Read The Case And Answer The Questions

Read The Case And Answer The Questions 2 Pages At Mostcase Studygran

Read the case and answer the questions, 2 pages at most CASE STUDY Grand Adventure Park The Grand Adventure Park is considered by most employees to be an excellent place to work. Competition for open positions at the park is fierce. The Grand Adventure Park has extremely stringent selection criteria for all positions but their reputation as one of the best places to work insures that they always have a large pool of applicants for any opening. It is considered to be the finest theme park in the tristate area. The Grand Adventure Park has 165 staff members and 12 managers.

All Grand Adventure Park employees are fulltime. The Grand Adventure Park is open 365 days per year, seven days per week. Staff works a 5-6 day week with a total of forty hours and managers work a 6 day week with a total of 48 hours. Staff members receive one-week paid vacation per year after one year of service and two-week paid vacation per year after five years of service. Managers receive a two-week paid vacation per year after one year of service and three-week paid vacation per year after five years of service.

Additionally, managers receive two personal holidays per year. Employees also earn sick-leave at the rate of ½ day per month after one year of service. The Grand Adventure Park management believes that outstanding performance should be recognized and rewarded. Employees earn performance recognition points toward involvement in an annual cultural experience trip and participation in the trip does count toward the staff member or managers’ regular vacation time. Last year’s trip was to Peru and the six staff members and five managers who went on the trip became a developmental team for a new Peru themed attraction for the next year.

Performance recognition points also apply to other rewards such as gift cards to local attractions and movie tickets which are awarded annually. Performance recognition points are awarded by managers and department heads for outstanding performance based on criteria developed by each department head. Managers are automatically included in a trip every other year. Managers do not participate in the other performance recognition awards. Managers receive a quarterly cash bonus if financial targets are achieved.

The Grand Adventure Park has an established method for the scheduling of vacation days. The minimum vacation time that can be used at one time is one week and the maximum is two weeks. Vacation scheduling is managed within each department. The calendar clearly shows the number of employees that may be on vacation at the same time during each week of the year. Grand Adventure Park treats holidays such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, Rosh Hashanah, and July 4th the same as any other day in the year.

The Maintenance Division which has three departments, grounds, attractions, facilities, has always based vacation scheduling on seniority. Beginning the first week in September a vacation calendar is circulated in each department according to seniority. The attractions department in the Maintenance Division has fourteen full-time attraction engineers. Five of the full-time attraction engineers have been with the park for more than seven years each. For the past three years the five attraction engineers with the greatest seniority have selected vacation dates that included the major holidays.

The other staff in the attractions department had no opportunity to select holiday dates as part of their vacation dates and resentment has steadily grown in the past few years over the scheduling of vacations. Leslie, an attraction engineer, has been with Grand Adventure Park for eighteen months. Leslie was recognized for her outstanding performance and was one of the six staff members that were selected to travel to Peru this year. Leslie mentioned the vacation scheduling to James, one of the five managers, during the trip to Peru. She stated that she was considering leaving Grand Adventure Park because she considered the scheduling of vacations in the Attractions Department to be unfair and inequitable.

She also indicated that there were other team members in the Attractions Department looking for positions elsewhere because of the vacation scheduling for the department. James asked each of the other five staff members on the trip, 1 from the Attractions, 2 from the Guest Service Department and 2 from the Sales Department, how they felt about the scheduling of vacations in their department. All of the staff members indicated that seniority was the basis for scheduling and they felt it created inequities and discontent. All of the staff members stated that they felt the system was designed to reward longevity not performance. James organized an open discussion of the issue with the other four managers and all of the staff members during the trip.

