Beauty and honesty at Aerospace Designs' marketing department.
Morena, Anthony ; Armandi, Barry ; Sherman, Herbert 等
CASE DESCRIPTION
This case concerns a female employee, Lola Meyer, and the problems that occurred when Lola received a less than satisfactory assessment on her annual performance evaluation, one that was delivered over four months after it was due and not by her immediate boss. Lola's reaction to her negative performance evaluation was to claim sexual harassment against her boss and her coworkers (sexually-charged language and references to anatomical parts.) The case examines not only the issue of sexual harassment but also deals with the issues of time theft, fraud, and falsification of documents. The case has a difficulty level appropriate for sophomore level or above. The case is designed to be taught in one class period (may vary from fifty to eighty minutes depending upon instructional approach employed, see instructor's note) and is expected to require between two to fours hours of outside preparation by students (again, depending upon instructor's choice of class preparation method).
CASE SYNOPSIS
Derived from observation and field interviews, the case center's around Lola's seemingly misrepresentation of her working hours and days according to her time card. Lola was claiming overtime pay while her boss was out-of-town, stating that this work had been done for another Director. Further investigation by another Director (her boss was out-of-town) revealed that on several other occasions Lola had taken time off yet claimed those hours worked on her time card. When confronted with the discrepancies, Lola claimed that she had forgotten to put in those days as sick days. However, she also admitted as to not following the accepted procedure of calling in to the office when one is out sick. Ultimately, these facts were considered and the company decided to terminate Lola's employment due to falsification of her timecard on the two weeks in question. A month later, Lola sued the Company and her original supervisor for sexual harassment.
INSTRUCTORS' NOTES
Sexual harassment is a serious accusation, so is time theft. Yet when does one have proof of either accusation? This case concerns a female employee, Lola Meyer, and the problems that occurred when Lola received a less than satisfactory assessment on her annual performance evaluation, one that was delivered over four months after it was due and not by her immediate boss. Lola's reaction to her negative performance evaluation was to claim sexual harassment against her boss and her coworkers (sexually-charged language and references to anatomical parts) which resulted in a prompt investigation, a transfer of Lola to another supervisor, and sexual harassment training for her former boss.
This solution was acceptable to Lola.
The case problem center's around Lola's seemingly misrepresentation of her working hours and days according to her time card. Lola was claiming overtime pay while her boss was out-oftown, stating that this work had been done for another Director. Further investigation by another Director (her boss was out-of-town) revealed that on several occasions Lola had taken time off yet claimed those hours worked on her time card. When confronted with the discrepancies, Lola claimed that she had forgotten to put in those days as sick days. However, she also admitted as to not following the accepted procedure of calling in to the office when one is out sick. Ultimately, these facts were considered and the company decided to terminate Lola's employment due to falsification of her timecard on the two weeks in question. A month later, Lola was suing the Company and her original supervisor for sexual harassment.
INTENDED INSTRUCTIONAL AUDIENCE & PLACEMENT IN COURSE INSTRUCTION
This case was primarily developed for undergraduates taking a course in human resource management (HRM), although the case does include issues of business ethics (i.e. Is Lola's lawsuit blackmail and/or payment for her dismissal? What is the appropriate punishment for time theft?). The case specifically deals with sexual harassment and time theft and should be introduced after the students have read material on the legal environment of HRM (Kleiman, 2000, Chapter 2; Bowin and Harvey, 2001, Chapter 2) and complying with workplace justice laws (Kleiman, 2000, Chapter 11). The case was intended as an end of chapter case or end of section case (legal aspects of HRM), rather than serving as a comprehensive, end of course, case.
Learning Objectives
The overall purpose of this case is to have students examine two critical issues in HRM and how they are intertwined in this case. This case in particular has practical value to students since many of them may find that they as general employees, supervisors, or HRM specialists will have to deal with similar situations. Students are asked to probe beyond personalities and the immediacy of the moment and examine the underlying nuances of the posed problem. Specific learning objectives are as follows:
1. For students to understand legal aspects of sexual harassment and time theft.
2. For students to analyze the behavior of management and the HRM department in dealing with Lola's two distinct situations.
