22-MGMT-773-901: Human Resource Management
Summer, 2010
Instructor: Therese Sprinkle, PhD Candidate
Office:
Phone:
Email:
Mailbox:
511 Lindner Hall
556-7130
sprinkta@uc.edu
538 Lindner Hall
Class Time: Wednesday, 6-8:45 p.m. +
45 minutes of deferred class time
Classroom: 221 Lindner Hall
Office Hrs: Wednesday 5:00-5:45 pm,
and by appointment
Course Description and Objectives:
This course will provide students with a basic understanding of human resource practices and
strategies for the general manager. The focus of the class is not on the technical practices carried
out by the HRM function (such as developing compensation systems or designing training programs),
but rather on those HRM-related practices that managers carry out on a day-to-day basis (hiring new
employees, providing performance feedback, etc.). A second focus will be on examining these
practices from a strategic perspective, in order to understand their impact on employee performance
and, ultimately, organizational outcomes. Finally, the methods used in the course are designed to
develop students’ general analytical and communication skills.
Course Methods and Format:
As we are a small class, I will use a variety of pedagogies in the class, including mini-lecture, class
discussion, and case analyses. Reading assignments provide important background material and
must be completed prior to each class session. Typically, you should expect to read one textbook
chapter, several articles, and a Harvard Business School case for each class meeting. Mini-lectures
will be used to present new information and highlight key issues from the readings. These will rarely
be one-way communication events; I intend for this class to be highly interactive, and will ask you to
be involved. Student participation is critical throughout this class.
Required Materials:
Kulik, C.T. (2004). Human resources for the non-HR manager. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Publishers. (ISBN: 0805842969)
Harvard Business Cases available for purchase via Study.net (www.study.net).
On-line readings available for free via UC Library online full-text databases (see instructions for
access on page 8 of syllabus).
Evaluation of Student Performance:
Written case assignments (3 @ 80 points each)
Final course project
Reflections Journal
Overall Performance
TOTAL
Final grades for the class will be assigned as follows:
509 – 550 = A
440 – 452 = B495 – 508 = A426 – 439 = C+
481 – 494 = B+
…
453 – 480 = B
below 330 = F
240 points
200 points
50 points
60 points
550 points
22-MGMT-773-901: Human Resource Management
Summer 2010; Page 2
Written Case Assignments. Beginning with the second class session, there is a Harvard Business
School case assigned each week, for a total of eight. Students must read all eight cases, and be
prepared to discuss them in class. In addition, each student must turn in three case write-ups for
grading. You may choose the three you want to complete, and you do not have to tell me in advance
which three you plan to do. However, please note that case write-ups are due at the class session for
which they are assigned, and I will not accept late case write-ups.
Rather than performing a general analysis of the case, students must address the questions listed
on the course schedule (and posted on-line, in Blackboard). Each case has its own, specific
questions, and you should be sure to address all parts of the question. The written case assignment
is limited to two single-spaced pages of text, with 11 or 12-point font and 1” margins. Please include
your ID number (no name, please) and staple your case (no folders or plastic covers, please). You
may turn in a hard copy, or you may email your write-up to me as a Word attachment. If you choose
to email it, be sure to check your email for an acknowledgement from me; documents are occasionally
garbled in the email process, and you are responsible for ensuring that I get a readable write-up
before class.
Each case write-up is worth 80 points, and will be graded on the following dimensions:
1. Content/Critical Analysis (35%). Students must answer the questions thoroughly and clearly,
with clear evidence of critical thinking. Answers are logical and feasible. All questions are
addressed.
2. Application of Course Materials (35%). Students make specific and explicit references to class
materials, demonstrating their learning in the class. Students use information from the case to
support answers. However, students do not over-rely on direct quotes from case and course
materials, but display their own thinking and application of the materials.
3. Clarity and Organization (15%). The write-up has a logical structure, including headings to
break the paper into various questions/answers. The paper is coherent and clear.
4. Professionalism (15%). The write-up conforms to all technical requirements (page limit, font
size, etc.), with appropriate language and no spelling/grammatical errors.
