Responses/Recommendations for Scenario A – Talent Management • What are the main issues Bridges and Guthry must immediately address? • Given the struggles of new supervisors to make a successful tran

One of its strengths is its strong partnership with the vibrant Beacon community.

Many of Hudson’s employees serve on boards of local nonprofit organizations. Three years ago, the college helped improve the local transit system to provide better access to transportation for students and college employees. The college’s presence in the downtown region is evident with the recent construction of the college bookstore, a coffee house and three student housing complexes along the Hudson R iver waterfront. Students choose Hudson for a variety of reasons, but most often they point to the low faculty-to-student ratio (12:1), the variety of academic programming and the proximity to New York City (approximately a one-hour drive).

Dr. Sara R ichards became the 13th president of the college last year. She replaced the popular Dr. Robert McNulty, who retired after a 12-year tenure, which included a 20 percent increase in student applications, the addition of 15 academic programs, a strong emphasis on global education (the college now offers eight study abroad programs), and an increase in the enrollment of international students from 3 to 7 percent of the total enrollment.

R ichards came to Hudson after serving as the provost at a similar liberal arts institution in the Midwestern region of the country. The transition from McNulty to R ichards has been viewed as positive, but for many, it is too soon to tell. There is a small number of students and employees who feel the college lacks the necessary leadership to take Hudson to the next level. R ichards reports directly to the board of trustees.

Edward Coburn has served as the board chair for the past three years. He retired in 2011 after a long, successful career at Appalachian Trust Bank in Poughkeepsie, New York, where he was the chief executive officer during the last 11 years of his career.

The board of trustees, who traditionally have not meddled in human resource (HR) operations, are deeply concerned about the rise in health care costs and have focused their attention on this and other financial challenges facing the college.

Like so many colleges and universities, Hudson has been challenged by the difficult economic climate, increased competition among schools within and outside its peer group, and external pressure from its key stakeholders. The college’s current strategic plan, now in its fourth year, outlined an ambitious agenda focused on diversity and inclusion, a reenergized commitment to increasing the school’s affinity among its Hudson College: o verview 2 © 2014 societ y for Human r esource management. s teve riccio, e d.d., sp Hr alumni, and a multiyear capital project initiative that includes new construction and renovations to support the academic and residential experiences for students.

Hudson’s endowment, despite losing 16 percent between 2008 and 2010 due to market conditions, has now reached $350 million for the first time in the college’s history. Despite serving as a positive performance measurement, most of this growth can be attributed to a rebound in the market. Large donations from alumni have been difficult to secure, making it a challenge to keep up with competitors.

David Bridges, vice president of human resources and risk management, has been in his current role for six years. He came to Hudson College from a university in New York City, where he was the director of human resources. Bridges has been described by his colleagues as a visionary who has lead several key initiatives since coming to Hudson, including increasing efficiencies through technology enhancements and offering a more competitive compensation model compared to the local market and its peer institutions. Bridges reports directly to R ichards.

Janet Mullins, director of human resources, has worked in the human resources and risk management division for 19 years. She started her career as a benefits analyst and moved into her current role shortly after Bridges’ arrival. She reports directly to Bridges.

Elizabeth Guthry, director of organizational development, recently transitioned to higher education after six years as a corporate trainer for a Fortune 500 company.

She has struggled with the cultural differences and has found it difficult to produce positive change in her short time at Hudson. She also reports directly to Bridges.

Hudson College has been named one of the “Top 100 Best Organizations to Work For in the State of New York” for four years in a row. Many attribute this ranking to the college’s strong sense of teamwork and employee loyalty to the institution.

The human resources and risk management division has also been recognized by local surveys for its care for employees and family-friendly benefits. Despite these recognitions, some faculty and administrative staff believe recent retirements and resignations of individuals in key positions have affected employee morale and the college’s reputation of providing outstanding service to its students. Most of the open positions created by these departures were filled by external candidates, causing employees to question the college’s commitment to its own people.

