Who's a star

Read Case Study 10.1. Answer Questions 1 and 2 at the end of Case Study 10.1.

Each question should be answered in an essay format of approximately 300 words.

Ensure your paper answers the questions and uses concepts studied in the module and from the reading. Support your answers with personal experiences, current events, and references to the reading.

Use the library to locate four to six scholarly sources to support your analysis.

Prepare this assignment according to the APA guideline

THE STAR AWARD

As director of the excise audit bureau in the West Dakota Department of Taxation, you have to decide who on your staff should receive a new performance bonus. The legislature created the bonus back in February, and the division of personnel has now issued all the regulations. You have the forms and instructions, and by the end

of the month, you have to send your choices to the taxation commissioner, who will forward them to personnel. Two things motivated the West Dakota legislature to create the performance bonus. First, key legislators had concluded that state employees were simply not working hard enough. Legislators constantly receive complaints about

the lackadaisical attitude of state workers, and they concluded that the fixed civil service pay scale was not attracting new talent or motivating existing employees. Second, West Dakota is running a budget surplus for the second straight year. Naturally, the legislature has cut taxes—twice. But despite those efforts, the budget continues to show a surplus.

Consequently, the Speaker of the House decided to use a portion of it to reward the “stars” of state government. The new Star Award will give the top 20 percent of employees in each unit a $5000 bonus, to be paid in 12 monthly installments

during the coming fiscal year. The bonus is supposed to go to those employees who are not only “outstanding” but also genuine stars. The head of each unit must determine the criteria for choosing who the stars are. To ensure that the bonus can be included in the July payroll checks, each manager must submit a “star list” by June 20. Your audit bureau has 15 employees with a wide range of responsibilities and job classifications—everything from clerk I to senior auditor. And, predictably, they also possess a

range of talent, enthusiasm, and effectiveness. Here are the most obvious candidates for the performance bonus: Larry Beck, senior auditor. As a 23-year employee, Beck is clearly your most knowledgeable and effective auditor. Everyone goes to him for advice. Everyone looks up to him. But in two years, Larry will be eligible to receive his pension, and he knows it. He can still be a top performer—when he wants to. Recently,

however, he has lost a little drive, although most people in the Department of Taxation still think of him as your unit’s star. Jim Beatty, auditor III. With an advanced degree in accounting, Jim draws your unit’s tough assignments. He understands the subtleties

of the excise tax and thus works with both the department’s legal counsel and the attorney general’s office explaining the intricacies of each case and helping to formulate strategy. He can, however, be condescending toward his less knowledgeable colleagues, few of whom understand the complexity of his work. Rachel Gonzalez, auditor I. Straight out of law school with a verve for public service, Rachel is a real go-getter. In fact, she has struck gold several times, having gone over the books of numerous firms in such detail that she found mistakes most other auditors would have missed. Unfortunately, she also discovered some “errors” at a firm owned by the House Speaker’s cousin. The firm refused to acknowledge any error, and eventually the department’s legal counsel decided to settle out of court. The firm paid the taxes that Rachel claimed it owed (plus interest) but admitted no guilt for any tax violations and paid no fine. Rachel would be a gutsy choice on your part, but it might create a few problems politically when the Speaker hears about it. Martha Rutledge, administrative assistant II. With 35 years in the Department of Taxation, Martha knows everybody and everything. She runs your life. In fact, she really runs the day-to-day business of the audit unit, permitting you to concentrate on long-term, strate- gic concerns. You trust both her skills and her

judgment; she really functions as your deputy director. Of course, she is still paid as an

administrative assistant. It’s hard to imagine Martha slacking off in her duties under any

circumstances; it’s also unlikely that an award would make her any more diligent. She’ll be doing her same conscientious job right up until the day she leaves.

• Samantha Black, clerk I. Two years ago, straight out of high school, Samantha passed the civil service exam with flying colors. You immediately hired her, and she quickly

became a real team member—both competent and cheery. Every auditor wants to give his

or her clerical work to Samantha. Moreover, others in the department have heard of her

talents, and she has already turned down several offers as a clerk II. You, however, don’t

have a clerk II position into which you can promote her. The rest of your employees are quite proficient and professional. They’re smart; to do their work, they have to be. Like any other manager in the taxation department, or in state government for that matter, you have a couple of people whom you wouldn’t mind replacing. Still, you have a

talented team that does its job without requiring much attention (except when you step on some politically sensitive toes). Your people are overworked and underappreciated. If the bonus is for performance, 90 percent of them deserve one. But you have only three to give.

Case Questions

1. Before turning to specifics of the case, consider the following more general question. Most would agree the six factors in the following list are important in determining whom to hire and promote:

• Capacity

• Experience

• Integrity

• Knowledge

• Motivation

• Understanding

How would you rank these in relative importance?

Support your answer.

2. Who in this case would you pick?

Case Reference

Robert D. Behn, “Manager’s Choice,” Governing

(June 1998): 55.

Please follow the rubric only original work accepted turnit in would be use each question has to be 300 words.

THE RUBRIC

Case 10.1 -- The Star Award  

	1 Unsatisfactory 0.00%	2 Less than Satisfactory 65.00%	3 Satisfactory 75.00%	4 Good 85.00%	5 Excellent 100.00%
100.0 %Criteria
50.0 %Ranking of the Six Hiring or Promotion Factors	Factors are not ranked.	The factors are ranked, but the ranking is not justified.	Factors are ranked in relative importance and reasoning is presented.	Factors are ranked in relative importance. Reasoning presented explains why certain ranking criteria are more important.	Factors are ranked in relative importance. Reasoning presented explains why certain ranking criteria are more important. The impact of current bonus policy on morale and productivity is discussed.
20.0 %Choice of Employee to Receive the Bonus	No employee is chosen.	An employee is chosen without any explanation.	An employee is chosen that is consistent with the ranking presented earlier. A short explanation is provided.	An employee is chosen that is consistent with the ranking presented earlier. A discussion on why the chosen employee met the criteria while others did not is presented.	An employee is chosen that is consistent with the ranking presented earlier. A discussion on why the chosen employee met the criteria while others did not is presented. Suggestions for improving the bonus awards policy and criteria are discussed.
10.0 %Answer the Questions Using Concepts Studied in the Module	Neither human resource planning nor development concepts are used	Only one or two concepts related to compensation and merit are briefly or generally addressed.	Key concepts related to the merit principle, disparate treatment, position classification, and performance principles are addressed.	Key concepts related to the merit principle, disparate treatment, position classification, and performance principles are addressed. The discussion clearly demonstrated an understanding of how these concepts translate into practical policy making.	Key concepts related to the merit principle, disparate treatment, position classification, and performance principles are addressed. The discussion clearly demonstrates an understanding of how these concepts translate into practical policy making. A thorough explanation on how the concepts are rooted in federal law, organizational culture, and management style, is provided.
5.0 %Reference Personal Experiences and Current Events	Neither personal experiences nor current events are referenced.	Personal experiences and events are mentioned without explanation or context.	Personal experiences and events are referenced with clear explanation of relevance.	Personal experiences and events are referenced with clear explanation of relevance. The discussion clearly made a connection to the key concepts listed above.	Personal experiences and events are referenced with clear explanation of relevance. The discussion clearly made a connection to the key concepts listed above. An assessment of alternative choices and conflict/alignment between personal views and current policy is presented.
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)	Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)	Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.	Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.	Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.	Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.	All format elements are correct.
5.0 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style)	No reference page is included. No citations are used.	Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.	Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present.	Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.	In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
100 %Total Weightage