Reference no: EM133243918

Case: In August, Jason Hubbs submitted a résumé to the human resource department of Big Time Computers Inc. in response to an advertisement in the local newspaper for a senior technical writer. After a short interview process in which three of the four individuals on the selection committee felt that he should be hired, Lisa Cavanaugh hired him. Hubbs spent a three-week training period learning departmental methods and procedures, becoming familiar with Big Time's products, and preparing for his first writing assignments. As a senior writer, Hubbs was also expected to serve as a technical publications project leader for one of Big Time's product groups. During the training period, Hubbs attended project meetings to meet the employees from other departments who were involved with that product group and to become current on what was happening within it.

Following the training period, Hubbs started his first writing assignment, the revision of a software manual to reflect upgraded product software. Hubbs went two weeks beyond the scheduled date for completing the first draft of the revision. In editing the first draft, Hamrick felt that the writing quality and organization were poor and suggested extensive changes before the manual was distributed for review. Hubbs implemented these changes and prepared the manual for review. One week before the review, Hubbs sent an advance notice email message to the reviewers, notifying them of the upcoming review. Mark Samson, the project leader for the product described in the manual, pointed out to Lisa Cavanaugh that the message was sloppy, and had misspellings and poor grammar. He expressed concern that the credibility of the technical publications department was at risk if the quality of any of the written material that went out to the entire company was poor.

Hamrick and Samson also expressed concern to Cavanaugh about Hubbs's writing ability. Cavanaugh decided to implement some procedures to monitor Hubbs's progress and temporarily give him more supervision. She scheduled weekly meetings with Hubbs during which he was to give her a detailed status report for the week, with particular emphasis on tracking manual schedules. She also required Hubbs to send his work to the technical editor on a chapter-by chapter basis, and each week Hamrick would meet with Hubbs to discuss his writing. Cavanaugh also decided to postpone giving project leader responsibilities to Hubbs, but she had him continue to attend project meetings with Murray and planned to give Hubbs a project in the future. Resentment was starting to develop in the technical publications department due to Hubbs's failure to meet expectations. Several of the writers complained to Cavanaugh because Hubbs had been hired as a senior writer at a higher salary, yet his writing skills were apparently inferior to theirs. Murray also expressed dissatisfaction at having to serve as project leader for two projects when the expectation was that Hubbs would take one of the projects. Hamrick fell behind in his editing assignments because of the extra time he was spending with Hubbs, and the editorial assistants complained about the quantity of cleanup required because of Hubbs's poor work.

In private meetings with dissatisfied employees, Cavanaugh expressed faith in Hubbs's abilities and urged patience while she worked on developing his skills. Hubbs showed signs of improvement in his writing skills and his ability to meet deadlines under the procedures implemented by Cavanaugh. As a result of this and because Hubbs now had four months' experience at Big Time, Cavanaugh assigned Hubbs to write a marketing article on a topic related to his area of technical expertise. Hubbs was to work with a marketing engineer and a marketing product manager to develop the article by a specified date. When the initial review of the article was due, Hubbs gave the first draft to the marketing department without any review or edit from within the technical publications department. Marketing was dissatisfied with the organization and content of the article; Dennis Smith, marketing product manager, met with Lisa Cavanaugh to express this dissatisfaction. Although Cavanaugh assured Smith that technical publications could complete the article to his satisfaction and on schedule, Smith decided to have the article written by a marketing employee. Though his writing skills were slowly improving, lingering resentment continued about Hubbs's status and salary as a senior writer. Morale in the department was low. Hamrick continued to have a difficult time fulfilling his editing responsibilities because of the extra time he was spending with Hubbs, and Murray couldn't meet manual schedules because of the time spent fulfilling project leader responsibilities for two projects. Lisa Cavanaugh knew that it was time to act.

Question 1. Evaluate the effectiveness of the process of onboarding Hubbs. What elements of the new hire orientation and onboarding processes would be particularly important to his successful performance?

Question 2. Assume the role of the manager in this case. How do you handle a new employee who lacks the specific skills that were presented during the selection process? How do you determine if additional training is the solution and how much training is reasonable or expected? How would you know if training is not the solution?

Question 3. Discuss the risks versus the benefits of the manager's decision to have Hamrick mentor Hubbs. Overall, do you think this decision was effective? If you do not agree, who do you think would have been a more suitable mentor for Hubbs and why?

Question 4. Evaluate the manager's process of handling Hubb's performance problems. Was it effective or could it have been handled differently? Was anything overlooked? What other factors besides lack of skills or ability could have contributed to Hubb's poor performance? How could the manager have mitigated some of these factors?

Question 5. Consider the performance issue with the marketing department. What happens when poor performance by a team member affects a department's reputation and credibility? What options should the manager consider in rectifying the situation?

Question 6. The manager needs to act. What are her options and what factors and/or additional information must she consider before making a decision? What are the implications of this decision for the team?

Question 7. Review Case A and reflect on the recruiting and selection processes used to hire Hubbs.

- How could the recruiting and/or selection processes been improved to mitigate the new hire's performance issues?

- What effect could the recruiting and/or selection processes have had on Hubbs's subsequent performance and his team's perceptions of his performance?