Good example of case study on highway administrator case

Question one

It is commendable for the highway administrator to come up with a highway improvement program. It is a representation of strategic processes of carrying out activities in any organization. He has come up with a practical goal setting program that may be extremely useful if various elements were considered as well as others improved in the implementation process. In this case, elements such as job performance and satisfaction for the employer need to be evaluated.
The first problem that may be identified in this goal setting program is the assumption that it was possible to test crews’ performance based on the performance of one crew. One’s performance ability cannot be gauged on another person’s performance. Different people possess variant abilities, resources, and management skills. Therefore, it is completely indefinite to set a program that is supposed to gauge individual performance on the same extent of work. In such a case, the strongest crew will not have ample chance to show its strength (Ventrelle, 2010). On the other hand, it will be extremely hard to identify the incompetent crew.
Job satisfaction is a major element for employer from an employee. Although, the administrator seeks quality work in repair for potholes, he does not offer adequate chance to gauge the crew that would offer the best services in terms of ability to fill potholes. The administrator could have given the involved a chance to show their skills in filling potholes. In every individual, there is some uniqueness that may influence their outstanding performance (Yukl, 2007). Therefore; the administrator may have been keen to engage a strategy that will assist in evaluating a crew that would be most suitable in filling potholes in the best manner.

Question two

Any goal setting plan has a set of expected outcomes that define the goal of the administrator in this case. Therefore, quality of performance remains extremely vital to the highway administrator. The reliability of a crew for excellent work in filling potholes will be determined by the quality of its performance. However, the administrator should be keen enough to evaluate the most outstanding crew at the beginning of study. It is in the beginning of the study that it would be extremely easy to determine the crew that will offer adequate services.
At the beginning of the study, natural ability of the crew will be shown. Initially, the administrator does not talk of the compensation for crews following the highest quality performance. Therefore, crews will work on the natural pace and the quality of their work would remain the same. It would be extremely difficult to determine the best crew for the pothole filling job (Poll and Peter, 2007). Thus, it would be discovered that in the first weeks of the research, crews will have an extremely low performance.
However, after sometime there would be guaranteed improvement in performance for crew. This comes after realization that they were out for a competition for the most outstanding crew in the sample. The administrator has set a compensation plan for a given work, which is the determinant for the level of competition (Jeyarathnam, 2008). In most cases, employers come up with outstanding compensation and rewarding plans. These are sources of motivation or encouragement for employees. In this case, crews will be motivated to work more and their personal traits for work will be portrayed accordingly to suit the elements that the administrator would be looking for in the study.

Question three

In any study, to gauge accurate performance of different people it is advisable to set up a plan that that is equal among all people. In this case, the administrator could have come up with a common plan for all crews. The plan would have been common through an equal breakdown of activities. The process of gauging the crews would have been implemented under similar procedures. It is erroneous to gauge people on their own procedures as they may go for the simplest and yet incompetent strategy. For proper evaluation of the performance for individual crews the administrator would have used a technique that would have involved a common procedure among all crews (Gordon and Vernon, 2012). This would be an outstanding platform to gauge the ability of the crews to learn and stick to given plans for excellent services. The most productive crew would be noted through use of a common procedure among all crews. It will be easy to determine who is the most outstanding to work with a set of defined rules or procedures.
Also, the compensation or rewarding system set by the administrator is not equally paramount. The program insists on quantity filled but is not considerate of the quality of work done. In most cases, programs out for excellence insist on quality. This is the ability of the crew to cause extremely high performance for certain job activity. This is the best element to measure performance (Hansen, Smith, and Hansen, 2002). Determination of performance by quantity of work may lead to haphazard kind of work. However, the administrator could have used quality as the first determinant of performance and quantity should be second. This will be an outstanding strategy to gauge performance.

Works Cited

Gordon, Michael E., and Vernon D. Miller. Conversations about job performance a communication perspective on the appraisal process. New York, N. Y.] (222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017): Business Expert Press, 2012. Print.
Hansen, F., M. Smith, and R. B. Hansen. ” Rewards And Recognition In Employee Motivation.” Compensation & Benefits Review 34. 5 (2002): 64-72. Print.
Jeyarathnam, M.. Strategic management. Rev. ed. Mumbai: Himalaya Pub. House, 2008. Print.
Poll, Roswitha, and Peter te Boekhorst. Measuring quality performance measurement in libraries. 2nd rev. ed. München: K. G. Saur, 2007. Print.
Ventrelle, J.. ” Measure Up Employee Wellness Competition.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association 110. 9 (2010): A10-A10. Print.
Yukl, Gary . ” HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR CASE ASSIGNMENT – CASE STUDY.” ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR 300 1. 1 (2007): 4-8. Print.