MANAGING PEOPLE IN ORGANIZATIONS
and
MANAGING PEOPLE IN ORGANIZATIONS (with Psychology)
(all unit codes)
SECOND ATTEMPT ASSESSMENT
To get help with this assignment, click here, or simply get Dr Assignment Subscription
GENERAL INFORMATION
This assessment for ELIGIBLE students who, having failed to achieve 40% overall for the unit AND who have been granted resit assessment by the relevant
Examination Board.
Examination Boards take place between 3rd-7th July, 2017. The Examination Board will confirm whether or not you are required to, and/or are eligible to
complete second attempt assessment. Any student choosing to complete the assessment BEFORE notification of results and second-attempt status does so at
their own risk. Work from ineligible students will not be marked, and no mark will be recorded on the system. Work will NOT be marked until after the
deadline for submission given below.
This assessment is NOT for students holding approved Extenuating Circumstances (an ECF). These students will be required to undertake the scheduled
examination during the second attempt period, based on this year’s examination case study ‘Our Best Intentions’.
If you are uncertain about your eligibility to complete the assessment, please contact the Undergraduate Centre at the start of the Second Attempt
Assessment period beginning on Monday, 10th July, 2017 and ends on Friday, 27th July, 2017.
Please submit using the Moodle drop box by 23:55 (BST) Friday, 28th July, 2017.
IMPORTANT NOTES
Please note, tutors are not available to advise students on completing the assignment, and the Unit Co-ordinator will not be available to respond to emails
or queries in this regard. This case study, together with case study analysis, use and application of theory, the development and evaluation of
recommendations,have been studied extensively in class, so it is expected ALL students will be fully aware of requirements and expectations in this regard.
Should students require additional advice/guidance on academic writing, reading, referencing, report structure or other skills, please contact PBS Study
Support who can provide expert advice and guidance in this area. Although, please note they are not able to advise students on the content of the report.
‘Late’ work is NOT accepted in the Second Attempt Assessment period, and claims for Extenuating Circumstances will NOT be accepted.
* * * * * * * * *
INSTRUCTIONS ON ASSIGNMENT
You are required to submit a written report based on the attached case study, ‘A Matter of Life and De’Ath’, which has previously been studied in class.
The report should be no more than1,500 words (excluding your references page).
YOUR TASK
1. Using the information from the case study, and a wide range of relevant theory, identify and analyse the issues arising in the case study. You
should draw on and apply at least FOUR of the following topics covered in the MAPIO syllabus to support your analysis
• Leadership and Management
• Classical Management
• Purcell’s People Performance Model (“AMO”)
• Organisational Structure
• Organisational Culture
• Change Management
This should go beyond simple ‘identification’ of issues to include discussion of why particular issues are significant.Work with less than 12 theories
applied, and a minimum of four academic references (NOT internet sources) is unlikely to have sufficient depth/detail to pass the unit.
2. Suggest TWO solutions to the issues identified in your analysis and, explain how these should be implemented. The solutions or recommendations
MUST relate to your previous analysis
REPORT STRUCTURE
• A Cover Page giving the title of the report, your student identification number, and the total word count for the report (excluding Reference
List).
• A Contents Page showing number sections and sub-sections and associated page numbers
• The Introduction (10% of total marks)should include a statement of the subject, the aims of the report and a brief overview of what the report
contains
• The Main Body (60% of total marks) should include
• NUMBERED headings and sub-headings that are informative and based on the content of your analysis
• points grouped together so that readers can concentrate on one aspect at a time
• points and supporting evidence needed to satisfy your aims
• Conclusions and Recommendations (25% of total marks): should
• follow from the points made in your report and clearly identify the challenges facing the organisation
• givedetails of your proposed recommendations, and how these should be implemented.
• References (5% of total marks) should include accurate in-text citation in the report, and a complete and accurate References page at the end of
your report. All references should be presented using the APA 6th edition system of referencing.If you are uncertain, further guidance is available from
PBS Study Support.