IN DAVID’S OFFICE Bridges has been putting together a summary document he planned on giving R ichards to prepare for their annual meeting about the division’s goals for the upcoming year. As Bridges reflects on the past year, he notes a number of significant accomplishments that were made in the division. Despite these successes, he admits that it has been the most challenging year since he joined Hudson College. © 2014 societ y for Human r esource management. s teve riccio, e d.d., sp Hr 3 REFERENCES Balzer, W. (2010). Lean Higher Education: Increasing the Value and Performance of University Processes. Boca R aton, FL: CRC Press.

INSTITUTIONAL DATA Category Figures Enrollment 2,641 undergraduate students Percentage of international students 7% Percentage of students of color 13 % Acceptance rate* 4 6 .1% Discount rate* * 44.8% Retention rate 92% Endowment (current) $ 3 5 4 ,10 6 ,19 8 Fundraising (fiscal year) $9,828,637 * Acceptance rate: The percentage of student applicants the college accepts.

** Discount rate: Institutional grant aid awarded to undergraduates as a percentage of the institution’s gross tuition revenue.

NUMBER OF FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES BY GENDER Number of Full-Time Employees MaleFemale To t a l Faculty 11 393206 Administrative 10 9141250 Hourly 10 6167273 To t a l 328401729 EEO STATUS (FULL-TIME) Classification Number of Employees % of Total Employees African American, Black 13 318 . 2 % Asian American 344.7% Hispanic, Latino 10 314 .1% Multiethnic 60.8% Native American, Alaskan Native 50.6% White or Caucasian 44861. 4% 4 © 2014 societ y for Human r esource management. s teve riccio, e d.d., sp Hr ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: EXECUTIVE TEAM ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: DIVISION OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT Janet Mullins Director of Human Resources Elizabeth GuthryDirector of Organizational Development Sally Thompson Executive Assistant Jarred Warren Risk Manager Kelly Gould Benefits Coordinator Felicia Johnson HR Generalist Scott Diehl Human Resource Assistant Deb Reynolds Staff Assistant David Bridges VP of Human Resources and Risk Management Audrey Stewart Dean of Admissions Cindy Pearson VP of Information Technology Donna RutherfordDean of Students Ross Gordon Director of Policy and Compliance/ Title IX Officer Josh Wittenberg General Counsel Richard Gatling Provost Cathy Griggs Chief Financial Officer Fred Winters VP for Campus Operations Allen Freeney VP of External Affairs David Bridges VP of Human Resources and Risk Management Michael WatkinsChief of Staff Sara Richards President Edward CoburnChair, Board of Trustees © 2014 Societ y for Human Resource Management. Steve Riccio, Ed.D., SPHR 5 P L AY E R S ■Fred Winters, vice president of campus operations ■Jessica Wallace, executive assistant for the vice president of campus operations ■Brad Tomlinson, director of facilities ■David Bridges, vice president of human resources and risk management ■Sally Thompson, executive assistant for the vice president of human resources and risk management ■Elizabeth Guthry, director of organizational development IN FRED WINTERS’ OFFICE From the day he began as a housekeeping supervisor at Hudson College 32 years ago, Fred Winters, vice president of campus operations, had a reputation as being a “hands off ” manager who trusted his staff but provided support when necessary.

Winters, a graduate of Hudson College, had been through several changes in administration during his tenure. He would admit that the past few years have been some of the most challenging given turnover rate in his division and the financial strains that have affected campus maintenance and building projects.

One position that recently turned over was the director of facilities. The position was filled three months ago by Brad Tomlinson who had worked in a similar capacity at a local area hospital. A lthough Tomlinson was viewed by most as an excellent hire, Winters has had multiple meetings with employees from the facilities department regarding Tomlinson’s conduct as a supervisor during his short tenure with the college. Common themes identified by Winters from those discussions were that employees felt Tomlinson was too abrasive and unwilling to listen to their ideas. In keeping with his hands-off approach, Winters initially thought these issues would work themselves out. Winters waited weeks before scheduling a meeting he now wishes he had made sooner.

