent professionals. They were a close knit group with a lot of personal loyalty to each other, but not to the work facing the division. Part of her charge when hired was to try to raise the level of productivity and activity in the group. Previous management had been faulted for passivity and inconsistency in managing the division. It was time to determine annual merit raises under the county's personnel system. In two weeks Dickson was to attend a meeting of all division heads in the department at which decisions regarding the distribution of merit raises would be made. Her boss, Jim Krabel, the department director, would chair the meeting. A few days ago Krabel had explained to Dickson how the merit system worked. "It's very simple and has worked very well for us over the years. Here's how we do it: Rate your people according to the county's forms (see Attachment 1) and use that to identify your top people. Bring up to four names of individuals you think deserve a merit out three people in each division will recei a merit increase." Others would receive whatever cost-of-living adjustment was approved by the county supervisors. increase. Dickson had developed a management philosophy over the years that included a commitment to give employees honest and timely feedback about their job performance. In keeping with this approach, she had conducted mid-year feedback sessions with each of the twenty-one employees in her division. These discussions were more or less like performance reviews, but there was a lot of give and take and money was not an issue. She purposely held those meetings outside of the normal appraisal/merit pay cycle. With a few exceptions, the sessions had gone very well and the staff responded positively both in their subsequent work performance and by their favorable comments to co-workers and to Dickson regarding the sessions. Each person left the meetings with a clear idea of aspects of their work on which to concentrate on sustaining or improving. Dickson was This case study was made possible through the generous contributions of the Pew Charitable Trusts as part of their support for this national curriculum development project. The case was prepared by Jon Brock, Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington. The Electronic Hallway is administered by the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. This material may not be altered or copied without written permission from The Electronic Hallway. For permission, email hallhelp@u.washington.edu, or phone (206) 616-8777. Electronic Hallway members are granted copy permission for educational purposes per the Member's Agreement (www.hallway.org). Copyright 2001 The Electronic Hallway The Division of Water Resources (A) committed to help them as needed. A typical comment was, "No one's ever taken that sort of interest in my work." Most employees noted that their appraisals in past years consisted of the division head's secretary bringing them a completed appraisal form and asking them to sign it right away since it was "due this afternoon in the personnel office." A few days later merit raises would be announced. Rob Segal, a long time employee respected for his perspective and wry observations, said "people are always depressed around here in the three months after merit raises are announced." Most employees had no idea how the distribution of merit increases was determined. Dickson had been unable to discern how the process worked until she pinned her boss Krabel down. Now she knew and had read through the forms and regulations. She set about determining (1) how to carry out the process of rating people according to the regulations of the system; (2) how to prepare for Krabel's merit raise meeting; and (3) how to continue providing useful feedback to the staff as she had last spring. How would she decide which four people to bring forward? Her greatest concerns were to avoid the post-merit-award "depression" that Rob Segal referred to, continue to have productive discussions with employees about their work, and to have the merit raises send a useful signal to her staff. What steps could she take under the county's system to meet these goals? With twenty-one people, only three merit raises to give out, and four nominees, it would be difficult to both choose and explain the decision. She began to think about who might be in the running. The following ten people were left after her "first cut." Robert Dorr: With the division for nine years as Hydrologist III; no merit raises in five years. Salary $45,522. He served largely as a liaison with the water districts in the large cities, a complex and thankless task. His view of the process: "The high paid people have been passed over for years on this merit raise stuff." Jim Wallace: With the division six years, other jobs previously in the county; a Hydrologist III. Salary $39,620. Generally glum lately, since he recently came in second for a promotion to a division director slot in another division. He is well regarded around the division, but taking the recent passover hard and letting it affect his work. Dave Davis: Water Engineering Specialist, with the division for nine years. Lack of formal training in water engineering keeps him out of the higher prestige hydrologist job categories. Extremely conscientious, excellent institutional memory, good attention to detail. He had and made good use of the relationships he'd built up all around county government in the interest of the division. Salary $27,555. At the top of the specialist 2 The Division of Water Resources (A) salary range and apparently blocked from the higher-leading Hydrologist job series, he has received merit raises for the last three years. Linda Weinberg: As a half-time employee, a year ago a successful grievance gave her an upgrade to a Hydrologist II ($31,614) after four years as Hydro I. She was an outspoken critic of the personnel system, citing what she saw as its discrimination against professional part-time employees, most of whom were women. Although she could be creative and insightful, she had been worn down by the fight for a promotion, and her anger and low morale had been affecting others in the division for years prior to and since the resolution of the grievance. In talking about merit raises, Linda thought that "fairness" should be an important criterion for the merit raise decision. Barney Vance: New to the division as a transfer 6 months ago when RIF'd from another division. Lowest paid professional employee at $28,418, bottom step Hydro I. Considered by his peers to "really have gotten screwed" prior to Dickson's arrival by being assigned lead for a very politically touchy and technically complicated project with high stress, loneliness, and a lot of flak. Although he worked diligently during his seven hours, he consistently refused to coordinate with co-workers or with the county engineering department, often resulting in confusion and a lot of rewriting of policies. His salary concerned him since he and his wife had three small daughters to raise. Eric Hansen: Had been living year-to-year for five years in the division, with a job funded by annually expiring grant money. His wife was employed with a local firm as a secretary, but was considering taking some time to have a family. Because he was not a "regular" employee, he was ineligible for the fringe benefits that most of the other employees enjoyed, but was eligible under the system for a merit raise. Eric frequently handled sensitive matters related to the volatile county board of supervisors and their staff and was consistent in his "can-do" attitude and willingness to spend long hours solving problems. He was generally well regarded for his judgment on intertwined political and technical issues. His county-wide and interdepartmental approach to his assignment was a skill that would be a useful characteristic to develop in other staff, many of whom viewed issues in strictly technical terms. Most perceived that good work "came naturally" to him. He ranked eleventh in salary at $30,919, a Hydrologist II. Bill Jordan: The "old-timer" of the group, Bill made $45,817 as a Hydrologist III. His work showed inattention to detail, little interest in parallel issues, and laziness with respect to deadlines, procedures, and inter-agency relations. Despite his disinterest, with two children in college and three others growing up, Bill wasn't about to seek a new job. On the other hand, Bill felt that: "Personality clashes have kept me from getting top-notch assignments, but I do the best I can with what I've got. Yet it seems that merit raises always go to Krabel's pets. If there was something in it, maybe some of the rest of us could get motivated." 