3. For students to agree or disagree with management's decision to terminate Lola and explain why.
4. For students to determine what actions management and HRM could take in the future to avoid similar situations.
TEACHING STRATEGIES
Preparing the Student Prior to Case Analysis
There are several approaches, none of which are mutually exclusive, that an instructor may employ in terms of utilizing this case. It is strongly recommended that regardless of the specific methodology employed, that students prior to reading this case be exposed to some material on sexual harassment (Player, 1992) and time theft (Cheeseman, 2001). This will provide students with the proper perspective and allow them to acknowledge some of the legal issues embedded in the case.
This conceptual framework may be delivered prior to assigning the case by using at least one
(1) of the follow methods:
a. a short lecture and/or discussion session on the above noted topics.
b. a reading assignment prior to reading the case that covers several of the topics mentioned.
c. a short student presentation on each topic.
d. a guest lecturer on one of the topics.
Traditional Case Method
In the traditional case method, the student assumes the role of a manager or consultant and therein takes a generalist approach to analyzing and solving the problems of an organization. This approach requires students to utilize all of their prior learning in other subject areas as well as the field of management. This case, in particular, will also require students to draw upon their knowledge of leadership, structure, culture and systems thinking. It is strongly suggested that students prepare for the case prior to class discussion, using the following recommendations: allow adequate time in preparing the case, read the case at least twice, focus on the key strategic issues, adopt the appropriate time frame, and/or draw on all your knowledge of business (Pearce and Robinson, 2000).
The instructor's role in case analysis is one of a facilitator. The instructor helps to keep the class focused on the key issues; creates a classroom environment that encourages classroom discussion and creativity, bridges "theory to practice" by referring back to key concepts learned in this or prior courses, and challenges students' analyses in order to stimulate further learning and discussion. There are several variations of the aforementioned approach including written assignments, oral presentations, team assignments, structured case competitions, and supplemental field work. Regardless of the variation employed, it is recommended that the students' work be evaluated and graded as partial fulfillment of the course's requirements.
Role-Playing
Role-playing "enacts" a case and allows the students to explore the human, social, and political dynamics of a case situation. There are several opportunities for role-playing in this case, the most interesting being the final meeting between Lola and Tom to discuss Lola's time discrepancies.
Prior to role-playing the case, students should be asked to read the case but and answer the following questions:
1. Who are the key participants in the case? Why?
2. What is the "role" of each of these participants in the organization?
3. What is the motivation, rationale, or benefit these participants derive from the situation?
4. What is the employee's rights and responsibilities?
5. What are management's rights and responsibilities?
The instructor may either go through these questions prior to case enactment or wait for the role-playing exercise to be completed in order to use this material to "debrief" the class.
Starting the Role-Playing Exercise
The role play should start at the beginning of the meeting, that is, Tom's presentation of the issue of the overtime that Lola had claimed and the summary of the ensuing investigation and his findings.
Lola hadn't been aware of the investigation going on that day and was unaware as to why Tom wanted to see her. In the discussion Lola claimed to have "forgotten" to put in for two days of sick time and offered to have the time changed. As that comment was to be expected, she had inadvertently indicated in the initial part of the discussion the procedure for communicating to her supervisor during his time away from the office. According to procedure, she was to either leave him a voicemail or an e-mail if she wasn't going to be in. She had not done so for the two days in question. For the prior week she had actually requested a personal day for that Thursday, and had taken it. When confronted with that timecard (which she would have completed the next day--Friday) her baffled response was simply that "she must have worked that day." In both cases she was aware that Mark was not in the office due to his travel schedule and that she had indeed signed both timecards (as was her habit when he was away).