The five managers returned from the trip convinced that the general manager, who was not present on the trip, needed to address the issue of vacation scheduling to avoid losing valuable staff members. Case Study Questions w/ Answers As the human resource manager of the Grand Adventure Park you are tasked by the general manager to look into this issue and report the following: What is/are the primary and secondary issue/s? Primary: Secondary: Should something be done short-term to address the issue/s. What should and can be done long-term to address the issue/s. As the companies human resource professional you have always been a major supporter of the “performance recognition†program. The general manager, in light of the recent issues, has asked if you think the program should continue. What is your recommendation and why? 2

Paper For Above instruction

The primary issue in the Grand Adventure Park case revolves around the fairness and equity in vacation scheduling within the Attractions Department, which has led to widespread dissatisfaction and potential staff attrition. The secondary issue concerns the overall impact of this scheduling practice on employee morale, motivation, and retention across the park. These issues threaten the park's reputation as a top employer and could lead to a loss of experienced staff, thereby affecting operational efficiency and guest satisfaction.

In detail, the primary issue is the seniority-based vacation scheduling system in the Attractions Department that favors employees with longer tenure, particularly those with over seven years of service. This system has historically included major holidays for employees with more seniority, which has caused resentment among newer staff members like Leslie, who has only been with the park for eighteen months. Leslie's complaint highlights the inequity perceived by newer employees, who feel their performance and contributions are undervalued compared to longevity-based rewards.

The secondary issue is the broader impact of such practices on organizational culture and employee engagement. When staff perceive favoritism and inequity, trust in management diminishes, increasing turnover intentions and reducing overall morale. This discontent can undermine teamwork, reduce productivity, and harm the park’s reputation as an attractive employer, especially since the park attracts highly competitive applicants due to its esteemed reputation.

Short-term solutions should focus on addressing immediate discontent and preventing attrition. This could involve revising the vacation scheduling system temporarily by incorporating more fairness, such as rotating holiday privileges among employees regardless of seniority. Management should communicate transparently about the steps being taken to address concerns, offering options like voluntary swap days or a more inclusive scheduling framework for upcoming peak seasons. Offering some form of interim performance recognition or small incentives can help mitigate dissatisfaction while longer-term changes are developed.

Long-term strategies must aim to overhaul the vacation scheduling policy to ensure fairness, transparency, and performance-based recognition. A viable approach is to implement a flexible scheduling system that combines seniority with performance metrics or employee preference. For example, a points-based system could balance seniority with recent performance, enabling high performers or newer employees to secure desired vacation dates, including holidays. Establishing a formal committee comprising managers and employee representatives can oversee the process and ensure equal opportunities, fostering trust and consensus.

Furthermore, the organization should provide training to managers on equitable scheduling practices, emphasizing fairness and employee engagement. Regular feedback mechanisms, such as surveys or focus groups, can monitor employee satisfaction concerning vacation policies. This ongoing dialogue will help the organization adapt policies proactively and prevent recurrence of similar issues.

Regarding the performance recognition program, its continuation aligns with the park’s culture of acknowledging excellence and motivating staff. However, recent issues suggest a need to evaluate whether the program’s criteria effectively promote equitable recognition and engagement. The program should extend to include peer recognition and more performance-based rewards rather than solely seniority-based achievements, ensuring that high performance is tangibly rewarded. Such adjustments can enhance motivation, fairness, and a sense of value among staff, preserving the program’s integrity and benefits.

References

• Armstrong, M. (2020). Armstrong's Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. Kogan Page.
• Brewster, C., Chung, C., & Sparrow, P. (2016). Globalizing Human Resource Management. Routledge.
• Dessler, G. (2020). Human Resource Management. Pearson.
• Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2020). Behavior in Organizations. Pearson.
• Kaufman, B. E. (2019). The Economics of Employee Compensation. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 58(2), 236-261.
• Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2019). Human Resource Management. Cengage Learning.
• Snell, S., & Bohlander, G. (2019). Managing Human Resources. Cengage Learning.
• Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Johnson, D., Sandholtz, K., & Younger, J. (2018). HR Competencies: Mastery at the Intersection of People and Business. Society for Human Resource Management.
• Werner, J. M., & DeSimone, R. L. (2020). Human Resource Management. Cengage Learning.
• Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (2011). Exploring Human Capital: Putting 'Human' Back Into Strategic Human Resource Management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 93-104.