Winters was gazing out his office window when his executive assistant, Jessica Wallace, knocked on his door to let him know that Tomlinson had arrived for their meeting.

“Hey Brad, come on in,” said Winters. “I appreciate you coming in given how busy things are this week. Is everything on schedule for a great weekend?” Scenario A: Talent Management 6 © 2014 Societ y for Human Resource Management. Steve Riccio, Ed.D., SPHR Hudson’s Homecoming Weekend was only a few days away, and Tomlinson and his team had been working overtime to prepare the campus, including making needed repairs to landscaping damaged by a series of heav y storms during the past week.

“Everything is definitely on target for a successful weekend,” Tomlinson replied in a cautious tone. Tomlinson knew the purpose of the meeting was not to talk about Homecoming Weekend.

“Please sit down,” said Winters. “Brad, I will get right to the point about why I asked you to come in to see me. When I hired you three months ago, I knew we were very fortunate to get someone with your background and experience to fill one of the more critical positions on this campus. From my vantage point, since your arrival, everything appears to have not missed a beat. Projects are getting accomplished on time, the campus looks as beautiful as ever, and I have had few complaints from faculty, staff or students. At least, no more than normal,” Winters added to create some levity to an already tense environment. “However, I have had a number of employees who report to you come to me with concerns related to your supervisory skills.” Winters paused to gauge Tomlinson’s initial reaction.

Tomlinson sat back in his seat in disbelief. “I have to say I’m surprised. Why haven’t they come to me if they were upset? What did they say?” asked Tomlinson in a defensive tone.

“That was the first thing I asked each of them—did you have a conversation with your supervisor about this? Gauging from your reaction, it seems they haven’t. I am not going to disclose who came to me because these were confidential discussions.

However, I am concerned about why they feel they couldn’t go to you with their concerns. We value collaboration in our division. The other concern, of course, is your management style,” said Winters.

“You’re questioning my management style because of a few conversations you’ve had with my employees?” asked Tomlinson in a louder tone.

“First, I want you to calm down. I sense you are getting defensive,” said Winters.

“The goal of this conversation is to not punish you, but to hear your side.” Tomlinson hesitated and took a deep breath. “This place is so different than the hospital. I don’t know what was allowed before I arrived, but my employees feel entitled. I have high expectations of myself and of my staff. They seem very sensitive.

We don’t have the time or resources to coddle every one of them.” Tomlinson paused while looking down at the floor before making his next comment.

“To be honest, there are a few of them that I want to fire right now.” With that, Tomlinson started to get up out of his seat.

“Do you think that’s the right approach to take?” asked Winters.

“Fred, I appreciate you wanting to talk with me. I get the message. Now I ask that you please let me do my job,” Tomlinson said in a direct manner. “I will be sure to give you a report next week after Homecoming Weekend,” said Tomlinson to change © 2014 Societ y for Human Resource Management. Steve Riccio, Ed.D., SPHR 7 the subject as quickly as possible. Winters thanked Tomlinson. Tomlinson left to oversee the tasks that remain in preparation for homecoming.

ONE DAY LATER IN DAVID BRIDGES’ OFFICE David Bridges, vice president of human resources and risk management, sat in his office answering a series of e-mails he received earlier in the day about an employee relations incident requiring the attention of a number of division leaders when his assistant, Sally Thompson, informed him that Fred Winters had arrived for their 11:00 a.m. meeting. Winters normally didn’t schedule meetings with Bridges.

He usually called if he needed advice or wanted to get a different perspective on a particular issue. Bridges sensed this meeting would be something more serious.

“A lways good to see you, Fred,” Bridges said as he greeted Winters at his office door.

Bridges’ opening remark was somewhat tongue-in-cheek because he was almost certain that the reason to see him was related to an employee matter. Winters replied jokingly, “I can’t think of a better place to be than your office.” Bridges and Winters have had a strong working relationship since Bridges arrived to Hudson six years ago. Bridges could see that Winters was under stress.