A grading sheet for the case write-up is attached to this syllabus, and is available for downloading on
Blackboard.
Final Course Project. Each student will complete a final course project, due in class on Wednesday,
August 18th (note: late projects will lose 10% per day). The project will involve the strategic analysis
of an organization’s HRM practices with reference to a specific set of employees, and will integrate
the various aspects of the course. In choosing an organization for this assignment, you have three
options:
1. If you are currently working, analyze the HRM practices that you (or your manager) use with
reference to a specific position.
2. If you are not working but have recent work experience, analyze the HRM practices that you
(or your manager) used with reference to a specific position.
3. If you don’t have work experience to use, research an organization for which you would like to
work when you complete your degree, and analyze the HRM practices that it uses for the
position you would hold.
Overall, you should note that this type of analysis is easier to the extent that you can focus in on a
specific set of employees, usually holding the same job.
The final project must include the following elements:
1. A brief description of: (a) the organization, division, or group, that serves as a context for
understanding the set of employees to be analyzed; (b) job class to which the human resource
practices are applied (what do people do in this position? how does it fit into the overall
organization?); (c) typical employee attributes (necessary skills, education, etc.); and (d) any
other contextual factors that are important for understanding and analyzing the HRM practices
22-MGMT-773-901: Human Resource Management
Summer 2010; Page 3
(e.g., labor market, specific legal considerations, the organization’s strategy or mission, etc.).
Be sure to include only relevant information in this section, but do be sure to give enough
information to set up the forthcoming analysis. (10%)
2. A description of the actual HRM practices from all four major HRM areas covered in the class
(Staffing, Development, Performance Management, and Compensation). Be sure to use
terminology and concepts covered in class; you must demonstrate your mastery of course
materials. (20%)
3. A strategic analysis of these HRM practices. Do they make sense individually, given the
organization/job/employees/environment? Do they work together, or do some work against
others? Is this a good HRM system? Why or why not? Again, be sure to use course
terminology and concepts in analyzing the HRM practices. (30%)
4. Specific recommendations for improving the HRM practices. What should the organization do
to make these HRM practices work strategically? What would the ideal HRM system look like
for this set of employees? (20%)
Although there is no page limit, I expect that the final project will be approximately 9 to 12 doublespaced pages with 1” margins using 11-12 point font. You must provide references where
appropriate, and should provide supporting documentation (i.e., performance appraisal form, interview
question list, etc.) if available. The final project is worth 200 points, and will be graded on the above
elements plus clarity and organization (10%) and professionalism (10%).
We will use the final projects as a basis for discussion on the last day of class (8/18), so come to class
prepared to talk about the organization’s practices, your analysis of them, and your recommendations
for improving them.
Reflections Journal. This course is worth 4 credits, having 45 minutes of “deferred class time” each
week. For this class, this out-of-class-time is to be used in active reflection—a process in which you
use the course materials to achieve a richer understanding of your own past HRM experiences, and
consider what you might do differently in the future, as a result of taking this class. This reflection is to
be different from the course project, in which you critically analyze one organization’s specific HRM
practices; rather, this should be a personal reflection on your own HRM experiences, perhaps
across multiple jobs/organizations. The object of this process is for you to come away with a personal
understanding of what HRM is about, and how it can lead to positive/negative outcomes for
individuals and organizations. For five weeks (i.e., five separate entries), I’d like you to think back
on a specific HRM-related experience (positive or negative) and “deconstruct” the experience using
what you have learned in the class so far. You might have been the manager responsible for carrying
out the HRM practice, or the employee/target of the HRM practice. In deconstructing the experience,
you might consider questions such as:
• What happened and why?
• Were the outcomes positive or negative for the various parties in the situation?
• If I were in this situation again (as a manager or an employee), what would I do differently?
• How does what I am learning in this class relate to this experience?
Of course, this isn’t an exhaustive list, and there are many directions you could go in reflecting on the
experience. My hope is that you will use this journal as a way to learn from past experience and
develop new approaches that you can use in the future.