3 The Division of Water Resources (A) Jeff Rider: A transfer from the Resource Division one and a half years ago, Jeff had not been eligible for a merit raise the last two years, as his tenure in each position was too short. His current Hydro I salary was $29,430. Jeff worked quietly without a lot of fresh ideas or political sensitivity, but with a great attention to accuracy and a real willingness to learn. Recently Jeff had taken to staying after hours to talk with Dickson about the division's mission and her ideas on working more closely with other divisions in order to avoid duplication of efforts and encourage more coherent policy. Those conversa ions seemed to often translate into results. Leslie Malina: Self-effacing and with low self-esteem, worked harder for longer hours than anyone--and with good results for water quality. She had been promoted to a Hydrologist II ($31,614) during the past year on the coattails of Linda Weinberg's grievance. Leslie had taken on larger and larger responsibilities at a dizzying rate over the past year and was generally respected by all those within and outside the division with whom she had contact. But Leslie had little idea of her value to the division. George O'Conner: An independent, reliable, top-notch technician, paid $42,019 as a Hydrologist III. The last merit raise he received was four years ago, a year after being hired into the division. Bored with his work after years of poor supervision and not feeling appreciated, George had been discreetly job-hunting for about a year. Dickson had talked with him about task reassignments to bring him new challenges, and he had shown interest in that. She hoped he wouldn't quit before a challenging reassignment could be found. 4 The Division of Water Resources (A) Date Employee Name Employee SSN Rater's Name A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q CRITERIA TOTAL Attachment 1 SANTA CLARA ROSE COUNTY PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL WEIGHT COMMENTS OF RATER: COMMENTS OF EMPLOYEE: Rater's Signature DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR NEXT 12 MONTHS ANCHOR Date ACCOMPLISHMENT OF JOB WORK RELATIONSHIPS WITH CO-WORKERS DEPENDABILITY AND RELIABILITY GATHERS AND USES INFORMATION PUNCTUALITY JOB KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WORK RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS, CLIENTS, AND THE PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATION IMAGINATION AND INITIATIVE Employee's Job Category Rater's Dept. RATER COMMENTS MEETS DEADLINES MAKES DECISIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE POSITION COST CONSCIOUSNESS QUANTITY OF WORK WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS SAFETY SUPERVISION OVERALL SCORE 5 Reviewer's Signature Employee's Signature Date Date Colin Powell School The City College for Civic and Global Leadership of New York MASTER IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PSM 1810, Strategic Human Resource Management Case Study -Division of Water Resources Mini #6 - due April 26, 2023 - by midnight Required (along with all course content to date!): 1. CASE STUDY: Change at The Division of Water Resources Submit a 1-page (max!!) document addressing the below. NOTE: This is NOT an essay, but a tool to present information in the clearest possible manner. The reader should be able to find any of the questions instantly (therefore, I strongly recommend using the headers/titles provided below). Your responses must get to the point quickly, yet reflects the reality of the case: 1. Managerial Challenge: In one sentence, what is THE managerial challenge that Dickson is facing in this case? 2. Recommended Approach: In a few sentences, and in preparation for Krabel's meeting, outline the criteria you believe Dickson should adopt when deciding on nominees. 3. Recommended Nominees: Create a chart that shows - in priority order and based on #2 (above) - the 4 individuals YOU recommend that Dickson nominate for a merit increase. For each nominee you recommend, provide a “to the point” rationale for the nomination. 4. Relevant Course Topic: Thinking about the topics/content covered in this course to date, what single topic do you think is MOST applicable to this case. Name that topic - in no more than 4 words. The Electronic Hallway Ⓡ Case Teaching Resources FROM THE EVANS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Box 353060 University of Washington Seattle WA 98195-3060 THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES (A) www.hallway.org Ten months ago Roberta Dickson had taken over the Water Planning Division of the County of Santa Clara Rose, California. Her mandate was to better the use, quality, and encourage preservation of water resources in this fast-growing county. The Water Planning Division was one of five divisions in the county's Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Dickson judged most people in the division to be competent professionals. They were a close knit group with a lot of personal loyalty to each other, but not to the work facing the division. Part of her charge when hired was to try to raise the level of productivity and activity in the group. Previous management had been faulted for passivity and inconsistency in managing the division. It was time to determine annual merit raises under the county's personnel system. In two weeks Dickson was to attend a meeting of all division heads in the department at which decisions regarding the distribution of merit raises would be made. Her boss, Jim Krabel, the department director, would chair the meeting. A few days ago Krabel had explained to Dickson how the merit system worked. "It's very simple and has worked very well for us over the years. Here's how we do it: Rate your people according to the county's forms (see Attachment 1) and use that to identify your top people. Bring up to four names of individuals you think deserve a merit out three people in each division will recei a merit increase." Others would receive whatever cost-of-living adjustment was approved by the county supervisors. increase. Dickson had developed a management philosophy over the years that included a commitment to give employees honest and timely feedback about their job performance. In keeping with this approach, she had conducted mid-year feedback sessions with each of the twenty-one employees in her division. These discussions were more or less like performance reviews, but there was a lot of give and take and money was not an issue. She purposely held those meetings outside of the normal appraisal/merit pay cycle. With a few exceptions, the sessions had gone very well and the staff responded positively both in their subsequent work performance and by their favorable comments to co-workers and to Dickson regarding the sessions. Each person left the meetings with a clear idea of aspects of their work on which to concentrate on sustaining or improving. Dickson was This case study was made possible through the generous contributions of the Pew Charitable Trusts as part of their support for this national curriculum development project. The case was prepared by Jon Brock, Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington. The Electronic Hallway is administered by the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. This material may not be altered or copied without written permission from The Electronic Hallway. For permission, email hallhelp@u.washington.edu, or phone (206) 616-8777. Electronic Hallway members are granted copy permission for educational purposes per the Member's Agreement (www.hallway.org). Copyright 2001 The Electronic Hallway The Division of Water Resources (A) committed to help them as needed. A typical comment was, "No one's ever taken that sort of interest in my work." Most employees noted that their appraisals in past years consisted of the division head's secretary bringing them a completed appraisal form and asking them to sign it right away since it was "due this afternoon in the personnel office." A few days later merit raises would be announced. Rob Segal, a long time employee respected for his perspective and wry observations, said "people are always depressed around here in the three months after merit raises are announced." Most employees had no idea how the distribution of merit increases was determined. Dickson had been unable to discern how the process worked until she pinned her boss Krabel down. Now she knew and had read through the forms and regulations. She set about determining (1) how to carry out the process of rating people according to the regulations of the system; (2) how to prepare for Krabel's merit raise meeting; and (3) how to continue providing useful feedback to the staff as she had last spring. How would she decide which four people to bring forward? Her greatest concerns were to avoid the post-merit-award "depression" that Rob Segal referred to, continue to have productive discussions with employees about their work, and to have the merit raises send