Winters sat down, covering his mouth with his hands as he thought about how to begin the conversation. “I had a meeting yesterday in my office with Brad Tomlinson, our new director of facilities.” Looking Bridges directly in the eye, he stated, “You know when you get that gut feeling about someone?” “Of course,” replied Bridges. “Did you get that feeling yesterday?” “Actually, I got that feeling during the hiring process,” Winters responded.

Looking somewhat amazed, Bridges waited for Winters to elaborate on his thought.

“I trusted the recommendations made by my staff members who had the opportunity to meet with him. He has tremendous mechanical skills and was highly recommended. He also is well respected in the community from his work at the hospital and support of nonprofits in Beacon. I have to tell you, though; he lost some of that respect with me when he essentially walked out of my office yesterday,” said Winters.

Bridges waited to see if Winters was finished. “What are you thinking today?” asked Bridges.

“What I’m thinking is that we made the wrong hiring decision,” replied Winters.

“Glenn (referring to Glenn Saunders, associate director of facilities) was a finalist for the position, but many, including me, thought he didn’t have the experience to lead the complex projects scheduled over the next few years. Now I’m dreading the choice we made.” 8 © 2014 Societ y for Human Resource Management. Steve Riccio, Ed.D., SPHR AFTER THE CONVERSATION Unfortunately, other senior officers have shared similar concerns about recent supervisory hires having difficulties in their transition to Hudson. As Bridges finished reviewing his notes from his meeting with Winters, he realized he needed to talk with Elizabeth Guthry, director of organizational development. Bridges was focused on helping support the transition of recent hires. What was more of a concern, though, was the number of internal candidates for critical positions who were passed over for individuals from outside the college, some without experience in higher education; seven out of nine new supervisors were external. In addition, external searches were conducted in the hiring process of the past three senior officer positions. Bridges thought that Hudson needed to better position employees for future success, whether they had just started or had been there for several years. With that, he sent an e-mail to Guthry, asking her to provide a one-page outline of the current orientation process and to arrange a meeting to discuss how the onboarding process could be improved.

OUTLINE OF HUDSON’S CURRENT NEW-EMPLOYEE ORIENTATION PROCESS Before first day: Mail to new employee ■Congratulatory letter with start date.

■Benefits enrollment and payroll forms.

■Employee handbook.

■Copy of letter with start date and new employee checklist to immediate supervisor.

First day: New-employee orientation ■New employee reports to human resources and risk management division for a half-day orientation to include:

•Welcome and introductions.

•Video “History of Hudson.” •Overview of each campus division (with presenter from each division).

•Employee benefits discussion.

•Campus tour.

•Lunch with HR staff members.

■New employee is escorted by an HR representative to his or her department at the conclusion of the lunch.

*A training program currently does not exist for new supervisors. © 2014 societ y for Human r esource management. s teve riccio, e d.d., sp Hr 5 P L AY E R S ■David Bridges, vice president of human resources and risk management ■Janet Mullins, director of human resources ■Elizabeth Guthry, director of organizational development IN BRIDGES’ OFFICE Bridges scanned an e-mail listing the “Top 100 Organizations in the State of New York” for this year. To his amazement, Hudson College was not on the list for the first time in five years. A fter reflecting on the results a moment, he thought, “This really isn’t a surprise after the year that we’ve had.” David’s first instinct was to call Janet Mullins, director of human resources, who had submitted the application each of the last eight years Hudson had participated in the survey. While being named to this distinguished list was an excellent employee recruiting tool for Hudson College, the overall results were valuable because they provided the aggregate data of employees’ responses to the application’s cultural assessment survey. The HR division had worked with the mathematics department for the past five years to interpret the survey results when they were received from the vendor and before the results were published to employees with specific action steps identified. The top 100 organizations across all industries were chosen based on the survey results. Last year, Hudson was one of only four higher education institutions to make the list. The HR division has not identified performance metrics to determine employee engagement levels beyond the survey data that the college received each year for its participation.