Your journal is worth 50 points total. I will evaluate your journal entries on: (1) your thoughtful
reflection on a past experience; (2) your understanding and application of course materials; and (3)
your active consideration of your future HRM-related actions. You may write as much as it takes for
you to complete this task; there is no perfect journal entry length. A HR reflections journal has been
set up on blackboard for this purpose, or you may use an off-line word document. Online reflections
journals are private, only you and I may see them. If you are using an offline method, uou are
22-MGMT-773-901: Human Resource Management
Summer 2010; Page 4
welcome to turn journal entries in regularly for feedback; however, I will not assign an official “grade”
until the end of the quarter when the journal entry is due (Monday 8/23, 6:30pm).
Overall Performance. This is a high-involvement course. Human resource management is
something that you all have experienced in one role or another, and so you will all have important
insights and perspectives to share. Every student in this class shares an obligation to help the rest of
us learn. Taking an active role in the class is, therefore, very important. In assessing your overall
performance, I will examine the following components:
1. Attendance. Attendance is expected, and missing any class will result in a significant gap in
your learning. I will greatly appreciate advanced notification of your need to miss a class.
2. Pre-class preparation. Please read all assignments prior to coming to class. Even if you are
not writing up the case for that day, please look at the questions and be prepared to discuss
the case. It is essential that you come to class prepared to jump into the material so that we
can make the most of our limited contact time.
3. Participation in class. I expect that all students will contribute regularly to class discussions
over the course of the quarter. Given the learning tools of class discussion and case analysis,
there should be ample opportunity for all students to share their thoughts and perspectives. In
particular, however, I value quality over quantity. Quality participation includes comments
that: (a) move the discussion forward; (b) prompt comments from other class members; (c)
relate relevant personal experiences or outside materials to the discussion; (d) are thoughtprovoking and unexpected (vs. “safe” answers); etc. I will assess participation after each
class, and ask your assistance in using name cards in order to help me learn your names as
quickly as possible.
4. Professionalism. In the workplace, a host of behaviors are wrapped up in the term
“professional,” as I come from corporate management, this is the guideline that I will be using.
It includes a host of behaviors that suggest you are taking this work seriously: For example, it
includes being an active listener in the conversations, adding to the discussion - not detracting
from it, turning in professional quality papers, maintaining professional behavior towards
others, checking emails only as necessary, providing adequate notice when missing or leaving
early, attentive to the task at hand, and so forth.
Opportunities for Providing Feedback
I am very interested in receiving your feedback on how the course is going. There will be two
opportunities for providing anonymous feedback. The first will occur approximately midway through
the quarter, where I will ask you to provide feedback on specific aspects of the course. Using your
feedback, I will make every effort to modify the class to better meet students’ needs and address
major concerns, although I cannot promise to implement every change that is suggested. The second
will occur at the end of the quarter, using the college’s feedback forms.
Additional Course Policies
1. Canceled Classes. If the University cancels classes on a regularly scheduled class day, any
assignments will be due for the next regularly scheduled class. Note: please be sure to check
Blackboard for an updated schedule.
2. Incomplete. Incompletes will be given only in rare cases where students make arrangements with
me in advance. Otherwise, students who do not complete all course requirements will be
assigned the letter grade corresponding to the number of points they have received.
3. Grade Appeals. If you have a concern about a grade that you receive in this class you are invited
to submit to me a written appeal within one week of receiving the grade in question. The appeal
should outline your specific concerns with the grade and evidence supporting why it should be
changed. I will then review your appeal and respond as quickly as possible.
4. Academic Dishonesty. Academic dishonesty as defined by University policy (e.g., plagiarizing,
cheating, etc.), will not be tolerated in any form. All assignments in this class (written case
assignments, final projects, etc.) must reflect your own individual work.
22-MGMT-773-901: Human Resource Management
Summer 2010; Page 5
Course Schedule: Summer 2010
Week
1
Date
6/23
Topic
Course Intro
Readings/Assignments
Review syllabus and course requirements
Introduction to course material/Legal Issues in HRM
If interested, skim Kulik chapters 11, 12, and 13 for more on legal issues
2
6/30
Staffing/Inflow
Kulik chapters 3, 4, and 5
Bowen, Ledford & Nathan, 1991
Fernandez-Araoz, 1999
Huselid, Beatty, & Becker, 2005
Wells, 2004
Coutu, 2007
Recommended: Spragins, 1992
Butler & Waldroop, 2004
Case: S.G. Cowen: New Recruits
ƒ What is your evaluation of the hiring process used by the firm?