Step 1: Assignment of Roles (5 minutes)
The class should be broken up into groups of 3-4 students. Assign the key roles of Tom and Lola to two members of each group. Class members not chosen for specific roles become outside observers. It might be helpful to provide the students playing Tom and Lola with specific instructions in terms of how to enact their roles. Varied instructions (a different set of instructions per group) may lead to differing results and add some value to the end-of-class discussion. For instance, one student playing Lola could be instructed to act indifferent throughout the whole meeting and agree to anything just to get out of the meeting. Another could act indignant, and threaten legal action. A student playing Tom could act in an accusatory fashion while another could act sympathetic. These variations should be noted for later class discussion.
Step 2: Enactment (20 minutes)
The student enacting the role of Tom should be instructed to start the role play with a summary of the situation (including problem definitions) and include comments concerning Lola's inaccurate time card. Both students, should then be instructed to contribute to the discussion with the notion of coming to some sort of resolution based upon their specific character instructions (i.e. a sympathetic Tom might look for an easy solution that would not hurt Lola while an accusatory Tom would fire Lola no matter what she said). The instructor during this phase of the exercise should note how well the students enacting Tom's role covers the major issues surrounding the case.
Step 3: Exercise Debriefing (20 minutes)
The meeting should first be debriefed as a whole in each group. Once the in-group debriefing is completed, the group should then address the class as a whole and then the discussion should be opened to the entire class. The instructor might want to ask the following questions or provide these questions to each group for guidance:
a. What were the goals and results of each meeting?
b. Did Tom accomplish his objectives?
c. What alternative results might have occurred from this meeting? Best and worst scenarios?
d. What theory(ies) from the course helped the students to understand the case situation and recommend solutions to the defined problems?
Students should also be given the opportunity to comment on the role-playing exercise as a learning instrument. The instructor might ask the class the following questions:
1. Did this exercise animate the case?
2. Did students get a "feel" for individual and organizational issues surrounding the case?
3. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the exercise?
4. What changes would they make to the exercise given their experiences with it?
Using Case Questions
Whether or not the instructor assigns questions for students to analyze with the case is usually a matter of educational philosophy and student readiness. Naumes and Naumes (1999), for example, thought that if the questions were handed out with the case "students will tend to focus only on the issues specifically raised by the questions" (p.86). Lynn (1999), on the other hand, noted that the use of assignment questions provided students with more concrete guidance in case preparation and analysis; specifically directing them to consider the decision to be reached.
In deciding whether or not to assign questions, the instructor should first answer the following questions:
1. What is the level of course instruction?
2. What type of case is being taught? (Iceberg, incident, illustrative, head, dialogue, application, data, issue, or prediction--see Lundberg et. al., 2001 for full descriptions.)
3. What is the instructor's preliminary assessment of the students' ability to be selfdirected learners?
4. What are the students' previous experiences with case instruction?
5. If the students have already been exposed to the case method, what types of cases have they been exposed to, such as: Case incidents (1-2 page cases with questions); Short cases (3-8 page cases with and/or without case questions; Comprehensive cases (greater than 8-15 pages); or Harvard-style cases (greater than 15 pages)? (David, 2003)
6. What is the instructor's preferred method for case instruction? (For example, "sage on the stage", "guide on the side", "student as teacher" (student-lead discussions), "observer and final commentator" (open class discussion with faculty summation), etc.
SUGGESTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
The following questions may be employed by the instructor either as guidelines for the instructor for case analysis and/or as questions to be distributed to the class in conjunction with the case. This methodology provides the instructor some latitude in terms of how much direction he or she wishes to provide the student and therein allows the instructor to modify the difficulty of the case to fit his or her class's needs. The questions are divided by topics.