WORD COUNT
You MUST show an accurate word count on the front page of your report. In accordance with University guidelines, a maximum word count MUST not be
exceeded. In calculating the word count, we shall be counting everything written from ‘I’ of Introduction to the last full-stop in your recommendations.
In-text references/citations in the body of the report ARE included in the word count, however the Reference List is not. Penalties will be applied for
work in excess of the maximum 1,500 word count.
FORMAT/LAYOUT INSTRUCTIONS
Your report MUST be presented to a professional standard. It MUST
• be typed in Ariel or Calibri 11, 11.5 or 12 point font;
• have 1.15 or 1.5 line spacing and include 3cms margins on ALL sides;
• have clear line spaces between paragraphs and paragraphs not indented;
• be justified to the left-hand margin only;
• have all pages numbered and include student ID number (NOT name) on each page
• state the number of words used at the end of the report (excluding Reference List).
AND
be properly proofread with no obvious typographical errors
PENALTIES
Penalty deductions from the total report mark may be made for the following :-
1. Format/layout – failure to follow some or all of the format/layout instructions (above) – up to 5% depending on the extent and number of breaches
2. Word count – work exceeding the MAXIMUM word count of 1,500 words or failure to declare an accurate word count – unlimited penalty deduction,
subject to the extent of breach
3. Plagiarism – unlimited penalty deduction, subject to the extent of breach, in accordance with Departmental/University Regulations.
IMPORTANT NOTES
Within the Word Count, it is not possible for you to cover every possible issue in the case study in depth. It is better to identify three or four
significant issues and discuss these using relevant theory, than trying to identify a wide range of issues, which will result in a superficial answer.
As identified in the assignment brief, you must incorporate a wide range of relevant theory from across the unit syllabus. You will need to be selective
in the material you choose. You are expected to draw from CREDIBLE ACADEMIC SOURCES – e.g. TEXTBOOKS AND ACADEMIC JOURNALS. As a general rule, internet
sites should NOT be used.
Remember you are being asked for discussion of the material presented. Try and apply the theory you have been taught. A highly descriptive piece of work,
or a summary of theory straight from textbooks, will not be sufficient to pass this assessment.
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Specific Assessment Criteria
In addition to the Generic Assessment Criteria below, tutors will be looking for the following :-
• Report structure, coherence and clarity of writing
• Demonstration of knowledge and understanding through the selection, application and clear relevance of chosen theories/frameworks AND depth and
quality of discussion
• Quality and relevance of conclusions – which are clearly drawn from the preceding discussion
• The identification of TWO clearrecommendations for the organisation and explanation of how these should be implemented
• The acknowledgement and referencing of ALL source materials within the text and within a separate bibliography, using APA 6th edition referencing
• Format/layout in accordance with specification given above (note penalties for non-compliance)
Generic Assessment Criteria
Generic assessment criteria apply to all undergraduate courses in the University and are intended to help you understand the rationale behind our grading
of assessed work in a transparent way. We trust that you will find these published criteria helpful when planning your work. Feedback from your tutor on
returned coursework is likely to reflect the marking criteria, encouraging you to reflect on your performance and consider how your work could have been
improved. The University of Portsmouth criteria for Undergraduate Level 4 are set out overleaf.
80+ As below plus:
– Excellent work which contains relevant material and shows analysis, originality or creativity of approach and a clear, well-articulated
understanding of the subject matter. Wide research incorporating up to date, relevant original material.Accurate citation and use of references.
Excellent with few or no errors in organisation, structure, grammar, spelling, punctuation, use of diagrams and tables.
70-79 As below plus:
– Very good work which is clearly written, well-argued and covers the subject matter in a thorough, thoughtful and competent manner.Contains some
originality of approach, insight or synthesis.Good evidence of research and good use of source material.Good use and presentation of references.Very good
presentation, presentation, organisation, grammar, spelling, punctuation, diagrams and tables.