a useful signal to her staff. What steps could she take under the county's system to meet these goals? With twenty-one people, only three merit raises to give out, and four nominees, it would be difficult to both choose and explain the decision. She began to think about who might be in the running. The following ten people were left after her "first cut." Robert Dorr: With the division for nine years as Hydrologist III; no merit raises in five years. Salary $45,522. He served largely as a liaison with the water districts in the large cities, a complex and thankless task. His view of the process: "The high paid people have been passed over for years on this merit raise stuff." Jim Wallace: With the division six years, other jobs previously in the county; a Hydrologist III. Salary $39,620. Generally glum lately, since he recently came in second for a promotion to a division director slot in another division. He is well regarded around the division, but taking the recent passover hard and letting it affect his work. Dave Davis: Water Engineering Specialist, with the division for nine years. Lack of formal training in water engineering keeps him out of the higher prestige hydrologist job categories. Extremely conscientious, excellent institutional memory, good attention to detail. He had and made good use of the relationships he'd built up all around county government in the interest of the division. Salary $27,555. At the top of the specialist 2 The Division of Water Resources (A) salary range and apparently blocked from the higher-leading Hydrologist job series, he has received merit raises for the last three years. Linda Weinberg: As a half-time employee, a year ago a successful grievance gave her an upgrade to a Hydrologist II ($31,614) after four years as Hydro I. She was an outspoken critic of the personnel system, citing what she saw as its discrimination against professional part-time employees, most of whom were women. Although she could be creative and insightful, she had been worn down by the fight for a promotion, and her anger and low morale had been affecting others in the division for years prior to and since the resolution of the grievance. In talking about merit raises, Linda thought that "fairness" should be an important criterion for the merit raise decision. Barney Vance: New to the division as a transfer 6 months ago when RIF'd from another division. Lowest paid professional employee at $28,418, bottom step Hydro I. Considered by his peers to "really have gotten screwed" prior to Dickson's arrival by being assigned lead for a very politically touchy and technically complicated project with high stress, loneliness, and a lot of flak. Although he worked diligently during his seven hours, he consistently refused to coordinate with co-workers or with the county engineering department, often resulting in confusion and a lot of rewriting of policies. His salary concerned him since he and his wife had three small daughters to raise. Eric Hansen: Had been living year-to-year for five years in the division, with a job funded by annually expiring grant money. His wife was employed with a local firm as a secretary, but was considering taking some time to have a family. Because he was not a "regular" employee, he was ineligible for the fringe benefits that most of the other employees enjoyed, but was eligible under the system for a merit raise. Eric frequently handled sensitive matters related to the volatile county board of supervisors and their staff and was consistent in his "can-do" attitude and willingness to spend long hours solving problems. He was generally well regarded for his judgment on intertwined political and technical issues. His county-wide and interdepartmental approach to his assignment was a skill that would be a useful characteristic to develop in other staff, many of whom viewed issues in strictly technical terms. Most perceived that good work "came naturally" to him. He ranked eleventh in salary at $30,919, a Hydrologist II. Bill Jordan: The "old-timer" of the group, Bill made $45,817 as a Hydrologist III. His work showed inattention to detail, little interest in parallel issues, and laziness with respect to deadlines, procedures, and inter-agency relations. Despite his disinterest, with two children in college and three others growing up, Bill wasn't about to seek a new job. On the other hand, Bill felt that: "Personality clashes have kept me from getting top-notch assignments, but I do the best I can with what I've got. Yet it seems that merit raises always go to Krabel's pets. If there was something in it, maybe some of the rest of us could get motivated." 3 The Division of Water Resources (A) Jeff Rider: A transfer from the Resource Division one and a half years ago, Jeff had not been eligible for a merit raise the last two years, as his tenure in each position was too short. His current Hydro I salary was $29,430. Jeff worked quietly without a lot of fresh ideas or political sensitivity, but with a great attention to accuracy and a real willingness to learn. Recently Jeff had taken to staying after hours to talk with Dickson about the division's mission and her ideas on working more closely with other divisions in order to avoid duplication of efforts and encourage more coherent policy. Those conversa ions seemed to often translate into results. Leslie Malina: Self-effacing and with low self-esteem, worked harder for longer hours than anyone--and with good results for water quality. She had been promoted to a Hydrologist II ($31,614) during the past year on the coattails of Linda Weinberg's grievance. Leslie had taken on larger and larger responsibilities at a dizzying rate over the past year and was generally respected by all those within and outside the division with whom she had contact. But Leslie had little idea of her value to the division. George O'Conner: An independent, reliable, top-notch technician, paid $42,019 as a Hydrologist III. The last merit raise he received was four years ago, a year after being hired into the division. Bored with his work after years of poor supervision and not feeling appreciated, George had been discreetly job-hunting for about a year. Dickson had talked with him about task reassignments to bring him new challenges, and he had shown interest in that. She hoped he wouldn't quit before a challenging reassignment could be found. 4 The Division of Water Resources (A) Date Employee Name Employee SSN Rater's Name A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q CRITERIA TOTAL Attachment 1 SANTA CLARA ROSE COUNTY PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL WEIGHT COMMENTS OF RATER: COMMENTS OF EMPLOYEE: Rater's Signature DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR NEXT 12 MONTHS ANCHOR Date ACCOMPLISHMENT OF JOB WORK RELATIONSHIPS WITH CO-WORKERS DEPENDABILITY AND RELIABILITY GATHERS AND USES INFORMATION PUNCTUALITY JOB KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WORK RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS, CLIENTS, AND THE PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATION IMAGINATION AND INITIATIVE Employee's Job Category Rater's Dept. RATER COMMENTS MEETS DEADLINES MAKES DECISIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE POSITION COST CONSCIOUSNESS QUANTITY OF WORK WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS SAFETY SUPERVISION OVERALL SCORE 5 Reviewer's Signature Employee's Signature Date Date Colin Powell School The City College for Civic and Global Leadership of New York MASTER IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PSM 1810, Strategic Human Resource Management Case Study -Division of Water Resources Mini #6 - due April 26, 2023 - by midnight Required (along with all course content to date!): 1. CASE STUDY: Change at The Division of Water Resources Submit a 1-page (max!!) document addressing the below. NOTE: This is NOT an essay, but a tool to present information in the clearest possible manner. The reader should be able to find any of the questions instantly (therefore, I strongly recommend using the headers/titles provided below). Your responses must get to the point quickly, yet reflects the reality of the case: 1. Managerial Challenge: In one sentence, what is THE managerial challenge that Dickson is facing in this case? 2. Recommended Approach: In a few sentences, and in preparation for Krabel's meeting, outline the criteria you believe Dickson should adopt when deciding on nominees. 3. Recommended Nominees: Create a chart that shows - in priority order and based on #2 (above) - the 4 individuals YOU recommend that Dickson nominate for a merit increase. For each nominee you recommend, provide a “to the point” rationale for the nomination. 