1. Describe the legal aspects of sexual harassment, time theft, and fraud that impact upon this case.
Sexual Harassment. Sexual harassment is defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as "lewd remarks, touching, intimidation, posting pinups, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that occur on the job." (Cheeseman, 2001, p. 843) These actions must create a hostile environment for the employee, one where "there were repetitive or debilitating incidents that would affect seriously the psychological welfare of a person of reasonable sensibilities." (Player, 1992, p. 207) A hostile environment is defined as any conduct including "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature" (29 CFR Section 1604.11(a)(3)) and must negatively impact his or her work performance or psychological well-being "as measured from the perspective of a reasonable person of the victim's gender." (Player, 1992, p. 210)
It is interesting to note that everyday conversations that may include obscenities, or a single incident or suggestion of sexual involvement in and of itself does not constitute sexual harassment. The plaintiff must indicate that the environment or the activity is unwelcome, although participation in an activity does not necessarily indicate approval. In an environment where sexual innuendos are the norm and the plaintiff fully engages in such behavior, the defendant would have the right to determine why the plaintiff did not object to such an environment before claiming sexual harassment. Another component of sexual harassment is that liability is based upon actions of the employer (i.e. owners, managers, supervisors--those with managerial authority over the employee), not necessarily the plaintiff's fellow employees. Management is not liable for the actions of low level employees it is not aware of, if the employer has a clear policy on sexual harassment, which includes a process of informing management of the harassment. (Player, 1992)
Time Theft and Fraud. Employee theft, one of the most serious problems faced by US businesses, takes many forms. The theft of tangible property is the most obvious and most controllable form. The theft of intangible assets, such as time, however, is more difficult to detect and reduce. Robert Half of Robert Half International defined time theft as deliberate waste of on-the-job time by employees who use company time for matters totally unrelated to the organization. (Scelsi, 1988) Unlike outright thievery of a company's supplies, a worker who steals time is less likely to feel guilty about it. (Schaeffer, 1988)
A 1990 study found that the typical employee steals 6 workweeks worth of time each year (Snyder, Blair, and Arndt, 1990) while 67% of surveyed professionals say that time theft--early departure, long lunches, excessive chatting with co-workers--is the leading way in which employees cheat the company. (USA Today, 1989) In an executive survey, 82 percent felt government employees steal more time than private sector workers, and 84 percent said workers under 30 steal more time than older workers. The most likely time for the thievery is during the first work hour on a Friday in December. (Thomas, 1986) Estimates are that, in 1987, firms lost up to $300 billion to employee crimes, and in 1988, they are likely to lose $200 billion to time theft. (Scelsi, 1988)
Fraud, also known as intentional misrepresentation, "occurs when one person consciously decides to induce another person to rely and act on a misrepresentation." (Cheeseman, 2001, p. 250) There are several types of fraud including fraud at the inception (where facts are hidden or there is deception relative to a contract), fraud at the inducement (where one party intends to break the terms of the contract), fraud by concealment (one party takes specific action to conceal facts from the other party), fraud by nondisclosure (is misrepresentation if it amounts to a failure to act in good faith), and fraud by misrepresentation of the law (only occurs when one of the parties is a professional or expert who should know the law and is intentionally misrepresenting it to the other party). (Cheeseman, 2001)
2. What are the facts in the case that apply to these legal considerations?
Sexual Harassment. In terms of case specifics, Lola claimed that her poor job performance, as stated in her evaluation, was due to sexual harassment. She mentioned several conversations which included inappropriate language from her boss Frank and a specific incident where she was asked by a group of co-workers to comment on a male's genitalia. Although she did not report these incidents until after her employee evaluation (she did not object at the times of these acts), her personnel office treated the incidents as sexual harassment and reached an agreement with Lola in terms of a remedy. The personnel office, however, also supported her boss's poor performance evaluation while her boss insisted that no wrong doing had occurred. The remedy, which was acceptable to Lola, was a lateral job move where she reported to another manager in the same Division and where her work location was moved away from her old manager.
Time Theft and Fraud. In the above case, Lola had claimed she worked overtime when her manager was out-of-town and no other manager would sign her time card. This set off a chain of events in that included the personnel department changing her time card to indicate that two days that she had claimed she had worked were in fact sick days (Lola was consulted on this), and an investigation by Tom, the HRM Director, which revealed that Lola did indeed take one day off the prior week as well. In addition, in each week her supervisor had been out of the office, and hadn't had the opportunity to even review and approve Lola's timecards, both of her cards were initialed in the supervisor's box by Lola herself and not by her supervisor.
