MGMT 4402 HR Exercise Determining Merit Pay This exercise must be typed and completed individually

Question

MGMT 4402 HR Exercise Determining Merit Pay

This exercise must be typed and completed individually. Evidence of group work on this exercise will be considered a violation of our academic integrity policy. Furthermore, you are strictly forbidden from sharing your answers (i.e. write-up) with anyone currently enrolled, previously enrolled, or to be enrolled in this course in the future.

Required Length

There are no specific length requirements for your write-up. Generally, a well done write-up is probably about 2-3 pages (double-spaced).

Required Formatting

Generally, documents in Size 12, Times New Roman Font with 1” margins that are double-spaced are easiest for me to read. If you use references, they must follow the rules detailed in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th Edition. Please see our formatting document for this exercise in Canvas and prepare your answers accordingly.

Due Date

This exercise must be submitted/uploaded through our LMS on or before the due date (11:59 p.m., ET) listed in the course schedule on your syllabus, unless approved otherwise by the instructor.

Learning Objectives/Goals

Upon completion of this exercise, you will be able to explain merit raise decisions using theories of motivation (e.g. equity theory and expectancy theory).
Upon completion of this exercise, you will be able to develop a fair procedure for allocating merit raises.

General Instructions

Your task in this exercise is to develop a fair procedure that will be used to determine merit raises and then decide the dollar raise to be given to each professor. Please include the following in your write-up.

Be sure to carefully describe the procedure you use for allocating raises in addition to discussing what those raises are.
Explain the procedure you have developed and how it operates based upon the principles of both equity theory and expectancy theory.

Situation

Small State University is located in the eastern part of the United States and has an enrollment of about 8,000 students. The College of Business has 40 full-time and more than 30 part-time faculty members. The college is divided into five departments: Management, Marketing, Finance and Accounting, Decision Sciences, and Information Technology. Faculty members in the Management Department are evaluated each year based on three primary criteria: 1) teaching, 2) research, and 3) service. Teaching performance is based on student course evaluations over a two-year period. Service to the university, college, profession, and community is also based on accomplishments over a two-year period. Research is based on the number of journal articles published over a three-year period. Teaching and research are considered more important than service to the university. In judging faculty performance, the department chair evaluates each professor in terms of four standards: Far Exceeds Standards, Exceeds Standards, Meets Standards, and Fails to Meet Standards.

Due to financial problems and cutbacks this year, Small State University has agreed to give raises totaling just $6,300 to the Management Department. Your task as department chair is to divide the $6,300 among the faculty members. Keep in mind that these raises will likely set a precedent for the future and that the professors will view the raises as a signal for what behavior and achievements are valued.

A profile of each of the professors is provided below along with this year’s performance evaluations.

	Department Chair’s Ra0ng of Performance
Professor	Current Salary	Teaching	Research	Service
Houseman	$92,000	Exceeds	Exceeds	Meets
Jones	$116,000	Exceeds	Far Exceeds	Exceeds
Ricks	$135,000	Meets	Meets	Far Exceeds
Ma?hews	$97,000	New Hire	New Hire	New Hire
Karas	$100,000	Far Exceeds	Exceeds	Meets
Franks	$90,000	Meets	Fails to Meet	Exceeds

Professor Houseman: 55 years old; 25 years with the university; teaches Principles of

Management sections; teaches over 400 students per year; has written over 40 articles and given over 30 presentations since joining the college; wants a good raise to catch up with others.

Professor Jones: 49 years old; 10 years with the university; teaches Human Resource

Management and Organizational Behavior; stepped down as department chair three years ago; teaches about 200 students a year; has written over 30 articles and two books since joining the college; recently received an $80,000 grant for the college from a local foundation, and wants a good raise as a reward for obtaining the grant.

Professor Ricks: 61 years old; 6 years with university; teaches Labor Relations and Organizational

Development; stepped down as dean of the College of Business two years ago and took a $20,000 pay cut; teaches about 180 students per year; has written only two articles in the last six years due to administrative duties; very active in the community and serves on several charity boards; wants a good raise to make up for loss of $20,000.

Professor Matthews: 28 years old; new hire—only four months with the university; teaches

Employee Relations and Compensation Management; just graduated with a PhD; will teach about

110 students this year. To be competitive in the job market, the college paid Professor Matthews $97,000 plus provided a reduced teaching load for two years and a $6,000 per year summer stipend; none of the other faculty received this when they were first hired or subsequently; had two minor publications while a doctoral student but none since joining the college; wants a good raise to pay student loans and furnish a new residence.

Professor Karas: 32 years old; 4 years with university; teaches International Business and Honors sections of Management Principles; teaches about 150 students per year; won Teacher of the Year Award this year; published 12 articles in last four years; has been interviewing for a new job at other universities and may leave if a good raise is not forthcoming.

Professor Franks: 64 years old; 18 years with university; teaches Principles of Management and Human Resource Management; teaches about 150 students per year; principal advisor for management-major students; has not written any articles during the last four years; plans on retiring within two–three years, and wants a good raise to enhance pension plan.

Grading Rubric

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

4 points

3 points

2 points

1 point

You have met the learning objective(s).

Your performance demonstrates mastery of this exercise’s learning goal(s).

You have met the learning objective(s).

Your performance demonstrates partial mastery of this exercise’s learning goal(s).

You are approaching the learning objective(s).

Your performance provides some evidence of meeting this exercise’s learning goal(s).

You have not met the learning objective(s).

Your performance

provides little to no evidence of meeting this exercise’s learning goal(s).

Notes:

You are responsible for reviewing the debrief that accompanies this exercise when it becomes available. This debrief explains the key takeaways for our exercise and serves as my overall feedback to you. If you have specific questions about your grade for this exercise you must contact me within 7 days of our debrief becoming available or within 7 days of receiving your grade (whichever occurs last). You will need to explain to me, based on your submitted work as contrasted with the exercise debrief, why you believe your work should be graded differently.

There is a “duty to perform” clause attached to this document. You must complete this exercise in full (with meaningful effort) and meet its minimum requirements by its due date. If you fail to submit a fully completed exercise by its due date, there will be a 3.5% reduction to your final grade in the course (in addition to earning a “0” for the exercise itself). Obviously, incomplete and/or late work will not be accepted.