60-69 As below plus:
– A very good, well presented piece of work covering much of the subject matter and which is clearly and lucidly written.
– Good attempt to consider and evaluate the material presented.Evidence of research in the topic area and satisfactory use of sources and
references.Good organisation, structure, use and flow of language, grammar, spelling, format, diagrams, tables, etc.
50-59 As below plus:
– Work that demonstrates understanding of the topic area with some attempt to discuss material.Evidence of research in the topic area extending
beyond key texts.Satisfactory presentation and/or use of references/bibliography according to convention.A satisfactory attempt to follow directions
regarding organisation, structure, use and flow of language, grammar, spelling, format, diagrams, tables, etc.
40-49 Adequate work that attempts to address the topic and demonstrates some understanding of the basic aspects of the subject matter.Topic is researched
using mainly books and internet. Attempts to use and/or present references/ bibliography according to convention.A basic attempt to follow directions
regarding organisation, structure, use and flow of language, grammar, spelling, format, diagrams, tables, etc.
30-39 FAIL Work in this range attempts to address the question/problem but is substantially incomplete and deficient. Serious problems with a number of
aspects of language use are often found in work in this range and the work may be severely under/over-length and/or fails to grasp the nature of the topic
matter. Content, analysis, expression, structure and use of sources will be very weak or missing.
0-29 FAIL No serious attempt to address the question or problem, and/or manifests a serious misunderstanding of the requirements of the assignment.
Acutely deficient in all aspects.
“A Matter of Life and De’Ath”
© J. Karas 2016
(all names and characters are fictional)
De’Ath Insurance Company Ltd. was founded by Hieronymus De’Ath in 1814, providing life insurance services to the local community in Manchester in the North
of England. Since then, the company has grown to become one of the UK’s leading insurance companies, offering life, home, vehicle, pet and health
insurance policies. The company remains privately owned with over 80% of shares owned by the De’Ath famly.
The position of Chairman has always been occupied by a member of the De’Ath family. In 2013, following the sudden death of his father, the next Hieronymus
took over the position as Chairman and CEO. At 33, “Hero” (as he is known to everybody) was certainly young for the role, but with 15 years’ full-time
experience in the company, he had worked hard to prove himself, completing his professional qualifications to become a Chartered Insurance Broker at the
age of 26.
In 2014, the company celebrated 200 years in the insurance business. However, net profits had been stagnating at £270 million for the past six years.
Competition in the industry was intense, and the impact of the internet and price comparison websites had changed the way the industry operated – customers
shopped around, and an increasing amount of business was done online.
At the same time, the company invested £150 million in relocating to brand new offices located on the outskirts of town. Top-of-the-range technology and
IT systems were integrated throughout the building, together with the introduction of new specialist software in the company’s two call centres.
Within a year of the company relocation, Hero was shocked to discover that company profits had fallen by just over 15% to £228 million. The internet was
full of customer complaints about the ‘appalling levels of customer service’ and ‘rude and unhelpful staff’.
The New Chief Operating Officer
Hero’s response to this was to create a new position of Chief Operating Officer, reporting direct to him. The COO role was positioned above that of
company directors in order to provide complete oversight of the running of the company.
Hero’s decision was to appoint an old school friend, 35 year old, Dr.Krsyztyna Brand. Like Hero, Krys was born into the insurance business working in her
family’s firm from the age of 16 (during holidays). Having achieved her first class honours from Oxford University, Krys joined the family business full-
time for five years before deciding to undertake a two-year full-time MBA at Harvard University in the United States. Following this, Krys took up a
senior operations management position at American Love Insurance Corporation in the US, while at the same time studying to complete her PhD focusing on
business and operations improvement within the insurance industry.