Tom met with Lola who claimed to have forgotten to put in for two days of sick time and offered to have the time changed. As that comment was to be expected, she had inadvertently indicated in the initial part of the discussion the procedure for communicating to her supervisor during his time away from the office. According to procedure, she was to either leave him a voicemail or an e-mail if she wasn't going to be in. She had not done so for the two days in question. For the prior week she had actually requested a personal day for that Thursday, and had taken it. When confronted with that timecard (which she would have completed the next day--Friday) her baffled response was simply that "she must have worked that day." In both cases she was aware that Mark was not in the office due to his travel schedule and that she had indeed signed both timecards. Given the facts of the case the company decided to terminate her employment due to falsification of her timecard on the two weeks in question.
3. Analyze the behavior of management and the HRM department in dealing with Lola's two distinct situations (sexual harassment and time theft).
The average student will see this situation as much ado about nothing, that is, that both of these situations are quite straight forward from management's perspective. In the sexual harassment situation, the student will describe the incident as a clear case of sexual harassment and that personnel acted appropriately in both deciding that harassment did occur (inappropriate language was employed by a manager and coworkers and had negative ramifications since Lola's performance was substandard) and that the actions taken by personnel to resolve the issue was satisfactory since it was accepted by Lola. The time theft situation was also clear cut since Lola did not follow procedure in notifying the firm that she would be out for sick days and that she then clocked those days as work days on her time card. These students would agree that Lola was in the wrong although they may or may not believe that firing Lola was overly harsh given that this was her first offense. They may perceive Lola's law suit as sour grapes and not worry about any associated ramifications.
The above average student will recognize that both situations are not as clear cut as they seem. In the sexual harassment situation, Frank (Lola's supervisor) admitting no wrong doing and Sue, the HRM manager at the time, determined that Lola's performance was marginal and upheld the performance review as written. Since Sue determined that there was no impact on job performance (one of the requirements for a sexual harassment charge), this student might justify Frank's being "written up" for this situation and sent to sexual harassment awareness training as a way for the company to protect itself from potential lawsuits.
Exceptional students would note that these actions by personnel in fact lend credence to Lola's contention that there was a hostile environment that impacted her job performance since management took action to remedy the situation. Why "fix what isn't broken?" Secondly, these students would note that Lola was hired by HRM over Frank's objections--this already set the stage for possible problems between these two individuals even before they were working together. Also, these students might also note that Frank's actions surrounding Lola's evaluation (late filing), coupled with his illness and inability to provide Lola direct feedback himself (her evaluation was given to her by another manager) may have exacerbated the situation. Certainly HRM should have noticed that Lola's performance evaluation was late. This should have been a signal to HRM to at least investigate why Frank was negligent in filing the form and may have uncovered some of the problems Lola had with Frank.
In terms of the time theft, the above average student would note that except for the breaking of the calling in policy for sick days and the claiming that those sick days were work days, much of the evidence against Lola was second-hand information and not well documented although Tom's investigation did reveal Lola did indeed take one day off the prior week and placed hours on her timecard as if she had worked that day. The fact that she signed her own time cards when her boss was away, in and of itself is not evidence of wrong doing and may in fact have been her boss's instructions. The exceptional student would note that it was to the best recollection of the General Manager and Sue of the Human Resources Department there had been no case in which Aerospace Designs had allowed this type of transgression but they made no reference to a company handbook or procedures manual that dealt with issues of time theft (or for that matter, sexual harassment). These students would also point out that Lola's immediate supervisor, Marc, had not been consulted in terms of this situation and may have been able to either support or reject the company's claim of time theft.
4. Agree or disagree with management's decision to terminate Lola and explain why.
Since this is an opinion question, there is no absolutely right or wrong answer. Although partially addressed in question four, in this question the student needs to provide both situational evidence and law to justify terminating Lola's position with the firm. Some students my see this situation as straight forward time theft and fraud, others might try to connect the previous sexual harassment situation, while others may opt for leniency for a first offense given the lack of a policy manual that deals with this issue or in order to avoid a potential lawsuit.
