The main problem in this case is June Harrison’s departure, which was prompted by her financial demands, particularly around overtime compensation required to afford rent in Palo Alto. This incident exposes several fundamental issues: the deficiencies in the administrative procedures responsible for timely payments (due to Lou Snider’s negligence), as well as breakdowns in communication (resulting from Harry Hoskinsson’s unavailability) and the challenges of retaining skilled individuals in a competitive market with high living expenses (Valentine et al., 2020). The conflicts are exacerbated by the disparity between the recruiting commitments and the actuality of the company’s remuneration protocols.
She strongly emphasises the need for a stable financial situation and receiving enough recompense for her employment, especially while working outside of business hours. The concept of equity is the most suitable theory of incentives for her since it is heavily based on people’s involvement and the rewards they obtain as a consequence of their participation. This makes it the most acceptable theory for her (Valentine et al., 2020). June acknowledges that the company’s salary is insufficient, and to fix the problem, she resigns from her job. She then suggests that she transfer to a role as a temporary project engineer to address the perceived inequality.
There are implicit duties between June and GI, inferred by the psychological contract in this situation. In the process of June’s transfer to her new role, she was tacitly promised fair punishment and assistance, and she naturally anticipated receiving both of these things (Meakin & Geddes, 2022). Loyalty and mastery of the fundamental aspects of the compensation system were among the requirements that the GI demanded. June’s failure to process her overtime compensation in June, as well as her employer’s refusal to provide help when she found herself in financial difficulty as a consequence of her employer’s incompetence, constituted a violation of the psychological contract from June’s perspective, and she was forced to quit from her position.
Many variables were brought up in the case that may be considered to be indications of retention drivers. Some of these characteristics include suitable remuneration, a favourable attitude towards newcomers, and defined regulations on workers’ pay. The lack of the government to pay out in a timely and equitable manner, as well as the government’s incapacity to give financial and emotional assistance during June’s financial need, are significantly affecting these drivers directly and immediately (Valentine et al., 2020). It is essential to address such factors by offering a salary that is both effective and fair, communication that is both clear and concise, and record-keeping methods that are correct in order to retain talent, particularly in work conditions that are both costly and demanding.
Stan Fryer has to promptly rectify his administrative error by ensuring that June receives her rightful overtime compensation, demonstrating GI’s dedication to fair wages. He should also assess the feasibility of rehiring June in a comparable role, but this time as a temporary employee, considering the policy implications and concerns over wage fairness. However, in the long run, Stan should prioritize improving communication and administrative procedures to avoid similar problems (Meakin & Geddes, 2022). Additionally, conducting evaluations of compensation policies to ensure they are competitive and meet employee expectations will help strengthen the psychological contract and enhance employee retention.
References
Meakin, A., & Geddes, M. (2022). Explaining change in legislatures: Dilemmas of managerial reform in the UK House of Commons. Political Studies, 70(1), 216–235.
Valentine, S., Mathis, R. L., Jackson, J. H., & Meglich, P. A. (2020). Human Resource Management (16th ed.). Cengage Learning.
write