Krys’s arrival at De’Ath was certainly noticed. On her first day, she zoomed into her reserved parking space in her vintage Ford Mustang (almost running
over one of the security guards), blasting her horn as if to announce her arrival. She stepped out of her car, casually dressed in tight lycra training
clothes and walked into the building. Krys played as hard as she worked and her stamina provoked amazement and admiration, arriving before 7.00 a.m. after
a 60 minute gym workout – always looking fresh and cheerful – and after working until 9.00 p.m., she would complete her day with a 5 mile run “just to work
off some energy”.As one of the directors muttered: “that woman doesn’t have a life – it’s just work, work, work”.
Krys could be described as a having typical Type A personality: a ‘workaholic’, extremely ambitious, highly competitive, focused and determined, with an
achievement-driven mentality. Her experiences working in the US were reflected in her no-nonsense attitude to work, and absolute focus onprofit and
performance. Krys’s philosophy was simple saying “it’s MY job to get the absolute best out of MY workers”. To achieve this, Krys made a point of getting
to know as many employees as quickly as possible. She circulated around the building, casually stopping and chatting to employees, and getting to know
many by name. In introducing herself, she repeatedly stated: “my office door is always open to good ideas … if I’m busy, just make an appointment with my
secretary”. In reality, however, many staff have found her door ‘closed’, with an unwillingness to meet and discuss major issues.
Krys spent her first six months at the company completing a thorough assessment of the organisation, management and work practices in every department. On
completion of this, she planned her first major initiative: the launch of her new ‘HEROES’ values statement for the organisation (Figure 1 overleaf). On
launch day, all staff were encouraged to come to work dressed as their favourite superhero, and prizes were awarded for the best dressed, funniest costume,
best team, etc. In awarding the prizes and introducing the values, Krys kept her words simple: “We Are All Heroes”.
Despite the popularity of the launch event, staff remained critical of Krys and ‘HER’ new philosophy with comments such as: “who does she think she is,
telling us what to think and believe … she’s only been here five minutes … what does she know?”and“What a waste of money… does anybody actually believe in
this rubbish”. Even worse were the comments: “I don’t want to be a hero, I just want to come to work, do my job, go home, and get paid … I really don’t
care about anything else”. Criticism of the policy throughout the organisation was becoming louder and louder with more and more staff were complaining:
“it’ll never work here.”
In an attempt to silence the criticism, Krys called the 20 of the loudest and most critical complainers into her office, and offered them three choices:
“you can ‘like’ what we’re doing and enjoy it, you can ‘lump’ [put up with] what we’re doing and perform, or you can ‘leave’”. Within 10 weeks, 12 of
these staff had resigned, and it was rumoured that the others would be leaving within the next couple of months. Many believed that Krys had ‘sacked’ the
offenders, and that she had a target list of other staff she wanted to get rid of. Krys was unconcerned: “I really don’t want troublemakers … if these
people won’t commit to MY values, then I don’t want them.”
At this point, Krys set forth on her next major challenge: rebuilding De’Ath’s reputation and improving customer service. Her next step, was to focus on
the Sales and Marketing Department.
Figure 1. ‘New’ Values Statement
The Sales Call Centre
Employing nearly 900 staff, Sales and Marketing was the largest department. Over 600 staff were employed in the Sales Call Centre, who were responsible
for answering calls from new and existing customers, giving quotations and issuing policies. An ‘online’ service was offered by the Sales Contact Centre
(100 staff), responding to email and internet enquiries, as well as offering a 24 hour online chat service. Interestingly, despite the significant rise in
online purchases, the Sales Call Centre was almost exactly the same size as 20 years ago.
The Sales Call Centre operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (including Christmas). The majority of staff in the Call Centre are full-time, working 8
hours a day (plus 45 minutes for lunch and two 20-minute breaks). As a 24/7 operation, shifts in the Sales Call Centre are planned to maximise the number
of staff required at peak periods, and keep costs to a minimum when things are quiet.