Secondly, students also need to address the impact of firing Lola on the firm as a whole--what message does firing Lola send to her fellow employees? Does it say that time theft and fraud will not be tolerated in any fashion or does it say that women, especially those who whistle blow concerning sexual harassment, will be given little opportunity to learn from their mistakes? Or does not firing Lola say that women who do whistle blow will be treated more leniently than others in fear of reprisal?
5. What actions should management and HRM take in the future to avoid similar situations?
Management, through the HRM department, needs to address several distinct issues:
a. The development and dissemination of a clear and distinct policy statement re: sexual harassment and a training program to ensure that supervisors and employees are quite clear on the consequences associated with sexual harassment. The company also needs to develop and publish clear and concise guidelines for the filing and handling of sexual harassment charges.
b. The development and dissemination of a clear and distinct policy statement re: time theft and fraud. There should be clear and concise definitions of each with associated consequences.
C. Student answers should address the need for HRM to take a proactive stance on each of these issues and provide their personnel with information and training when needed.
EPILOGUE
Lola left in a huff. Her parting jab was "you haven't heard the last from me," and "you better not mess up my unemployment." Her request for unemployment benefits was denied. Fred's other management issues resulted in his being released in July 2000. Lola found a Manhattan based lawyer willing to take her case on a contingency basis. The lawyer's threat to submit the case to the EEOC (unless AD could come up with a settlement) was initiated and the Company responded. The EEOC failed to see the merit of her claim of sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge. Lola followed with a civil suit that was settled about a year later quite modestly. Frank was individually named in the civil suit that was filed and it was determined he needed to retain separate counsel.
It was not completely clear as to why Lola falsified the time records. It was assumed that she was doing it for personal reasons. The fact that she was into modeling spurred guesses that she was going to the hairdresser, makeup artist, photographer, and other image consultants to help her "other career".
The AD supervisory staff since was trained in harassment awareness and the company handbook was rewritten to more clearly articulate the company policies and expectations. The marketing assistant job vacated by Lola was never filled. The latest was Lola's modeling career was expanding into maternity clothing.
REFERENCES
Bowin, R. B. & D. Harvey (2001). Human Resource Management: An Experiential Approach. 2nd Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Cheeseman, H. R. (2001). Business Law: Ethical, International, & E-Commerce Environment. 4th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
David, F. R. (2003). Strategic Management Case Writing: Suggestions After 20 Years of Experience. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, (Summer) 68, 3, 36-38.
Kleiman, L. S. (2000) Human Resource Management: A Managerial Tool for Competitive Advantage. 2nd Edition. Cincinnati, OH.: South-Western College Publishing.
Lundberg, C. C., P. Rainsford, J. P. Shay & C.A. Young (2001). Case Writing Reconsidered. Journal of Management Education, (August) 25, 4, 450-463.
Lynn, L. E. Jr. (1999). Teaching & Learning with Cases: A Guidebook. New York: Seven Bridges Press.
Naumes, W. & M. J. Naumes (1999). The Art & Craft of Case Writing. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications.
Pearce II, J. A. & R. B. Robinson Jr. (2000). Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation, and Control. 7th Edition. Boston, Mass.: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Player, M. A. (1992). Federal Law of Employment Discrimination. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company.
Schaefer, T. (1988). Time wasting' by employees estimated to cost billions, Houston Chronicle, Sept. 18, 2.
Scelsi, P. (1988). Time Is Money-Lots Of It. Management World, (Nov/Dec) 17, 6, 19-20.
Snyder, N. H., K. E. Blair & T. Arndt. (1990), Breaking the Bad Habits Behind Time Theft. Business, (Oct-Dec) 40, 4, 31-34.
Thomas, L. R. (1986). Time theft/Survey finds workers 'steal' working hours. Houston, Dec 14, 2.
USA Today (1989). On-the-job cheating. USA Today, Oct 13, 01B.
Anthony Morena, Long Island University Barry Armandi, SUNY-Old Westbury Herbert Sherman, Southampton College-Long Island University