New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

BUAD 3000

by: berbaroot

BUAD 3000 BUAD 3000


Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Individual Case paper. I got an A in this course, hopefully will will help you to get one too.
Class Notes
Case Study, customer service, business, BUAD
25 ?




Popular in

Popular in Department

This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by berbaroot on Thursday May 19, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to BUAD 3000 at University of Colorado Colorado Springs taught by in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 6 views.


Reviews for BUAD 3000


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 05/19/16
Barbara Root 12-6-2014 Prepared for BUAD 3000 Individual Case: Performance Management at Department Store X Department Store X is a typical high­fashion, gift­stop, personal shopping retail outlet.  They sell high­fashion retail such as Coach, Michael Kors, Dior, and many more reputable lines  of products, ranging from cosmetics to kitchen cutlery. Each department is supported by sale  representatives that are trained, and know numerous attributes about every product in their  department. Management is per department. Department examples would include shoes,  accessories, cosmetics, and in this specific case the customer service, which on the other hand,  does not arm the whole floor like the other departments. Customer service aims are helping every customer at Department store X feel as though  their shopping experience was personalized to their liking. Customer service provides this  excellent service by cordially providing gift wrap and personalized shipping expense free to Elite card holders, and more importantly serving customers in routine transactions such as  returns/exchanges and credit payments. Not only does customer service serve customers, they  serve associates such as sales representatives and even managers. Customer service  representatives perform operational tasks such as paging on the intercom, varying from complex  announcements to just announcing extensions. Furthermore customer service serves the  associates and management by performing typical secretarial work like phone directory skills  and copies. Finally customer service provides retail secretarial aid by making cash change for the department’s registers, helping departments get ahold of managers. Department Store X has a performance evaluation system based on scales from one to  five, one being the worst and five being the best. Evaluations are typically done ten days after  hire, and after that point, on a quarterly basis. With an evaluation also comes a bonus. Bob is a  customer service representative for Department Store X.  Bob has always been the high  Barbara Root 12-6-2014 performing employee and as of lately Bob has been struggling to grow and develop at Store X as  representative Sam, who’s performance struggles daily, begins to have the same high scores.  This case will explore the primary factors of effective performance management and the results  of ranking evaluations, in addition to a new purposed performance management system. Department Store X’s performance evaluations system is no longer effective as it uses  numerical ranking on an individual’s work performance. Lisa Sprenkle’s article regarding  ranking systems suggest that ranking systems are harmful to morale, stress individual  performance at the cost of group performance, and encourage negative competition (2002).  According to Sprenkle’s studies, 95 percent of managers and employees comparable, are  dissatisfied with the performance management systems in place at their companies, and  correspondingly they feel as though setting goals are tough and imprecise, ratings are not  consistent, and finally leaders do not set the example (2002).Essentially, Sprenkle’s observations support that ranking is no longer an effective form of performance evaluation feedback.  Supportively, neurosciences further examine the results of numerical ranking.  Scientifically speaking, “ranking automatically generates an overwhelming fight or flight  response that impairs good judgment” (Rock et al., 2014). Moreover this article also uncovers  the idea that a fixed­mind set indicates that intelligence or talent is established at birth and that  you are either borne smart or not (Rock et al., 2014). When individuals are ranked this fixed  mindset is burdened upon this person, for now they have no room for growth as you are borne  into, or predisposed to be one way or another. A number label is harmful in that it results in  defensive reasoning shaped out of this view of “we are either winners or losers, in control or  controlled, and that therefore, in an effort to protect ourselves from perspectives that may  threaten our perceived status, we become closed off from new information or points of view”  Barbara Root 12-6-2014 (Gentile 2010). Equity theory also contributes to some performance management issues here in  that Milliman and Gardner examine that when victimized by unfair social exchanges, like  comparing salaries or ranks, then our cognitive dissonance prompts us to correct the situation,  and corrective action may be ranging from direct actions like theft or sabotaged, to indirect  actions like lack of motivation and cooperation (174). Meaning that if we sense injustice we feel  a human instinct to correct the imbalance, whether it may be being sluggish or productive, thus  proposing a solution to this performance evaluation is imperative. Fundamentally Department Store X needs to develop a whole new way to produce  effective performance management excluding the previous ranking system. In selecting an  appropriate solution, management not only must remove ranking all together, they must build  and use one of the two a conversational approaches to evaluations.  First one being structured  types of conversation topics, some commonly discussed topics are career growth, contribution,  collaboration and innovation in addition to the company providing guidance on how to talk about each one (Rock et al., 2014). Second conversational approach is the guided approach in where  instead of having topics, the conversation focuses on personally set goals, and how that person  and choosing to progress to those goals, as well as their contribution to the company (Rock et al., 2014). Structured or guided, conversation, the fundamental is to prime people, employee and  boss alike, to enact a serious growth­mind set (Rock et al., 2014).  Guided conversations in addition to priming individuals is surely the most effective  solution for Department Store X. As a manager it’s important to be engaged with your  employees and vice versa. Management needs to understand that the dichotomy of, rights or  responsibilities instead of rights and responsibilities, can certainly limit our ability to recognize  Barbara Root 12-6-2014 broader, shared purpose, and could otherwise embrace as a personal, as well as a social, benefit  (Gentile 2010).  The company and management need to recognize the pressures that are leading the  person we are trying to impact to take a specific stand and that these comprehensions can help  management to create a response that is focused on the needs of the person rather than the  reasons that are most convincing (Gentile 2010). More importantly managers need to make a  conscious effort to help their associates in this case to evaluate personal developmental goals and follow up on these goals, so that employees like Bob and Sam can grow as individuals not for  themselves, but for the better of the company. Finally to tie back to equity theory,  correspondingly with personally guided conversations Bob and Sam’s comparisons of each other ranks are superficial in that a right or wrong answers, like with ranking, is not present. Fairness  cannot be measured, as every evaluation is tailored for guided conversation for that person,  evaluations will always be fair for everyone.  In summary Department Store X’s performance evaluation system of ranking and   assigning individuals numerical values of their performance has resulted in Bob feeling like his  hard work is rated as just as mediocre as Sam’s. Due to this ranking system employee’s growth  and development are being limited. Research suggests that ranking is neurologically not effective and more importantly not useful to the company in terms or morale, development, and obeying  the ineffective idea of individual performance over team performance is harmful to Store X.  Therefore it is imperative to implement a solution such as guided conversations coupled with  freshly primed in the growth mind set. Ultimately team, and individual cohesion will occur and  both Bob and Sam’s performance evaluation will prove to be helpful. Barbara Root 12-6-2014 References Gentile, M. (2010). Babson. Scripts and Skills: Readings, Giving Voice to Values (Reading #3). Milliman, J., & Gardner, D. (2014). Intro to Management. University of Colorado Colorado    Springs. Rock, D., Davis, J., & Jones, B. (2014, August 8). Kill Your Performance Ratings. Retrieved   December 6, 2014, from http://www.strategy­ Sprenkle, L. (2002, June 20). Forced Ranking ­ A Good Thing for Business? Retrieved   December 6, 2014, from­ranking­a­good­ thing­for­business


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Jennifer McGill UCSF Med School

"Selling my MCAT study guides and notes has been a great source of side revenue while I'm in school. Some months I'm making over $500! Plus, it makes me happy knowing that I'm helping future med students with their MCAT."

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.