Krys examined the structure of the Sales Call Centre, with layers of supervisors and managers (see Appendix for simplified organisational structure). The
Sales Call Centre set-up and hierarchy was completely different to that of the other Call and Contact Centres in the company. Every 10 Call Handlers had a
Team Leader, whose job was to check attendance and control breaks, train new team members, listen into calls for quality purposes, performance manage Call
Handlers, answer queries and, if necessary pass the enquiry up the line to the next level supervisor. For every 10 Team Leaders, there was a Superteam
Leader, for every 10 Superteam Leaders there was a Supervisor, for every 10 Supervisors, etc.
Working Environment
The Sales Call Centre was so large it took up an entire floor of the new offices. Despite being purpose built, the workforce complained that the very
large open-plan office was noisy, hot, poorly ventilated (you cannot open the windows), over-crowded, and generally unfit for purpose. Even the most basic
facilities appeared to be poorly planned….“It’s crazy, the nearest ladies’ toilet is downstairs on the far side of the building – it takes ten minutes just
to get there and back – then I get told off for spending too much time in the loo!”
Office layout in the Call Centre was based on long rows of desks, with Call Handlers sitting in blocks of eight, and a Team Leader at each end (Figure 2).
The only staff with their own offices were the senior managers, everyone else shared the open-plan space. There were ten small glass-walled meeting rooms
which managers and supervisors could book for one-to-one meetings with their staff. Everyone complained about the lack of private space, with one manager
reporting: “how can I possibly manage my staff properly, meeting rooms are booked weeks in advance. I try to be a supportive manager, but it’s really hard
… if someone’s experiencing problems, they deserve some privacy… they don’t want everyone watching what’s going on”.
Figure 2: Illustrative Sales Call Centre Office Layout : Call Handlers and Team Leaders only
Desk Numbers
1 2 3 4 5 A Team Leader B Team Leader 1 2 3 4 5 C and D Team Leader and 10
desks
6 7 8 9 10 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 E Team Leader F Team Leader 1 2 3 4 5 G and F Team Leader and 10
desks
6 7 8 9 10 6 7 8 9 10
With ten rows, each with 44 desks, conditions for Call Handlers and Team Leaders were particularly cramped. Most full-time members of staff had their own
desk but, as part-time working was becoming more popular, an increasing number of staff were being asked to share their desks with colleagues on other
shifts. “Outrageous” declared one Call Handler, “… my desk is a home from home … it’s got photos, my pet cactus and other personal items all over it. If
I’m stressed I just look at the pictures of my grandchildren, and I feel a whole lot better. Why should I have to share?”
In response to this, and other complaints, Krys issued an order to all staff: “the office is a place of work … we are professionals, no personal items
should be kept on desks… lockers will be provided for the storage of essential personal items.” Over the next few days lockers were installed next to each
Team Leaders’ desk and staff were each issued with a PIN number to access their locker. Team Leaders and other Supervisory staff were also instructed to
strictly enforce the rule, although some of them did this a bit too rigidly. “I’ve got a cold and I’m not even allowed a box of tissues and a packet of
cough sweets – ridiculous”.
In order to reduce some of the problems associated with long hours of computer work, Call Handlers and Team Leaders are required to take a break every 2
hours during their working day. Break times are fixed and strongly enforced by most Team Leaders. However, this requirement has led to some unfortunate
consequences, with the Call Centre computer recording a significant number of staff hanging up in the middle of telephone calls in order to take their
scheduled break. When asked, one Call Handler explained the problem: “I was in the middle of a call, and my Team Leader called ‘break’… I carried on with
the same call for another 10 minutes …. I then took my break and returned to my desk 10 minutes later than everyone else … my Team Leader stood there
shouting at me that if I did this again she would issue me with a formal warning… since then, I hang up like everyone else. I know this will result in
lost sales, but I don’t care – I must have my breaks!”
