Assume you have been asked to advise the HR manager for a major Gwinnett county hospital.  She is reviewing two training options.  Which one of the following options would you recommend and why?  Consider issues such as transfer of training, evaluation, and learning theories in supporting your recommendations to the HR manager.  250 – 350 words

QUESTION

MGS 4300 – THREE

Your answers should clearly demonstrate your knowledge.  It is essential that you support your conclusions with theories.   Look for opportunities to show your understanding of the concepts.  Define or explain terms.  Be as precise as possible.  Quantity as well as quality is essential for earning points.  I am attempting to measure your critical thinking.   Your written answer must be correct, detailed, and complete to earn points. Assume you are trying to impress a prospective employer or consulting client with your answer.  The word count is a guideline.  There is no penalty for going over the maximum but no extra points either.  Going below the minimum is a good indication that your analysis is incomplete.

SCENARIO ONE

Active Shooter events at a healthcare facility are uncommon but do happen.  New OSHA regulations require worker training on how to survive and, in some cases, prevent active shooter events.  Healthcare professionals face unique challenges compared to workers in other workplaces because nurses, for example, must consider how best to protect patients and visitors as well as themselves and coworkers.  During an active shooter situation, the natural human reaction is to be startled, feel fear and anxiety, and even experience initial disbelief.  However, split-second decisions can mean many lives are saved or lost.

Assume you have been asked to advise the HR manager for a major Gwinnett county hospital.  She is reviewing two training options.  Which one of the following options would you recommend and why?  Consider issues such as transfer of training, evaluation, and learning theories in supporting your recommendations to the HR manager.  250 – 350 words

The correct answer to this question would be option two.

There were 434 mass shootings in the U.S. during 2019 (information gathered from multiple resources). The reasons why the shootings started are different but the problem is common: the free use of firearms in the country. Hospitals and any other frequently concurred center such as churches, schools or supermarkets tend to be the target of active shooters.

In the case proposed, Gwinnett Medical Center should choose “option two” to train their employees on how to react in front of an active shooter scenario. The reasons are mentioned below:

• Transfer of training.It refers to how well the knowledge provided is implemented in real-life scenarios. The greatest advantage “option two” provides is an Active Shooter drill. This implies simulating the scenario in which the shooter gets into the medical center to open fire. Employees at different levels of the medical center are more likely to learn what they should and should not do in front of such scenarios by being exposed to a similar experience. Therefore, they are more than likely to better translate and internalize what they learned in the drill into their day-to-day activities.

• “Option two” has an evaluation method after the drill is conducted in debriefings and after one month as a form of follow up. In both cases there is assessment. After the drill to let healthcare employees know what they did correctly and what they did not, and during the follow up watching a recording of how the employees reacted in the drill to let them identify their own mistakes and reinforce the ideas of how they should have behaved.

• Learning theories.There are mainly five learning theories: Behaviorism, Constructivism, Cognitivism, Connectivism, and Andragogy. Behaviorism is a psychological approach that studies how individuals learn in a stimulus-response scenario. This theory states that people’s behaviors are acquired through conditioning. It means all behaviors are learned by the constant interaction of individuals and their environment. “Option two” is designed under the Behaviorist theory of learning. This training aims to put employees under a very similar situation in which an active shooter attack takes place. Thus, employees will have the chance to be exposed to a simulated life-threatening situation where they can test their reactions to correct them in a real-life scenario. Then, it is thanks to that interaction that the healthcare workers would be learning how to shape their behavior.

Option One

Require that anyone who works in the emergency room (medical professionals, housekeeping employees, and administrative staff) read the following scholarly article, view this 10-minute video, and take an online 30 item multiple-choice test.  Two of the benefits of this training, she believes, is that it would take less than two hours to complete and costs about $50 per trainee including compensation for nonexempt employees for the time spent reading, viewing, and test taking.    Total Cost:  $5,000.

Option Two

The hospital would have an Active Shooter Drill, facilitated by a nationally accredited organization, similar to the one depicted in this video.  This very realistic video explains how hospital employees experience the reenactment of an active shooter based on a real event that happened at a hospital (if you find the video distressing, you don’t need to watch it to effectively evaluate the two training options).  All trainees are told in advance that there will be a simulation.  Some are given instructions on what to do such as pretend to be shoot.  There is a debriefing after the simulation (lasted about 15 minutes).  The debriefing lasts about four hours.  Trainers discuss what happened, how people reacted, and how they should have reacted.  Training content includes the “fight or flight” response and the actions most likely to result in survival.   A month later, there is a two-hour follow-up session ending with a test where trainees view three videos and assess the actions of the “employees.”   Total Cost: $35,000.