4. Relevant Course Topic: Thinking about the topics/content covered in this course to date, what single topic do you think is MOST applicable to this case. Name that topic - in no more than 4 words. The Electronic Hallway Ⓡ Case Teaching Resources FROM THE EVANS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Box 353060 University of Washington Seattle WA 98195-3060 THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES (A) www.hallway.org Ten months ago Roberta Dickson had taken over the Water Planning Division of the County of Santa Clara Rose, California. Her mandate was to better the use, quality, and encourage preservation of water resources in this fast-growing county. The Water Planning Division was one of five divisions in the county's Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Dickson judged most people in the division to be competent professionals. They were a close knit group with a lot of personal loyalty to each other, but not to the work facing the division. Part of her charge when hired was to try to raise the level of productivity and activity in the group. Previous management had been faulted for passivity and inconsistency in managing the division. It was time to determine annual merit raises under the county's personnel system. In two weeks Dickson was to attend a meeting of all division heads in the department at which decisions regarding the distribution of merit raises would be made. Her boss, Jim Krabel, the department director, would chair the meeting. A few days ago Krabel had explained to Dickson how the merit system worked. "It's very simple and has worked very well for us over the years. Here's how we do it: Rate your people according to the county's forms (see Attachment 1) and use that to identify your top people. Bring up to four names of individuals you think deserve a merit out three people in each division will recei a merit increase." Others would receive whatever cost-of-living adjustment was approved by the county supervisors. increase. Dickson had developed a management philosophy over the years that included a commitment to give employees honest and timely feedback about their job performance. In keeping with this approach, she had conducted mid-year feedback sessions with each of the twenty-one employees in her division. These discussions were more or less like performance reviews, but there was a lot of give and take and money was not an issue. She purposely held those meetings outside of the normal appraisal/merit pay cycle. With a few exceptions, the sessions had gone very well and the staff responded positively both in their subsequent work performance and by their favorable comments to co-workers and to Dickson regarding the sessions. Each person left the meetings with a clear idea of aspects of their work on which to concentrate on sustaining or improving. Dickson was This case study was made possible through the generous contributions of the Pew Charitable Trusts as part of their support for this national curriculum development project. The case was prepared by Jon Brock, Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington. The Electronic Hallway is administered by the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. This material may not be altered or copied without written permission from The Electronic Hallway. For permission, email hallhelp@u.washington.edu, or phone (206) 616-8777. Electronic Hallway members are granted copy permission for educational purposes per the Member's Agreement (www.hallway.org). Copyright 2001 The Electronic Hallway The Division of Water Resources (A) committed to help them as needed. A typical comment was, "No one's ever taken that sort of interest in my work." Most employees noted that their appraisals in past years consisted of the division head's secretary bringing them a completed appraisal form and asking them to sign it right away since it was "due this afternoon in the personnel office." A few days later merit raises would be announced. Rob Segal, a long time employee respected for his perspective and wry observations, said "people are always depressed around here in the three months after merit raises are announced." Most employees had no idea how the distribution of merit increases was determined. Dickson had been unable to discern how the process worked until she pinned her boss Krabel down. Now she knew and had read through the forms and regulations. She set about determining (1) how to carry out the process of rating people according to the regulations of the system; (2) how to prepare for Krabel's merit raise meeting; and (3) how to continue providing useful feedback to the staff as she had last spring. How would she decide which four people to bring forward? Her greatest concerns were to avoid the post-merit-award "depression" that Rob Segal referred to, continue to have productive discussions with employees about their work, and to have the merit raises send a useful signal to her staff. What steps could she take under the county's system to meet these goals? With twenty-one people, only three merit raises to give out, and four nominees, it would be difficult to both choose and explain the decision. She began to think about who might be in the running. The following ten people were left after her "first cut." Robert Dorr: With the division for nine years as Hydrologist III; no merit raises in five years. Salary $45,522. He served largely as a liaison with the water districts in the large cities, a complex and thankless task. His view of the process: "The high paid people have been passed over for years on this merit raise stuff." Jim Wallace: With the division six years, other jobs previously in the county; a Hydrologist III. Salary $39,620. Generally glum lately, since he recently came in second for a promotion to a division director slot in another division. He is well regarded around the division, but taking the recent passover hard and letting it affect his work. Dave Davis: Water Engineering Specialist, with the division for nine years. Lack of formal training in water engineering keeps him out of the higher prestige hydrologist job categories. Extremely conscientious, excellent institutional memory, good attention to detail. He had and made good use of the relationships he'd built up all around county government in the interest of the division. Salary $27,555. At the top of the specialist 2 The Division of Water Resources (A) salary range and apparently blocked from the higher-leading Hydrologist job series, he has received merit raises for the last three years. Linda Weinberg: As a half-time employee, a year ago a successful grievance gave her an upgrade to a Hydrologist II ($31,614) after four years as Hydro I. She was an outspoken critic of the personnel system, citing what she saw as its discrimination against professional part-time employees, most of whom were women. Although she could be creative and insightful, she had been worn down by the fight for a promotion, and her anger and low morale had been affecting others in the division for years prior to and since the resolution of the grievance. In talking about merit raises, Linda thought that "fairness" should be an important criterion for the merit raise decision. Barney Vance: New to the division as a transfer 6 months ago when RIF'd from another division. Lowest paid professional employee at $28,418, bottom step Hydro I. Considered by his peers to "really have gotten screwed" prior to Dickson's arrival by being assigned lead for a very politically touchy and technically complicated project with high stress, loneliness, and a lot of flak. Although he worked diligently during his seven hours, he consistently refused to coordinate with co-workers or with the county engineering department, often resulting in confusion and a lot of rewriting of policies. His salary concerned him since he and his wife had three small daughters to raise. Eric Hansen: Had been living year-to-year for five years in the division, with a job funded by annually expiring grant money. His wife was employed with a local firm as a secretary, but was considering taking some time to have a family. Because he was not a "regular" employee, he was ineligible for the fringe benefits that most of the other employees enjoyed, but was eligible under the system for a merit raise. Eric frequently handled sensitive matters related to the volatile county board of supervisors and their staff and was consistent in his "can-do" attitude and willingness to spend long hours solving problems. He was generally well regarded for his judgment on intertwined political and technical issues. His county-wide and interdepartmental approach to his assignment was a skill that would be a useful characteristic to develop in other staff, many of whom viewed issues in strictly technical terms. Most perceived that good work "came naturally" to him. He ranked eleventh in salary at $30,919, a Hydrologist II. Bill Jordan: The "old-timer" of the group, Bill made $45,817 as a Hydrologist III. His work showed inattention to detail, little interest in parallel issues, and laziness with respect to deadlines, procedures, and inter-agency relations. Despite his disinterest, with two children in college and three others growing up, Bill wasn't about to seek a new job. On the other hand, Bill felt that: "Personality clashes have kept me from getting top-notch assignments, but I do the best I can with what I've got. Yet it seems that merit raises always go to Krabel's pets. If there was something in it, maybe some of the rest of us could get motivated." 