Working in the Sales Call Centre
The Call Handlers
Life for a Call Handler was one of routine and endless repetition. They arrive at their desks at the start of the shift, log into the computer, put on
their headsets, and the calls just keep on coming. “It’s relentless, I finish one call and I immediately have to pick up another … it’s like being on a
production line -I barely get time to breathe, let alone think. If I step away from my desk, I have to enter a code into the system showing I’m
unavailable – and the IT system records how many times, and how often.”
“The work is so repetitive and boring” declared one worker, “I have no freedom and absolutely no discretion in the way I do my job … I’d make more sales if
I was allowed to chat to the customers, but it’s simply not permitted.” All Call Handlers are required to work to a precise script which, after the
initial greeting (also scripted), is generated by the computer. “It sounds so artificial … the computer generates a question, I ask and input the answer,
it then tells me the next question to ask, and I do the same, etc. If the customer asks me a question, even if I know the answer, I have to input it into
the computer and wait for a scripted reply ….and if the computer doesn’t know, then I pass the call onto my Team Leader.” Team Leaders can listen into any
Call Handler (without them knowing) monitoring performance for quality purposes and to ensure staff are following the script. Failure to follow the script
is ‘noted’ by the Team Leader, and the issue is raised at performance reviews.
One long-serving member of staff summarised her feelings about the HEROES initiative: “I’m simply passed caring –these new values mean nothing to me – it
just doesn’t reflect the realities of working here. I used to have ideas, but soon realised there was no point … nobody was listening, and nothing would
change.”
The Team Leaders and Supervisors
Call Handlers had many complaints about the different approaches of the Team Leaders and other Supervisors. Some adopt a very relaxed approach to
leadership, leaving the staff to get on with their jobs without interference. Others are much stricter, continuously monitoring their teams, and reviewing
performance data at the end of every shift. Many don’t seem to do much work at all, chatting to their friends in the office and on the ‘phone, surfing the
internet, and taking long coffee breaks (or as they call them ‘meetings’).
Like the Call Handlers, very few Team Leaders felt a sense of challenge and opportunity associated with their work. One Team Leader refers to this as being
on “automatic pilot… I don’t have to think, I just have to do.”
Despite her initial friendliness, Krys’s arrival and review of the Sales Call Centre had instilled great fear into the hierarchy within the Sales Call
Centre. The situation was so bad, her nickname (behind her back) had become “the Axe Lady” – she wasn’t trusted, and certainly wasn’t respected. “She
says she cares, but nobody really believes it … all we are is dollar signs to her.”
All staff were aware of the differences between the Sales and Claims Call Centres. However, these differences were defended by a long-serving Supervisor.
“I joined the company almost thirty years ago, when the introduction of the Sales Call Centre was an entirely new concept … traditional insurance clerks
were retrained, and we needed the layers of supervision and management to control the quality of service. We’ve always been successful and as they say ‘if
it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’”.
The entire HEROES concept seemed to contradict these traditional working practices throughout the Sales Call Centre and many of the supervisors and
managers viewed this as “some fanciful idea from the US …it may work there, but it certainly doesn’t fit our traditional British ways of working …she
obviously has no idea about the ways things are done around here.”
Pay, Performance and Progression
With starting salaries for a Call Handler of £18,000 a year, rising to a maximum of £23,000 after 5 years’ service, staff in the Call Centre are well paid
when compared with similar localjob. Annual pay increases linked to inflation usually take place in May each year – however last year, no increase was
paid. The organisation shares 1% of net profits between all the employees as an annual bonus payment. All employees receive exactly the same amount –
last year this was equivalent to £1,825 each, a fall of over £335 from the previous year.
“It’s simply not fair!” announced one of the newer Call Handlers who had been at the company for just under a year. “Why should I get paid less than
someone else just because I’ve been here less time. I work really hard, and I know I take more calls than some others I could mention … I’ve seen
colleagues asleep at their desk and she still gets paid more than me. The bonus system isn’t fair either… why should everybody get the same? They say
it’s linked to company performance, but some staff simply don’t perform… I know my sales are brilliant, so I should get a bigger share”. Similar views
were expressed by many of the newer Call Handlers.
