Running head: Assignment 2: Case Study 1 Part B
1
HRMN400
Assignment 2: Case Study 1
Part B
1)
It seems that Hubbs' training period was too short and not planned out very well. 3 weeks
is a very short time to onboard an employee being placed in such a high position (Heathfield,
2019). After this short training period, and after having attended a few meetings, Hubbs sits
down to write his first assignment on his own. Cavanaugh should have assigned Hubbs a
“buddy” or “mentor” from his first day, especially during his first assignment (Heathfield, 2019).
It also seems that Hubbs was not shown how his job interacts with the rest of the departments at
Big Time. It is important for a new employee to fully understand how their job and the quality of
their work can affect other departments, as we saw the marketing department having to pick up
the slack created by Hubbs.
2)
I see no mention of Cavanaugh actually telling Hubbs that his work is not up to standards.
While I feel she made no effort to properly ease Hubbs into his new role by using a mentor from
the beginning, not addressing and reacting to the issue has made it even worse. New employees
need to have long term reoccurring feedback, and definitely need to be informed their work is
sub-par as soon as possible (Dubois, 2010). After the first assignment Hubbs completed,
I would have arranged a meeting with him to ensure he was aware his work was not up to the
standard and discuss ways to improve, setting goals and time frames in which to achieve them
(Ruff, 2019).
3)
The main risk of having Hamrick be his mentor is largely that he is the only technical
editor in the department. And it appears that Hamrick has been helping Hubbs with his work
which takes Hamrick away from his responsibilities. This can work out as a benefit as Hubbs is
getting direction and advice from another employee with a similar background, however I do not
feel that the benefits outweigh the risks. As Hubbs' position is a new one, having him work with
others on their projects would have been a better start. I would have started Hubbs working
alongside the team of writers at the bottom of the chart. Then moved him up to work with
Samson and Murray for a few weeks. This would have given him a better understanding of the
process and what is expected in this level of technical writing. Eventually he would move to
work with Hamrick and by this time, have a better understanding and actually be able to assist
and learn from Hamrick instead of slowing him down or take away from his current
responsibilities. Dumping too much responsibility and information on a new employee in too
short a time is not the best way to ensure they prosper and become a productive employee
(Heathfield, 2019).
4)
It is important to confront and discuss with new employees (or any employee) any issues
related to poor performance (Silberman, 2013). From the case study I do not see that this ever
occurred. Additionally she has assigned people to basically babysit and check Hubbs' work. The
manager should have been specific about the mistakes and shortcomings Hubbs has been
exhibiting and make a plan on how they will correct them. The current plan seems to be to have
everyone correct his work until further notice, and this is not the way to go about it.
1
HRMN400
Assignment 2: Case Study 1
Part B
1)
It seems that Hubbs' training period was too short and not planned out very well. 3 weeks
is a very short time to onboard an employee being placed in such a high position (Heathfield,
2019). After this short training period, and after having attended a few meetings, Hubbs sits
down to write his first assignment on his own. Cavanaugh should have assigned Hubbs a
“buddy” or “mentor” from his first day, especially during his first assignment (Heathfield, 2019).
It also seems that Hubbs was not shown how his job interacts with the rest of the departments at
Big Time. It is important for a new employee to fully understand how their job and the quality of
their work can affect other departments, as we saw the marketing department having to pick up
the slack created by Hubbs.
2)
I see no mention of Cavanaugh actually telling Hubbs that his work is not up to standards.
While I feel she made no effort to properly ease Hubbs into his new role by using a mentor from
the beginning, not addressing and reacting to the issue has made it even worse. New employees
need to have long term reoccurring feedback, and definitely need to be informed their work is
sub-par as soon as possible (Dubois, 2010). After the first assignment Hubbs completed,
I would have arranged a meeting with him to ensure he was aware his work was not up to the
standard and discuss ways to improve, setting goals and time frames in which to achieve them
(Ruff, 2019).
3)
The main risk of having Hamrick be his mentor is largely that he is the only technical
editor in the department. And it appears that Hamrick has been helping Hubbs with his work
which takes Hamrick away from his responsibilities. This can work out as a benefit as Hubbs is
getting direction and advice from another employee with a similar background, however I do not
feel that the benefits outweigh the risks. As Hubbs' position is a new one, having him work with
others on their projects would have been a better start. I would have started Hubbs working
alongside the team of writers at the bottom of the chart. Then moved him up to work with
Samson and Murray for a few weeks. This would have given him a better understanding of the
process and what is expected in this level of technical writing. Eventually he would move to
work with Hamrick and by this time, have a better understanding and actually be able to assist
and learn from Hamrick instead of slowing him down or take away from his current
responsibilities. Dumping too much responsibility and information on a new employee in too
short a time is not the best way to ensure they prosper and become a productive employee
(Heathfield, 2019).
4)
It is important to confront and discuss with new employees (or any employee) any issues
related to poor performance (Silberman, 2013). From the case study I do not see that this ever
occurred. Additionally she has assigned people to basically babysit and check Hubbs' work. The
manager should have been specific about the mistakes and shortcomings Hubbs has been
exhibiting and make a plan on how they will correct them. The current plan seems to be to have
everyone correct his work until further notice, and this is not the way to go about it.