3 The Division of Water Resources (A) Jeff Rider: A transfer from the Resource Division one and a half years ago, Jeff had not been eligible for a merit raise the last two years, as his tenure in each position was too short. His current Hydro I salary was $29,430. Jeff worked quietly without a lot of fresh ideas or political sensitivity, but with a great attention to accuracy and a real willingness to learn. Recently Jeff had taken to staying after hours to talk with Dickson about the division's mission and her ideas on working more closely with other divisions in order to avoid duplication of efforts and encourage more coherent policy. Those conversa ions seemed to often translate into results. Leslie Malina: Self-effacing and with low self-esteem, worked harder for longer hours than anyone--and with good results for water quality. She had been promoted to a Hydrologist II ($31,614) during the past year on the coattails of Linda Weinberg's grievance. Leslie had taken on larger and larger responsibilities at a dizzying rate over the past year and was generally respected by all those within and outside the division with whom she had contact. But Leslie had little idea of her value to the division. George O'Conner: An independent, reliable, top-notch technician, paid $42,019 as a Hydrologist III. The last merit raise he received was four years ago, a year after being hired into the division. Bored with his work after years of poor supervision and not feeling appreciated, George had been discreetly job-hunting for about a year. Dickson had talked with him about task reassignments to bring him new challenges, and he had shown interest in that. She hoped he wouldn't quit before a challenging reassignment could be found. 4 The Division of Water Resources (A) Date Employee Name Employee SSN Rater's Name A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q CRITERIA TOTAL Attachment 1 SANTA CLARA ROSE COUNTY PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL WEIGHT COMMENTS OF RATER: COMMENTS OF EMPLOYEE: Rater's Signature DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR NEXT 12 MONTHS ANCHOR Date ACCOMPLISHMENT OF JOB WORK RELATIONSHIPS WITH CO-WORKERS DEPENDABILITY AND RELIABILITY GATHERS AND USES INFORMATION PUNCTUALITY JOB KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WORK RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS, CLIENTS, AND THE PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATION IMAGINATION AND INITIATIVE Employee's Job Category Rater's Dept. RATER COMMENTS MEETS DEADLINES MAKES DECISIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE POSITION COST CONSCIOUSNESS QUANTITY OF WORK WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS SAFETY SUPERVISION OVERALL SCORE 5 Reviewer's Signature Employee's Signature Date Date Colin Powell School The City College for Civic and Global Leadership of New York MASTER IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PSM 1810, Strategic Human Resource Management Case Study -Division of Water Resources Mini #6 - due April 26, 2023 - by midnight Required (along with all course content to date!): 1. CASE STUDY: Change at The Division of Water Resources Submit a 1-page (max!!) document addressing the below. NOTE: This is NOT an essay, but a tool to present information in the clearest possible manner. The reader should be able to find any of the questions instantly (therefore, I strongly recommend using the headers/titles provided below). Your responses must get to the point quickly, yet reflects the reality of the case: 1. Managerial Challenge: In one sentence, what is THE managerial challenge that Dickson is facing in this case? 2. Recommended Approach: In a few sentences, and in preparation for Krabel's meeting, outline the criteria you believe Dickson should adopt when deciding on nominees. 3. Recommended Nominees: Create a chart that shows - in priority order and based on #2 (above) - the 4 individuals YOU recommend that Dickson nominate for a merit increase. For each nominee you recommend, provide a “to the point” rationale for the nomination. 4. Relevant Course Topic: Thinking about the topics/content covered in this course to date, what single topic do you think is MOST applicable to this case. Name that topic - in no more than 4 words. The Electronic Hallway Ⓡ Case Teaching Resources FROM THE EVANS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Box 353060 University of Washington Seattle WA 98195-3060 THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES (A) www.hallway.org Ten months ago Roberta Dickson had taken over the Water Planning Division of the County of Santa Clara Rose, California. Her mandate was to better the use, quality, and encourage preservation of water resources in this fast-growing county. The Water Planning Division was one of five divisions in the county's Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Dickson judged most people in the division to be competent professionals. They were a close knit group with a lot of personal loyalty to each other, but not to the work facing the division. Part of her charge when hired was to try to raise the level of productivity and activity in the group. Previous management had been faulted for passivity and inconsistency in managing the division. It was time to determine annual merit raises under the county's personnel system. In two weeks Dickson was to attend a meeting of all division heads in the department at which decisions regarding the distribution of merit raises would be made. Her boss, Jim Krabel, the department director, would chair the meeting. A few days ago Krabel had explained to Dickson how the merit system worked. "It's very simple and has worked very well for us over the years. Here's how we do it: Rate your people according to the county's forms (see Attachment 1) and use that to identify your top people. Bring up to four names of individuals you think deserve a merit out three people in each division will recei a merit increase." Others would receive whatever cost-of-living adjustment was approved by the county supervisors. increase. Dickson had developed a management philosophy over the years that included a commitment to give employees honest and timely feedback about their job performance. In keeping with this approach, she had conducted mid-year feedback sessions with each of the twenty-one employees in her division. These discussions were more or less like performance reviews, but there was a lot of give and take and money was not an issue. She purposely held those meetings outside of the normal appraisal/merit pay cycle. With a few exceptions, the sessions had gone very well and the staff responded positively both in their subsequent work performance and by their favorable comments to co-workers and to Dickson regarding the sessions. Each person left the meetings with a clear idea of aspects of their work on which to concentrate on sustaining or improving. Dickson was This case study was made possible through the generous contributions of the Pew Charitable Trusts as part of their support for this national curriculum development project. The case was prepared by Jon Brock, Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington. The Electronic Hallway is administered by the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. This material may not be altered or copied without written permission from The Electronic Hallway. For permission, email hallhelp@u.washington.edu, or phone (206) 616-8777. Electronic Hallway members are granted copy permission for educational purposes per the Member's Agreement (www.hallway.org). Copyright 2001 The Electronic Hallway The Division of Water Resources (A) committed to help them as needed. A typical comment was, "No one's ever taken that sort of interest in my work." Most employees noted that their appraisals in past years consisted of the division head's secretary bringing them a completed appraisal form and asking them to sign it right away since it was "due this afternoon in the personnel office." A few days later merit raises would be announced. Rob Segal, a long time employee respected for his perspective and wry observations, said "people are always depressed around here in the three months after merit raises are announced." Most employees had no idea how the