However, those who had worked for De’Ath for many years were highly defensive of the current approach: “we should get paid more –we’ve been here longer and
are better at what we do because of this”. There was much support for the bonus scheme:“it’s only fair that we all get the same bonus… how can you measure
an individual’s performance? It’s easy to measure sales figures, but each sales call is different –and there are so many staff who aren’t involved in
selling at all – what would you give them? Nothing?”
One of the key roles for Team Leaders and all the grades above them was to conduct regular performance and development reviews for their workers. Every
fortnight, individual staff were called into meeting rooms ‘for a chat to discuss how things are going’. However, the rationale for these reviews was
unclear – nobody really understood the process, or its purpose – there was certainly never any discussion about development or progression.
The ‘system’ provided Team Leaders with data for each Call Handler including: the number of calls taken, the length of each call, the number and value of
sales made, ‘failed’ calls (where a sale was not made), official and unofficial break times, and any other data the centralised IT system could produce.
Call Handlers were then ‘ranked’ (from 1 to 10) for overall performance within their Team.
However, the ranking system was unpopular with the almost all Call Handlers, arguing that: “The system is really unfair … the IT system allocates calls to
the next available Call Handler – it’s totally random what type of calls we take … a “pet” sales call may take 10 minutes, but a life insurance policy can
take 20 minutes just to get to a quotation –at least 50% of the callers then drop-out, saying it’s too expensive, or they would call back later [many never
do]. Even if they’re happy, it can take another 10 minutes to complete the application.”
Team Leaders were then reviewed by Super Team Leaders, who ranked the performance of their team of Team Leaders, Team Supervisors were ranked by the
performance of their team of Super Team Leaders, right the way up the hierarchy. Essentially, everybody was ultimately ranked on the performance of the
Call Handlers.
One Call Handler expressed dissatisfaction with the entire process: “’it’s called a development review, but not once has my development been discussed.
When I joined the company two years ago I was promised opportunities for training and career progression, since then nothing has happened …. I’ve tried
asking, but my Team Leader just doesn’t want to discuss it. The only training I’ve had is two days’ basic training (based on the technology), and three
days on-the-job training, sitting with my Team Leader as I take calls while she listened in … since then, nothing.”
Training for all staff in the Call Centre staff was minimal, based around operational and regulative issues such as technology management or information on
new products. The subsequent impact of this minimalist approach was readily apparent. The company had previously attempted to introduce a training and
development programme across the organisation. This had been successful in central functions such as Marketing, Finance and HR, however, within the Call
Centre the only staff to benefit from this had been the managers. Defending this, managers pointed out the very basic skill levels required to complete
most of the jobs in the Call Centre, suggesting “there’s no point in training them, they’ll just get ideas … we can’t have that … they’re paid to do a job
… if they want development they can do this in their own time.”
The issue of career progression was clearly of concern to other staff members. Staff turnover was high, and the Call Centre offered plenty of promotion
opportunities, but nobody knew the criteria for promotion. Whenever a vacancy occurred, Team Leaders, etc. were asked to nominate staff they thought
suitable for promotion. The decision was then passed up to the next level of the hierarchy to decide. Inevitably, this led to complaints of favouritism:
“Honestly, I’ve seen some really poor performers promoted quite simply because they’re friends and relations of the Team Leaders, nobody actually considers
whether someone has the ability or potential to do the job!”
Krys scratched her head “no wonder profits are falling, the entire system’s crazy – the only people who seem to work are the Call Handlers, and they seem
miserable.” She knocked on Hero’s office door, poured herself a strong Gin and Tonic and sat down saying: “This is going to be tough – there are going to
have to be big changes … and lots of them!”
MANAGING PEOPLE IN ORGANIZATIONS