Bridges called Mullins, who answered immediately. “I guess you saw the e-mail,” said Bridges.

“I did,” replied Mullins.

“This should give us plenty to talk about at lunch today.” Bridges and Mullins had lunch once a month to discuss current issues and future initiatives. Today, as they did on most occasions, they chose to eat at the Valley Deli, located in Beacon’s business district, just a couple of blocks away from the campus.

For the past four years, Mullins held a celebratory event during the winter break to thank employees for their hard work in helping earn the distinction. Mullins partnered with the communications and marketing department to help generate enthusiasm for the event. Bridges and R ichards (and McNulty in the past) would offer a few appreciative remarks to employees during the event. A large banner was hung in the banquet room during the event, listing each of the years in which the s cenario b : employee e ngagement 6 © 2014 societ y for Human r esource management. s teve riccio, e d.d., sp Hr award was received. It then was rehung inside the Student Union Building for the rest of the year because it was the area that received the most foot traffic.

AT THE VALLEY DELI As they sat down for lunch, Mullins said, “I’m not so sure I really want to eat anything. I’m still in disbelief that we were not on the list this year.” Bridges had called the vendor for the preliminary results from the survey just before lunch and gave a copy to Mullins. A fter a few minutes of quiet review of the data, Bridges thought he knew the biggest issues, but he wanted to first hear from Mullins.

“Well, to start, I’m noticing a much lower score than in previous years related to collaboration across the campus,” said Mullins. “The working relationship between supervisors and employees has always been a point of discussion, but it seems to be of great concern, particularly in the area of career development.” Bridges agreed with Mullins. “The statement, ‘Performance issues are dealt with in an appropriate and timely manner’ is another area of concern. I’m identif ying a theme based on these results,” he said.

“What’s that?” asked Mullins.

“As a college, we are not engaging in enough conversation,” said Bridges.

“I’m not sure I understand. Sometimes I think we engage in too much conversation and not enough execution,” responded Mullins.

Without pause, Bridges said, “It’s the fact that we aren’t having the conversations we need to have.” Mullins nodded in agreement without saying a word. She recalled a number of conversations she has had with employees and supervisors. “They seem comfortable in talking with us, but not with colleagues in their own departments,” she said.

Bridges agreed, replying, “That’s right, and it’s beginning to take its toll on morale.” A fter the waiter took their orders, Bridges said, “I need to have a conversation with Elizabeth to get her reaction. She’s definitely going to be upset. She came on board shortly after we published last year’s results. I felt she could address some of the key areas that needed help. Unfortunately, we are going in the opposite direction.” He continued, “She is the eyes and ears for our division in meeting with employee groups around campus. Janet, I’d like you to meet with Elizabeth given your history with the survey. I think your perspective will be helpful to her. I just wish we would have done it sooner.” Mullins replied, “I would be happy to have that conversation.” © 2014 societ y for Human r esource management. s teve riccio, e d.d., sp Hr 7 IN ELIZABETH GUTHRY’S OFFICE Bridges walked into Guthry’s office after he returned from lunch to share the survey results with her. Guthry previously has expressed her frustration with her transition to Hudson. She admitted that working for higher education, while having its advantages, could be difficult in terms of creating lasting change.

“Elizabeth, do you have a second?” asked Bridges.

“Sure,” Guthry replied.

“I just received the results from this year’s ‘Top 100 Organizations’ survey.

Unfortunately, we did not make this year’s list,” said Bridges as he shut the door behind him. “I had lunch with Janet and shared the results with her. Here’s a copy for your review.” Guthry, looking deeply concerned, asked, “What more can we do? We’ve stayed connected with each division and helped them through a variety of initiatives.” Bridges responded, “I know we are meeting each division’s expectations. But are we really addressing what they really need?” “I’m not sure I quite understand,” said Guthry.