ƒ What is your evaluation of the criteria used by this organization in making
hiring decisions?
ƒ Which two candidates would you select, and why?
3
7/7
Employee
Development
Kulik chapter 8
Ibarra, 2000
Zielinski, 2000
Cappelli, 2008
Coutu, 2000
Recommended: Pfau & Kay, 2002
Identify organization for final project
Case: Developing Professionals—The BCG Way (A)
ƒ Evaluate BCG’s career development and mentorship processes – what
are the strengths and weaknesses?
ƒ Pick two of the individuals (Josh Coopersmith, Eric Wong, Michael Nelson,
or Madeleine Lagarde) and, for each, analyze what both they and their
mentors did right/wrong during those first 18 months with BCG.
ƒ What are some ways to make mentorship more effective?
4
7/14
Performance
Management
Kulik chapter 6 (and skim chapter 9)
Lepsinger & Lucia, 1997
Peiperl, 2001
Axelrod, Handfield-Jones, & Michaels, 2002
Berglas, 2006
Roberts et al., 2005
Recommended: Waldman, Atwater, & Antonioni, 1998
DeLong & Vijayaraghavan, 2003
Case: A Day in the Life of Alex Sander
ƒ How is 360-degree feedback used at Landon? How should it be used?
ƒ What behaviors by Alex are having the greatest impact on the 360-degree
data?
ƒ If you were Sam Glass, how would you handle the 360-degree feedback
with Alex? What should be done going forward?
22-MGMT-773-901: Human Resource Management
Summer 2010; Page 6
5
7/22
Compensation
& Rewards
Kulik chapter 7
Kerr, 1995
Kerr, 1996
Lawler, 2000
Rosen, Case, & Staubus, 2005
Case, 2001
Case: Performance Pay at Safelite Auto Glass (A)
ƒ Does the proposed PPP plan address the installers’ productivity problems
described in the case? Does it introduce new problems?
ƒ What are the pros and cons of switching from wage rates to piece rate
pay? Are Safelite installers good candidates for piece rate pay?
ƒ What are the likely consequences of the switch for important
organizational outcomes, like turnover, recruitment, and customer
satisfaction?
6
7/28
Retention/
Outflow
Kulik chapter 10
Cappelli, 2000
Butler & Waldroop, 1999
Lawler, 2008
Nalbantian & Szostak, 2004
Hewlett & Luce, 2005
Recommended: Mroczkowski & Hanaoka, 1997
Sullivan, 2005
Case: Club Med (B)
ƒ Is GO turnover really a problem at Club Med? What are the causes of
turnover at Club Med?
ƒ Why does Club Med rotate all of their employees every six months? How
does this rotation influence the GO’s life?
ƒ What are your recommendations?
7
8/4
International
HRM
Thomas, 2004
Roberts, Kossek, & Ozeki, 1998
Black & Gregersen, 1999
Brett, Behfar, & Kern, 2006
Recommended: Javidan & House, 2001
Stroh & Caligiuri, 2001
Update progress on final project
Case: Black & Decker-Eastern Hemisphere and the ADP Initiative
ƒ What are Lancaster’s concerns about the Eastern Hemisphere
organization? Will ADP address those weaknesses?
ƒ What concerns do Asian managers have about ADP? How substantive
are these concerns?
ƒ What action should Lancaster take and why?
22-MGMT-773-901: Human Resource Management
Summer 2010; Page 7
8
8/11
Strategic HRM:
Best (?)
Practices in
HRM
Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999
Becker, Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt, 1997
Erickson & Gratton, 2007
Recommended: Rucci, Kirn, & Quinn, 1998
Case: Great Wall Golf & Country Club
ƒ How do the HRM practices at Great Wall fit together strategically?
ƒ How do the HRM practices at Great Wall support Great Wall’s strategy?