SCENARIO TWO   

A Fortune 100 high tech company was in the news recently when the new CEO implemented an “enhanced” performance appraisal system.  She kept the current six criteria (quality, quantity, knowledge, attitude, dependability, cooperation) scale on which employees were rated from 0 to 5 by the direct supervisor (see example below).   Each employee’s total score could range, at least theoretically, from 0 to 30 points.  Although about 10% earned 30 points, no one earned below 10.  The average was 22.    The CEO made several changes to the system.  She established a fixed distribution of ratings (see guidelines below).  Based on her belief that many of the employees had “gotten lazy and apathetic,” she decided to fire employees ranked in the bottom 10% (“poor”) and to give the employees ranked “below average” a three-month warning.  The below average employees had 90 days to “dramatically improve” their performance in the six categories.  This became public when several male employees, including John Anderson, filed an EEOC complaint.  Anderson was fired after earning a total of 7 points placing him in the bottom 10%.    His average rating for the previous 5 years was 27.   The company fired 600 employees ranked in the lowest 10%.  In his EEOC complaint, Anderson noted that the percentage of male employees with scores below 15 went from 20% before the “enhanced” system to more than 80% under the new system.  Anderson complained that the CEO frequently reminded managers that “retaining and advancing women in the workforce is a business imperative; I will not tolerate managers who refuse to support my diversity goals for this company.”

Assume that you have been asked to evaluate the process that caused Anderson’s complaint.

1. Describe where the PA system is notM.A.R.T.
2. Is the PA system vulnerable to rating errors? Which ones?  Why?  250 – 350 words

SCENARIO THREE            

ABC Early Learning Center is a Day Care Center in Waycross, GA. It has a maximum capacity of 103 children.  Harry Smith is the owner of the day care center.  He recently had an incident with a 21-year-old teacher, Adam Jones.  Adam was an education major at Georgia Southern. He had a 3.5 GPA and experience as a camp counselor.   Adam wanted to teach middle school math after graduation.  Harry hired Adam to work over the summer.  Adam had requested working with children aged 9 – 12, but Harry needed a teacher for the 4 & 5 age group.  Adam was disappointed but really needed the job.  Adam had studied early childhood development in school and knew how difficult some children could be.  For example, he remembered reading that “potentially long-term aggressive behavior can be identified in children as young as age three or four.”  His fears were realized within the first week of his employment.  Most of his 20 students were great, but four were constantly hitting, throwing things, using profanity, and even biting.  Adam was miserable and felt over his head. On June 16, 2019, Adam told Harry that he felt overwhelmed and was worried about the safety of some of the smaller children.  Harry responded, “Welcome to the fun world of day care.  Be glad that you have a job. If you don’t like it, I hear McDonalds is hiring.”  A week later, a parent came to Harry demanding that Adam be fired.  The parent said that her five-year-old called Adam a “big scary man.”  The mother said she overheard Adam yelling “STOP” at her child for “merely throwing blocks” at another child.  To please the mother, Harry fired Adam immediately.

1. Looking back, could Harry have handled things differently to avoid having to fire Adam? Would any motivation theories help explain Harry’s failure as a manager?

2. Could either discipline perspective have made a difference?   250 – 350 words

SCENARIO FOUR             

Donna Turpin was a plumber for AABC Plumbing until she was fired on November 19, 2019 for insubordination after she complained to the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor about FLSA violations.  She had three complaints:

1. She often was required to work 12 hours or more without rest or meal breaks. She worked an average of 50 hours per week.
2. Beginning in September, she was required to train and supervise the 15-year-old son of AABC’s owner. The 15-year-old “shadowed” Donna every afternoon from 3:00 to 7:30. She found it distracting and felt she was being used as a “babysitter.”
3. She was on-call one weekend each month. These were the rules regarding on-call:
   1. From 6:00 PM on Friday until 6:00 PM on Sunday, on-call plumbers were required to be at a customer’s home or business within 90 minutes of the call or be terminated. The plumber was paid once he or she arrived at the customer’s home or business.
   2. The plumber would receive a text message with instructions to call the dispatcher for information on the emergency.
   3. If the employee failed to respond within 15 minutes, the dispatcher sent another text and called.
   4. If the plumber failed to respond 30 minutes after the first text, the dispatcher called and sent another text;
   5. If the plumber failed to respond to the dispatcher within 5 minutes (35 minutes after the first text), the plumber was terminated.