distribution of merit increases was determined. Dickson had been unable to discern how the process worked until she pinned her boss Krabel down. Now she knew and had read through the forms and regulations. She set about determining (1) how to carry out the process of rating people according to the regulations of the system; (2) how to prepare for Krabel's merit raise meeting; and (3) how to continue providing useful feedback to the staff as she had last spring. How would she decide which four people to bring forward? Her greatest concerns were to avoid the post-merit-award "depression" that Rob Segal referred to, continue to have productive discussions with employees about their work, and to have the merit raises send a useful signal to her staff. What steps could she take under the county's system to meet these goals? With twenty-one people, only three merit raises to give out, and four nominees, it would be difficult to both choose and explain the decision. She began to think about who might be in the running. The following ten people were left after her "first cut." Robert Dorr: With the division for nine years as Hydrologist III; no merit raises in five years. Salary $45,522. He served largely as a liaison with the water districts in the large cities, a complex and thankless task. His view of the process: "The high paid people have been passed over for years on this merit raise stuff." Jim Wallace: With the division six years, other jobs previously in the county; a Hydrologist III. Salary $39,620. Generally glum lately, since he recently came in second for a promotion to a division director slot in another division. He is well regarded around the division, but taking the recent passover hard and letting it affect his work. Dave Davis: Water Engineering Specialist, with the division for nine years. Lack of formal training in water engineering keeps him out of the higher prestige hydrologist job categories. Extremely conscientious, excellent institutional memory, good attention to detail. He had and made good use of the relationships he'd built up all around county government in the interest of the division. Salary $27,555. At the top of the specialist 2 The Division of Water Resources (A) salary range and apparently blocked from the higher-leading Hydrologist job series, he has received merit raises for the last three years. Linda Weinberg: As a half-time employee, a year ago a successful grievance gave her an upgrade to a Hydrologist II ($31,614) after four years as Hydro I. She was an outspoken critic of the personnel system, citing what she saw as its discrimination against professional part-time employees, most of whom were women. Although she could be creative and insightful, she had been worn down by the fight for a promotion, and her anger and low morale had been affecting others in the division for years prior to and since the resolution of the grievance. In talking about merit raises, Linda thought that "fairness" should be an important criterion for the merit raise decision. Barney Vance: New to the division as a transfer 6 months ago when RIF'd from another division. Lowest paid professional employee at $28,418, bottom step Hydro I. Considered by his peers to "really have gotten screwed" prior to Dickson's arrival by being assigned lead for a very politically touchy and technically complicated project with high stress, loneliness, and a lot of flak. Although he worked diligently during his seven hours, he consistently refused to coordinate with co-workers or with the county engineering department, often resulting in confusion and a lot of rewriting of policies. His salary concerned him since he and his wife had three small daughters to raise. Eric Hansen: Had been living year-to-year for five years in the division, with a job funded by annually expiring grant money. His wife was employed with a local firm as a secretary, but was considering taking some time to have a family. Because he was not a "regular" employee, he was ineligible for the fringe benefits that most of the other employees enjoyed, but was eligible under the system for a merit raise. Eric frequently handled sensitive matters related to the volatile county board of supervisors and their staff and was consistent in his "can-do" attitude and willingness to spend long hours solving problems. He was generally well regarded for his judgment on intertwined political and technical issues. His county-wide and interdepartmental approach to his assignment was a skill that would be a useful characteristic to develop in other staff, many of whom viewed issues in strictly technical terms. Most perceived that good work "came naturally" to him. He ranked eleventh in salary at $30,919, a Hydrologist II. Bill Jordan: The "old-timer" of the group, Bill made $45,817 as a Hydrologist III. His work showed inattention to detail, little interest in parallel issues, and laziness with respect to deadlines, procedures, and inter-agency relations. Despite his disinterest, with two children in college and three others growing up, Bill wasn't about to seek a new job. On the other hand, Bill felt that: "Personality clashes have kept me from getting top-notch assignments, but I do the best I can with what I've got. Yet it seems that merit raises always go to Krabel's pets. If there was something in it, maybe some of the rest of us could get motivated." 3 The Division of Water Resources (A) Jeff Rider: A transfer from the Resource Division one and a half years ago, Jeff had not been eligible for a merit raise the last two years, as his tenure in each position was too short. His current Hydro I salary was $29,430. Jeff worked quietly without a lot of fresh ideas or political sensitivity, but with a great attention to accuracy and a real willingness to learn. Recently Jeff had taken to staying after hours to talk with Dickson about the division's mission and her ideas on working more closely with other divisions in order to avoid duplication of efforts and encourage more coherent policy. Those conversa ions seemed to often translate into results. Leslie Malina: Self-effacing and with low self-esteem, worked harder for longer hours than anyone--and with good results for water quality. She had been promoted to a Hydrologist II ($31,614) during the past year on the coattails of Linda Weinberg's grievance. Leslie had taken on larger and larger responsibilities at a dizzying rate over the past year and was generally respected by all those within and outside the division with whom she had contact. But Leslie had little idea of her value to the division. George O'Conner: An independent, reliable, top-notch technician, paid $42,019 as a Hydrologist III. The last merit raise he received was four years ago, a year after being hired into the division. Bored with his work after years of poor supervision and not feeling appreciated, George had been discreetly job-hunting for about a year. Dickson had talked with him about task reassignments to bring him new challenges, and he had shown interest in that. She hoped he wouldn't quit before a challenging reassignment could be found. 4 The Division of Water Resources (A) Date Employee Name Employee SSN Rater's Name A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q CRITERIA TOTAL Attachment 1 SANTA CLARA ROSE COUNTY PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL WEIGHT COMMENTS OF RATER: COMMENTS OF EMPLOYEE: Rater's Signature DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR NEXT 12 MONTHS ANCHOR Date ACCOMPLISHMENT OF JOB WORK RELATIONSHIPS WITH CO-WORKERS DEPENDABILITY AND RELIABILITY GATHERS AND USES INFORMATION PUNCTUALITY JOB KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WORK RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS, CLIENTS, AND THE PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATION IMAGINATION AND INITIATIVE Employee's Job Category Rater's Dept. RATER COMMENTS MEETS DEADLINES MAKES DECISIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE POSITION COST CONSCIOUSNESS QUANTITY OF WORK WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS SAFETY SUPERVISION OVERALL SCORE 5 Reviewer's Signature Employee's Signature Date Date Colin Powell School The City College for Civic and Global Leadership of New York MASTER IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PSM 1810, Strategic Human Resource Management Case Study -Division of Water Resources Mini #6 - due April 26, 2023 - by midnight Required (along with all course content to date!): 1. CASE STUDY: Change at The Division of Water Resources Submit a 1-page (max!!) document addressing the below. NOTE: This is NOT an essay, but a tool to present information in the clearest possible manner. The reader should be able to find any of the questions instantly (therefore, I strongly recommend using the headers/titles provided below). Your responses must get to the point quickly, yet reflects the reality of the case: 1. Managerial Challenge: In one sentence, what is THE managerial challenge that Dickson is facing in this case? 2. Recommended Approach: In a few sentences, and in preparation for Krabel's meeting, outline the criteria you believe Dickson should adopt when deciding on nominees. 