ƒ What would you do with Great Wall’s HRM practices going forward? Be
sure to take an SHRM perspective on this.
9
8/18
Strategic HRM:
Measuring
HRM’s Impact
Yeung & Berman, 1997
Pfeffer, 1997
Bassi & McMurrer, 2007
Brockner, 2006
Recommended: Ulrich, 1997
Charan, 2006
Ulrich & Smallwood, 2004
Final project due; Class discussion of final projects
Final course evaluations
Case: Verizon Communications, Inc.
ƒ Why did Verizon adopt an HR Balanced Scorecard, and how would you
assess the outcome of their efforts?
ƒ Consider Pfeffer’s concerns about the “obsession with measurement” and
the pitfalls associated HR measurement systems. Is Verizon’s system
subject to such pitfalls? Why or why not?
ƒ Given that the pressure for measurement is not going to go away, what
suggestions do you have for Verizon’s HR department going forward?
8/23
Mon
Deferred Class
Time
Assignment
Due
(Email, or close out entries by 6:30 pm: sprinkta@mail.uc.edu)
22-MGMT-773-901: Human Resource Management
Summer 2010; Page 8
Reading List
All readings are available for free from the UC Libraries full-text databases (www.libraries.uc.edu)
To access articles:
1. Go to www.libraries.uc.edu
2. If you are logging in from off-campus, you will have to log-in via the proxy server (see instructions on the
library’s home page under “Off Campus Access”).
3. From the quicklinks in the middle of the page, choose “Find journals.”
4. Choose “e-journals” and enter the journal title (ex: Academy of Management Executive). This will bring up a
list of options for accessing this journal.
5. Select the database you would like to use (I’d suggest “Business Source Premier,” “OhioLINK Electronic
Journals,” or “ABI/Inform” when available, but all should be OK). Then, go to specific volume/issue to read,
download, or print the article.
Note: Readings in italics are only recommended (not required).
Week 2:
Bowen, D.E., Ledford Jr., G.E., & Nathan, B.R. (1991). Hiring for the organization, not the job. Academy of Management
Executive, 5(4), 35-51.
Fernandez-Araoz, C. (1999, July/August). Hiring without firing. Harvard Business Review, 109-120.
Huselid, M.A., Beatty, R.W., & Becker, B.E. (2005, December). A players or positions? The strategic logic of workforce
management. Harvard Business Review, 110-117.
Wells, S.J. (2004, October). Too good to hire? HRMagazine, 48-54.
Coutu, D. (2007, June). We Googled you. Harvard Business Review, 37-41.
Spragins, E.E. (1992). Hiring without the guesswork. Inc., 14(2), 80-87.
Butler, T., & Waldroop, J. (2004, June). Understanding “people” people. Harvard Business Review, 78-86.
Week 3:
Ibarra, H. (2000, March/April). Making partner: A mentor’s guide to the psychological journey. Harvard Business Review,
146-155.
Zielinski, D. (2000, Oct). Mentoring up. Training, 37(10), 136-140.
Cappelli, P. (2008, March). Talent management for the 21st century. Harvard Business Review, 74-81.
Coutu, D.L. (2000, Nov/Dec). Too old to learn? Harvard Business Review, 37-42.
Pfau, B., & Kay, R. (2002, August). Playing the training game and losing. HRMagazine, 48-54.
Week 4:
Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, A.D. (1997). 360-degree feedback and performance appraisal. Training, 34(9), 62-70.
Peiperl, M.A. (2001, January). Getting 360-degree feedback right. Harvard Business Review, 142-147.
Axelrod, B., Handfield-Jones, H., & Michaels, E. (2002, January). A new game plan for C players. Harvard Business Review,
81-88.
Berglas, S. (2006, September). How to keep A players productive. Harvard Business Review, 105-112.
Roberts, L.M., Spreitzer, G., Dutton, J., Quinn, R., Heaphy, E., & Barker, B. (2005, January). How to play to your strengths.
Harvard Business Review, 75-80.
Waldman, D.A., Atwater, L.E., & Antonioni, D. (1998). Has 360-degree feedback gone amok? Academy of Management
Executive, 12(2), 86-94.