“Have any specific actions been taken on the previous years’ results since your arrival?” asked Bridges.

Guthry hesitated, not being able to recall any specific initiatives taken based on the results from recent years.

“I asked Janet to arrange a meeting with you given her background with the survey process and your expertise in organizational development,” Bridges explained. “We need to develop a strategy to address these concerns.” He continued somewhat emphatically, “Not being on the list is one thing, but I’m mainly concerned with how this can affect turnover, productivity and service to our students. When I spoke with the vendor before lunch, he said he would be more than happy to help us interpret the survey data.” Guthry acknowledged Bridges’ concern as he reached for the door to leave her office.

“I’ll be sure to work with Janet to identif y key priorities,” Guthry replied. With that, Bridges left her office, and she began scanning the results from the previous three years while waiting for Mullins’ call. 8 © 2014 societ y for Human r esource management. s teve riccio, e d.d., sp Hr SURVEY RESULTS OF THE TOP 100 ORGANIZATIONS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK (HUDSON COLLEGE 2011-2013) The chart below lists the aggregate score from a series of 15 questions asked in the “Top 100 Organizations in the State of New York” assessment. Faculty, administrators and staff were invited to participate in the survey. The overall response rate for the most recent survey was 54 percent, compared with 58 percent in 2012 and 66 percent in 2011.

Survey respondents were asked to rank statements on a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 being the lowest (strongly disagree with the statement) and 6 being the highest (strongly agree with the statement).

The following data represent the percentage of respondents who either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.

Survey Question 2 0 11 2 012 2 013 1. My skills and abilities are used effectively. 86%84% 81% 2. I am recognized for my contributions to the organization. 78%74 %68% 3. I clearly understand how my role affects the success of the organization. 89% 85%86% 4. I receive feedback from my immediate supervisor regularly. 87%81%77% 5. I have a good working relationship with my immediate supervisor. 86% 86% 82% 6. My immediate supervisor listens to ideas and feedback when offered. 81% 76% 73% 7. My immediate supervisor supports my career development. 78%78% 71% 8. Our department speaks openly about issues that can affect our work. 74 % 68% 63% 9. Performance issues are dealt with in an appropriate and timely manner. 64% 58% 55% 10. Our department works well to support our constituents. 77% 79% 76% 11. Strong communication takes place throughout the organization. 68% 64%59% 12. The organization’s policies and practices provide for a fair and productive work environment. 85% 85%86% 13. The organization takes an active interest in the work /life balance of employees. 78% 73% 71% 14. I feel a great sense of loyalty to the organization. 87%85% 82% 15. I enjoy working for this organization. 85%81%78% © 2014 Societ y for Human resource Management. Steve r iccio, ed.d., SPH r 5 P L AY E R S ■Elizabeth Guthry, director of organizational development ■Tanya Herring, staff assistant for student housing (division of student affairs) ■Sam Gibbons, assistant director of student conduct (division of student affairs) ■A nn Stewart, director of health services (division of student affairs) When David Bridges came to Hudson College, his first act was to meet with faculty, administrators and staff to get a sense of the college’s culture and values. By holding these meetings, Bridges wanted to understand what worked well and what needed attention from an HR perspective. Bridges found this to be a valuable experience, and employees were happy to see such engagement from the start by the new vice president.

Bridges is still engaged in employee activities as much as his schedule permits, but Elizabeth Guthry, director of organizational development, now has the responsibility to meet regularly with employees to foster a positive working relationship between the division and the rest of the campus. Guthry meets with a group of eight to 10 staff members from each division quarterly to discuss updates that have an impact on employees and to provide them an opportunity to ask questions in areas such as benefits and policies. To date, there has not been a great deal of discussion at these meetings, with few questions asked by the participants. At times, some employees waited until after the meeting to speak with Guthry privately about more personal issues. Most participants appreciated receiving updates and having the opportunity to ask questions, whereas others seemed bothered by them. Guthry sensed that the meetings took some individuals away from more pressing matters.