3. Recommended Nominees: Create a chart that shows - in priority order and based on #2 (above) - the 4 individuals YOU recommend that Dickson nominate for a merit increase. For each nominee you recommend, provide a “to the point” rationale for the nomination. 4. Relevant Course Topic: Thinking about the topics/content covered in this course to date, what single topic do you think is MOST applicable to this case. Name that topic - in no more than 4 words. The Electronic Hallway Ⓡ Case Teaching Resources FROM THE EVANS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Box 353060 University of Washington Seattle WA 98195-3060 THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES (A) www.hallway.org Ten months ago Roberta Dickson had taken over the Water Planning Division of the County of Santa Clara Rose, California. Her mandate was to better the use, quality, and encourage preservation of water resources in this fast-growing county. The Water Planning Division was one of five divisions in the county's Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Dickson judged most people in the division to be competent professionals. They were a close knit group with a lot of personal loyalty to each other, but not to the work facing the division. Part of her charge when hired was to try to raise the level of productivity and activity in the group. Previous management had been faulted for passivity and inconsistency in managing the division. It was time to determine annual merit raises under the county's personnel system. In two weeks Dickson was to attend a meeting of all division heads in the department at which decisions regarding the distribution of merit raises would be made. Her boss, Jim Krabel, the department director, would chair the meeting. A few days ago Krabel had explained to Dickson how the merit system worked. "It's very simple and has worked very well for us over the years. Here's how we do it: Rate your people according to the county's forms (see Attachment 1) and use that to identify your top people. Bring up to four names of individuals you think deserve a merit out three people in each division will recei a merit increase." Others would receive whatever cost-of-living adjustment was approved by the county supervisors. increase. Dickson had developed a management philosophy over the years that included a commitment to give employees honest and timely feedback about their job performance. In keeping with this approach, she had conducted mid-year feedback sessions with each of the twenty-one employees in her division. These discussions were more or less like performance reviews, but there was a lot of give and take and money was not an issue. She purposely held those meetings outside of the normal appraisal/merit pay cycle. With a few exceptions, the sessions had gone very well and the staff responded positively both in their subsequent work performance and by their favorable comments to co-workers and to Dickson regarding the sessions. Each person left the meetings with a clear idea of aspects of their work on which to concentrate on sustaining or improving. Dickson was This case study was made possible through the generous contributions of the Pew Charitable Trusts as part of their support for this national curriculum development project. The case was prepared by Jon Brock, Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington. The Electronic Hallway is administered by the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. This material may not be altered or copied without written permission from The Electronic Hallway. For permission, email hallhelp@u.washington.edu, or phone (206) 616-8777. Electronic Hallway members are granted copy permission for educational purposes per the Member's Agreement (www.hallway.org). Copyright 2001 The Electronic Hallway The Division of Water Resources (A) committed to help them as needed. A typical comment was, "No one's ever taken that sort of interest in my work." Most employees noted that their appraisals in past years consisted of the division head's secretary bringing them a completed appraisal form and asking them to sign it right away since it was "due this afternoon in the personnel office." A few days later merit raises would be announced. Rob Segal, a long time employee respected for his perspective and wry observations, said "people are always depressed around here in the three months after merit raises are announced." Most employees had no idea how the distribution of merit increases was determined. Dickson had been unable to discern how the process worked until she pinned her boss Krabel down. Now she knew and had read through the forms and regulations. She set about determining (1) how to carry out the process of rating people according to the regulations of the system; (2) how to prepare for Krabel's merit raise meeting; and (3) how to continue providing useful feedback to the staff as she had last spring. How would she decide which four people to bring forward? Her greatest concerns were to avoid the post-merit-award "depression" that Rob Segal referred to, continue to have productive discussions with employees about their work, and to have the merit raises send a useful signal to her staff. What steps could she take under the county's system to meet these goals? With twenty-one people, only three merit raises to give out, and four nominees, it would be difficult to both choose and explain the decision. She began to think about who might be in the running. The following ten people were left after her "first cut." Robert Dorr: With the division for nine years as Hydrologist III; no merit raises in five years. Salary $45,522. He served largely as a liaison with the water districts in the large cities, a complex and thankless task. His view of the process: "The high paid people have been passed over for years on this merit raise stuff." Jim Wallace: With the division six years, other jobs previously in the county; a Hydrologist III. Salary $39,620. Generally glum lately, since he recently came in second for a promotion to a division director slot in another division. He is well regarded around the division, but taking the recent passover hard and letting it affect his work. Dave Davis: Water Engineering Specialist, with the division for nine years. Lack of formal training in water engineering keeps him out of the higher prestige hydrologist job categories. Extremely conscientious, excellent institutional memory, good attention to detail. He had and made good use of the relationships he'd built up all around county government in the interest of the division. Salary $27,555. At the top of the specialist 2 The Division of Water Resources (A) salary range and apparently blocked from the higher-leading Hydrologist job series, he has received merit raises for the last three years. Linda Weinberg: As a half-time employee, a year ago a successful grievance gave her an upgrade to a Hydrologist II ($31,614) after four years as Hydro I. She was an outspoken critic of the personnel system, citing what she saw as its discrimination against professional part-time employees, most of whom were women. Although she could be creative and insightful, she had been worn down by the fight for a promotion, and her anger and low morale had been affecting others in the division for years prior to and since the resolution of the grievance. In talking about merit raises, Linda thought that "fairness" should be an important criterion for the merit raise decision. Barney Vance: New to the division as a transfer 6 months ago when RIF'd from another division. Lowest paid professional employee at $28,418, bottom step Hydro I. Considered by his peers to "really have gotten screwed" prior to Dickson's arrival by being assigned lead for a very politically touchy and technically complicated project with high stress, loneliness, and a lot of flak. Although he worked diligently during his seven hours, he consistently refused to coordinate with co-workers or with the county engineering department, often resulting in confusion and a lot of rewriting of policies. His salary concerned him since he and his wife had three small daughters to raise. Eric Hansen: Had been living year-to-year for five years in the division, with a job funded by annually expiring grant money. His wife was employed with a local firm as a secretary, but was considering taking some time to have a family. Because he was not a "regular" employee, he was ineligible for the fringe benefits that most of the other employees enjoyed, but was eligible under the system for a merit raise. Eric frequently handled sensitive matters related to the volatile county board of supervisors and their staff and was consistent in his "can-do" attitude and willingness to spend long hours solving problems. He was generally well regarded for his judgment on intertwined political and technical issues. His county-wide and interdepartmental approach to his assignment was a skill that would be a useful characteristic to develop in other staff, many of whom viewed issues in strictly technical terms. Most perceived that good work "came naturally" to him. He ranked eleventh in salary at $30,919, a Hydrologist II. Bill Jordan: The "old-timer" of the group, Bill made $45,817 as a Hydrologist III. His work showed inattention to detail, little interest in parallel issues, and laziness with respect to deadlines, procedures, and inter-agency relations. Despite his disinterest, with two children in college and three others growing up, Bill wasn't about to seek a new job. On the other hand, Bill felt that: "Personality clashes have kept me from getting top-notch assignments, but I do the best I can with what I've got. Yet it seems that merit raises always go to Krabel's pets. If there was something in it, maybe some of the rest of us could get motivated." 