DeLong, T.J., & Vijayaraghavan, V. (2003, June). Let’s hear it for B players. Harvard Business Review, 96-102.
Week 5:
Kerr, S. (1995). An Academy classic: On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Executive, 9,
7-14.
Kerr, S. (1996). Risky business: The new pay game. Fortune (July 22), 94-96.
Lawler III, E.E. (2000, Jan/Feb). Pay strategy: New thinking for the new millennium. Compensation & Benefits Review, 7-12.
22-MGMT-773-901: Human Resource Management
Summer 2010; Page 9
Rosen, C., Case, J., & Staubus, M. (2005, June). Every employee an owner [really]. Harvard Business Review, 123-130.
Case, J. (2001, May). When salaries aren’t secret. Harvard Business Review, 37-49.
Week 6:
Cappelli, P. (2000, Jan/Feb). A market-driven approach to retaining talent. Harvard Business Review, 103-111.
Butler, T., & Waldroop, J. (1999, Sept/Oct). Job sculpting: The art of retaining your best people. Harvard Business Review,
144-152.
Lawler III, E.E. (2008, June). Why are we losing all our good people? Harvard Business Review, 41-45.
Nalbantian, H.R., & Szostak, A. (2004, April). How Fleet Bank fought employee flight. Harvard Business Review, 116-124.
Hewlett, S.A., & Luce, C.B. (2005, March). Off-ramps and on-ramps: Keeping talented women on the road to success.
Harvard Business Review, 43-54.
Mroczkowski, T., & Hanaoka, M. (1997). Effective rightsizing strategies in Japan and America: Is there a convergence of
employment practices? Academy of Management Executive, 11(2), 57-67.
Sullivan, C.T. (2005, September). A stake in the business. Harvard Business Review, 57-64.
Week 7:
Thomas, D.A. (2004, September). Diversity as strategy. Harvard Business Review, 98-108.
Roberts, K., Kossek, E.E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Managing the global workforce: Challenges and strategies. Academy of
Management Executive, 12(4), 93-106.
Black, J.S., & Gregersen, H.B. (1999, March/April). The right way to manage expats. Harvard Business Review, 52-62.
Brett, J., Behfar, K., & Kern, M.C. (2006, November). Managing multicultural teams. Harvard Business Review, 84-91.
Javidan, M., & House, R.J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from Project GLOBE. Organizational
Dynamics, 29(4), 289-305.
Stroh, L.K., & Caligiuri, P.M. (1998). Increasing global competitiveness through effective people management. Journal of
World Business, 33(1), 1-16.
Week 8:
Pfeffer, J., & Veiga, J.F. (1999). Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of Management Executive, 13(2),
37-48.
Becker, B.E., Huselid, M.A., Pickus, P.S., & Spratt, M.F. (1997). HR as a source of shareholder value: Research and
recommendations. Human Resource Management, 36(1), 39-47.
Erickson, T.J., & Gratton, L. (2007, March). What it means to work here. Harvard Business Review, 104-112.
Rucci, A.J., Kirn, S.P., & Quinn, R.T. (1998, January-February). The employee-customer-profit chain at Sears. Harvard
Business Review, 82-97.
Week 9:
Yeung, A.K., & Berman, B. (1997). Adding value through human resources: Reorienting human resource measurement to
drive business performance. Human Resource Management, 36(3), 321-335.
Pfeffer, J. (1997). Pitfalls on the road to measurement: The dangerous liaison of human resources with the ideas of
accounting and finance. Human Resource Management, 36(3), 357-365.
Bassi, L., & McMurrer, D. (2007, March). Maximizing your return on people. Harvard Business Review, 115-123.
Brockner, J. (2006, March). Why it’s so hard to be fair. Harvard Business Review, 122-129.
Ulrich, D. (1997). Measuring human resources: An overview of practice and a prescription for results. Human Resource
Management, 36(3), 303-320.
Charan, R. (2006, April). Home Depot’s blueprint for culture change. Harvard Business Review, 60-70.
Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2004, June). Capitalizing on capabilities. Harvard Business Review, 119-127.