IN THE STUDENT AFFAIRS DIVISION CONFERENCE ROOM It seemed like another normal quarterly meeting in the student affairs division, but it turned in an instant when Guthry reminded employees that performance reviews were scheduled for completion in January. Guthry had taken over responsibility for the performance appraisal process from Janet Mullins, director of human resources.

Guthry also reminded the group to be open with their supervisors regarding the challenges they had faced during the year and encouraged them to contribute their ideas for improvement.

“I’m not saying a thing to my supervisor,” said Tanya Herring from student housing.

Scenario C: Performance Management 6 © 2014 Societ y for Human resource Management. Steve riccio, ed.d., SPH r Sam Gibbons from student conduct said, “Why should I do that? It doesn’t do any good.” The discussion quickly switched to the performance review process itself. “Why should I work any harder?” asked Herring. “You can do the bare minimum, keep your job and still get the same pay increase as everyone else.” Guthry was ready to defend the process but realized that it was best to listen to the comments being made. She had heard the same arguments from employees before.

This year, however, with so much change that had taken place, the frustration seemed to be escalating.

The performance management process had not changed much during the past several years. Most supervisors saw the process as a necessary evil, although some did take the process seriously. Limited funding has prevented any serious discussions about implementing a pay-for-performance system. Given this lack of change, employees have complained about the flaws in the process for quite some time.

Hudson College has resisted adopting a pay-for-performance system for a variety of reasons, including the “inflation” of performance scores and a lack of consistency in the evaluation process among supervisors. Instead, most employees get the standard 2 to 3 percent increase. This year, with so many financial uncertainties facing the college, there is no guarantee of a salary increase because the budget committee could not come to a consensus on the issue during its last meeting.

AFTER THE MEETING Guthry was heading out of the conference room after the meeting when she spotted an employee walking out of the room while texting on her smart phone. The employee, A nn Stewart, was the director of health services at Hudson and had been employed by the college for 22 years. Stewart was well respected by her colleagues for her strong collaborative skills and knowledge of Hudson. Guthry knew this even in the short time she had been at Hudson.

“A nn, do you have a second?” asked Guthry.

“Sure, what’s up?” asked Stewart as she finished typing her message and put her phone away.

“I was taken a bit by surprise by Tanya’s and Sam’s reaction to our performance appraisal process. I know they’ve been with Hudson less than five years. It’s troubling to hear such a reaction from newer employees,” said Guthry. “As someone who is much more connected to the campus, do you feel their reactions are the general feeling by most administrative employees?” “I think there is some truth to what Tanya and Sam said. I have to tell you, preparing for performance discussions is not on the top of my list of favorite things to do. First, I know that despite how well my staff members perform, I will most likely be able to give them the standard increase determined by the college. They know that, and I know that,” said Stewart. “I also know there is more to the © 2014 Societ y for Human resource Management. Steve r iccio, ed.d., SPH r 7 appraisal system than the salary increase. I stress to my employees the importance of the conversation and how it will assist us moving forward. But I don’t see very many supervisors who share this same approach. To them, it is just another requirement dictated by HR.” “You’ve reinforced what I‘ve been sensing since I started,” replied Guthry.

“I recently heard a supervisor say that he was not going to give in to HR’s bureaucracy. He said he has plenty of discussions with his employees and doesn’t need to complete a form, especially when it’s the same useless process,” said Steward.

Guthry answered, “That’s quite telling. Who knows how many others feel the same way. It’s no wonder employees like Tanya and Sam react the way they do given the supervisors’ attitudes.” As they left the Student Union, Guthry said, “A nn, thanks for sharing your perspective. It was certainly helpful.” Stewart replied, “No problem. Let me know if there is anything I can do.” If you are not a SHRM member and would like to become one, please visit http://www.shrm.org/about/membership/pages/default.aspx . 1800 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314-3499