3 The Division of Water Resources (A) Jeff Rider: A transfer from the Resource Division one and a half years ago, Jeff had not been eligible for a merit raise the last two years, as his tenure in each position was too short. His current Hydro I salary was $29,430. Jeff worked quietly without a lot of fresh ideas or political sensitivity, but with a great attention to accuracy and a real willingness to learn. Recently Jeff had taken to staying after hours to talk with Dickson about the division's mission and her ideas on working more closely with other divisions in order to avoid duplication of efforts and encourage more coherent policy. Those conversa ions seemed to often translate into results. Leslie Malina: Self-effacing and with low self-esteem, worked harder for longer hours than anyone--and with good results for water quality. She had been promoted to a Hydrologist II ($31,614) during the past year on the coattails of Linda Weinberg's grievance. Leslie had taken on larger and larger responsibilities at a dizzying rate over the past year and was generally respected by all those within and outside the division with whom she had contact. But Leslie had little idea of her value to the division. George O'Conner: An independent, reliable, top-notch technician, paid $42,019 as a Hydrologist III. The last merit raise he received was four years ago, a year after being hired into the division. Bored with his work after years of poor supervision and not feeling appreciated, George had been discreetly job-hunting for about a year. Dickson had talked with him about task reassignments to bring him new challenges, and he had shown interest in that. She hoped he wouldn't quit before a challenging reassignment could be found. 4 The Division of Water Resources (A) Date Employee Name Employee SSN Rater's Name A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q CRITERIA TOTAL Attachment 1 SANTA CLARA ROSE COUNTY PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL WEIGHT COMMENTS OF RATER: COMMENTS OF EMPLOYEE: Rater's Signature DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR NEXT 12 MONTHS ANCHOR Date ACCOMPLISHMENT OF JOB WORK RELATIONSHIPS WITH CO-WORKERS DEPENDABILITY AND RELIABILITY GATHERS AND USES INFORMATION PUNCTUALITY JOB KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNICAL COMPETENCE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WORK RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS, CLIENTS, AND THE PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATION IMAGINATION AND INITIATIVE Employee's Job Category Rater's Dept. RATER COMMENTS MEETS DEADLINES MAKES DECISIONS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE POSITION COST CONSCIOUSNESS QUANTITY OF WORK WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS SAFETY SUPERVISION OVERALL SCORE 5 Reviewer's Signature Employee's Signature Date Date
Expert Answer:
Answer rating: 100% (QA)
1 Managerial Challenge The primary managerial challenge facing Dickson is determining the most effec... View the full answer
Related Book For
Fundamentals Of Management
ISBN: 9781292307329
11th Global Edition
Authors: Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De Cenzo
Posted Date:
Students also viewed these human resource management questions
-
2018 2019 2020 Sales 589500 613500 625000 2021 666666 Sales returns 20000 22000 24000 26000 Net Sales 569500 591500 601000 640666 Cost of Goods Sold 300000 325000 350000 390000 Gross Margin 269500...
-
List three specific parts of the Case Guide, Objectives and Strategy Section (See below) that you had the most difficulty understanding. Describe your current understanding of these parts. Provide...
-
Planning is one of the most important management functions in any business. A front office managers first step in planning should involve determine the departments goals. Planning also includes...
-
Examine the articles reproduced below and consider how the five C's discussed in the course have application in the present coronavirus pandemic. "To the extent that an environment characterized by...
-
Rivera Co. sold 20,000 units of its only product and incurred a $50,000 loss (ignoring taxes) for the current year as shown here. During a planning session for year 2016's activities, the production...
-
Working alone or with a small group of classmates, interview an HR manager and prepare a short essay regarding his or her role in strategy formulation and implementation.
-
Use the Lucenay Interiors data from Problem 16-42B. Requirements 1. Prepare Lucenay Interiors' income statement for the year ended December 31, 2008. Use the single-step format, with all revenues...
-
One day, Leslie prepared a new snack to serve at preschool: celery stuffed with ricotta cheese and pineapple. The first time she served it, few children touched it. How can Leslie encourage her...
-
3 Question 40 (2.5 points) Listen Exactly 35 years from today, Indira wants to have $1,000,000 in her retirement account. If Indira's retirement account pays interest of 13.6% per year, but with...
-
Read the case XYZ Company: An Integrated Capital Budgeting Instructional Case and answer the following question: Should the replacement asset be purchased? That is, does it make economic (financial)...
-
13. Buddy the Elf has a toy airplane (m = 0.5 kg) on a string that he whirls around his head in a circle at a constant speed of 10 m/s. The circle is 80 cm in radius and is perfectly parallel to the...
-
Mr Chai has been trading for some years as a wine merchant. The following list of balances has been extracted from his ledger as at 30 April 2010, the end of his most recent financial year. The...
-
Resistor Ltd manufactures electrical units. All units are identical. The following information relates to June and July Year 5. (a) Budgeted costs and selling prices were: (b) Actual production and...
-
Frame It sells photo frames, which are packaged in specially designed boxes. The company sells four designs namely; engagement, wedding, anniversaries, and birthdays, and currently all packaging is...
-
(a) A spherical capacitor consists of two concentric conducting spheres of radii \(R\) and \(2 R\). If the two spheres carry charges of \(+q\) and \(-q\), what is the average energy density inside...
-
Graph the lines in Problems 31-44. \(y=4 x+5\)
-
Which of the following substances would you predict to have thehighest ?H vap ? Group of answer choices: CH 3 Cl HCl HOCH 2 CH 2 OH CH 3 CH 2 OH CH 3 CH 2 CH 2 CH 3
-
Suppose that the laptop of Prob. 2.16 is placed in an insulating briefcase with a fully charged battery, but it does not go into sleep mode, and the battery discharges as if the laptop were in use....
-
What steps can encourage organizational culture to evolve over time?
-
How does an innovative culture make an organization more effective? Do you think an innovative culture could ever make an organization less effective? Why or why not?
-
Discuss how societys expectations are influencing managers and organizations.
-
Newmark method a. Assumes that acceleration varies linearly between \(t_{i}\) and \(t_{i}+\theta \Delta t ; \theta \geq 1\) b. Assumes that acceleration varies linearly between \(t_{i}\) and...
-
Wilson method a. Assumes that acceleration varies linearly between \(t_{i}\) and \(t_{i}+\theta \Delta t ; \theta \geq 1\) b. Assumes that acceleration varies linearly between \(t_{i}\) and...
-
The third-order Runge-Kutta formula is given by \[\vec{X}_{i+1}=\vec{X}_{i}+\frac{1}{6}\left(\vec{K}_{1}+4 \vec{K}_{2}+\vec{K}_{3} ight)\] where \[\begin{gathered}\vec{K}_{1}=h...
Study smarter with the SolutionInn App