AABC argued that Donna’s complaints were groundless because she was a supervisor and earned a salary of $3,000 per month.  

Do you believe AABC has violated the FLSA?  Support your conclusions.  250 – 350 words

ANSWER

SCENARIO ONE

In advising the HR manager for a major Gwinnett county hospital on the two training options for active shooter events, I would recommend “option two” for several reasons.

Firstly, “option two” offers a higher potential for transfer of training. Transfer of training refers to the extent to which knowledge and skills learned in a training program can be applied to real-life situations. The active shooter drill provided in “option two” simulates a realistic scenario, allowing employees to experience and practice their responses in a controlled environment. This hands-on experience increases the likelihood of employees effectively applying their training during an actual active shooter event, as they have already been exposed to a similar situation.

Secondly, “option two” incorporates an evaluation component through debriefings and a follow-up session after one month. Evaluation is crucial in assessing the effectiveness of the training program and identifying areas for improvement. The debriefings allow healthcare employees to receive feedback on their performance during the drill, highlighting both correct actions and areas that need improvement. The follow-up session, which includes watching a recording of the drill, enables trainees to self-assess their reactions and identify mistakes they may have made. This reinforcement of learning and identification of individual weaknesses can enhance future preparedness and response in real-life situations.

From a theoretical perspective, “option two” aligns with the behaviorist theory of learning. Behaviorism emphasizes the influence of the environment on shaping behavior through stimulus-response associations. By exposing employees to a simulated active shooter scenario, “option two” triggers a strong stimulus-response reaction and allows individuals to learn and adapt their behavior accordingly. This experiential learning approach enhances the employees’ ability to respond effectively during a crisis situation.

In conclusion, “option two” is the recommended choice for training healthcare professionals on active shooter events at the Gwinnett county hospital. Its active shooter drill provides a realistic and immersive experience that promotes transfer of training, while the evaluation component ensures continuous improvement. Furthermore, the alignment with behaviorist learning theory supports the acquisition of appropriate behavioral responses in such critical situations.

SCENARIO TWO

The performance appraisal (PA) system implemented by the new CEO in the Fortune 100 high tech company appears to have several flaws and is not in alignment with the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) framework. Let’s analyze the shortcomings of the system and its vulnerability to rating errors.

Lack of Specificity: The system retains the same six criteria for evaluation as before, but it fails to provide clear guidelines or definitions for each criterion. This lack of specificity can lead to subjective interpretations by supervisors, resulting in inconsistent and biased ratings.

Lack of Measurability: While the system uses a scale of 0 to 5 for rating employees, it does not define what each score represents. Without clear benchmarks or metrics to measure performance, supervisors may assign scores based on personal biases or arbitrary standards, leading to inaccurate assessments.

Unachievable Standards: The CEO’s decision to fire employees in the bottom 10% and give a warning to those below average puts unrealistic pressure on employees to improve their performance within a short timeframe. The notion of “dramatically improving” performance in 90 days may not be achievable for everyone, especially considering that some employees had been consistently performing well in the past.

Lack of Relevance: The CEO’s belief that employees had become “lazy and apathetic” seems to be a generalization without supporting evidence. It is essential for a performance appraisal system to focus on relevant aspects of job performance rather than assumptions or subjective perceptions. The criteria used should directly align with job responsibilities and organizational objectives.

Absence of Time-bound Goals: The system does not establish specific goals or targets for employees to work towards. Without clear expectations and deadlines, employees may lack direction and motivation to improve their performance. Moreover, the warning period of three months may not be sufficient for individuals to address performance gaps effectively.

Regarding rating errors, the PA system appears to be susceptible to various biases. The CEO’s emphasis on diversity goals and her explicit instructions to support those goals may create pressure on managers to rate women higher, potentially leading to inflated ratings. This bias can be seen in the significant increase in male employees with scores below 15 under the new system. Such biases undermine the fairness and accuracy of the ratings, and they can contribute to a hostile work environment.

Additionally, the lack of clear guidelines and specific metrics for each criterion increases the likelihood of rating errors due to personal biases and inconsistent interpretations by supervisors. Without a standardized approach to evaluation, ratings may not accurately reflect an employee’s true performance, leading to unfair outcomes and demoralization.

In conclusion, the PA system implemented by the new CEO is not SMART, as it lacks specificity, measurability, achievability, relevance, and time-bound goals. Moreover, the system is vulnerable to rating errors due to biases and subjective interpretations by supervisors. These flaws and biases have resulted in the dismissal of employees like John Anderson and have raised concerns about fairness and the impact on diversity within the company.