Micro Link Information Technology & Business College

Postgraduate School
Business Administration (MBA)

HRM HOME TAKE ASSIGNMENT

SUBMITTED BY: ARON HAGOS

ID. NO: 3649/19

SECTION: B-1

SUBMITTED TO: Dr. MULU ADERIE

drmulumicro@[Link]

i
I choose Case Study 1: and Case Study 3: Here's an analysis of each, along
with answers to the respective questions:

Case Study 1

Total quality management

Q1: Why do you think the BS 5750 scheme was successful but the TQM scheme failed in
Precision Engineering?

Success of BS 5750 Scheme:

i. Clear Focus on Standards and Objectives:

 BS 5750 was an internationally recognized standard for quality management
systems. It had clear, well-defined guidelines, making it easier for workers and
management to understand and implement.
 The scheme required workers to inspect their own work, providing a clear sense
of responsibility and accountability.
ii. Worker Empowerment:
 By delegating quality inspection to workers, the scheme fostered trust and
autonomy, improving morale and reducing the dependency on specialist
inspectors. This resulted in tangible time and cost savings.
iii. Collaborative Union Agreements:
 The union's involvement ensured that workers were adequately compensated for
the increased responsibility, which minimized resistance and garnered employee
support.
iv. Incremental Changes:
 BS 5750 introduced gradual changes without overhauling existing systems,
making it less disruptive and more palatable to employees.

1
Failure of TQM Scheme:

i. Lack of Employee Buy-In:

 Workers were skeptical of the TQM program, and unions were not fully
supportive. This resistance arose from poor communication of the program's
benefits and its impact on employees' day-to-day roles.
 TQM demanded significant cultural and behavioral changes, which were not
effectively managed or explained.
ii. Unprepared Leadership:
 Team leaders and supervisors were untrained and uncomfortable with their new
roles, leading to poor implementation of problem-solving groups and inadequate
guidance for workers.
iii. Overly Ambitious Goals:
 TQM’s broad scope, involving voluntary participation in problem-solving groups
and addressing external problems, overwhelmed employees. Unlike BS 5750,
which had a narrow and structured focus, TQM required a complete mindset shift.
iv. Insufficient Training and Support:
 The program lacked sufficient preparation and support mechanisms for employees
and leaders to transition effectively into the TQM framework.
v. Cultural Resistance:
 The company culture may not have been conducive to TQM principles, such as
cross-departmental collaboration and open problem-solving.

2
Q2: Suggestions for Successful TQM Implementation in a Similar Company

To successfully implement a TQM program in a similar company, the following strategies

should be employed:

i. Leadership Development:
 Train team leaders and supervisors in problem-solving techniques,
communication, and leadership. They should be equipped to handle group
dynamics, foster collaboration, and address resistance.
ii. Early Employee Involvement:
 Involve employees in the design and planning stages of TQM to ensure their
concerns are addressed. Highlight how TQM can benefit them, such as improved
work processes and recognition.
iii. Union Engagement:
 Work closely with unions to align TQM goals with employee interests. Negotiate
incentives or rewards tied to the success of the program to foster union and
worker support.
iv. Gradual Rollout:
 Begin with pilot programs in select departments. Use these to demonstrate the
benefits of TQM, refine the process, and build momentum for a broader rollout.
v. Robust Training Programs:
 Offer extensive training on TQM principles, problem-solving, and team
collaboration. Ensure every employee understands their role in achieving quality
management objectives.
vi. Recognition and Incentives:
 Recognize and reward employees for participation and contributions to TQM
initiatives. Monetary bonuses, promotions, or public recognition can motivate
workers to embrace the program.
vii. Feedback and Continuous Improvement:

3
 Implement a feedback loop to gather employee opinions and track progress. Use
this data to refine the program and address challenges proactively.

4
5
Case Study 3:

Selecting Manufacturing Employees

Q1: Discuss the advantages and disadvantages associated with Toyota’s “Day of Work”
approach.

Advantages:

i. Realistic Job Preview:

 The “Day of Work” simulates actual working conditions, allowing both Toyota
and the applicants to assess their suitability for the job.
 Candidates get firsthand experience of what the job entails, leading to more
informed decisions about joining.
ii. Skill Assessment:
 Practical exercises, such as assembly line simulations and defect inspections,
provide direct evidence of candidates' technical skills and attention to detail.
iii. Evaluation of Soft Skills:
 Group problem-solving sessions allow Toyota to evaluate candidates’ teamwork,
communication, and problem-solving abilities, ensuring they fit well into team-
based roles.
iv. Quality Workforce:
 The rigorous selection process ensures that only the most capable and motivated
candidates are hired, resulting in a highly competent workforce.

6
Disadvantages:

i. Time-Intensive:
 The lengthy process, starting as early as 6:30 a.m. and involving multiple
assessments, can deter qualified candidates who may find it too demanding.
ii. Stress-Inducing for Candidates:
 The intensity of the simulation might disadvantage individuals who do not
perform well under pressure but could excel in real-world conditions.
iii. Resource-Intensive:
 Simulating assembly lines and conducting extensive evaluations require
significant investment in terms of space, equipment, and personnel.
iv. Potential Bias:
 External factors, such as fatigue, unfamiliarity with simulated tasks, or subjective
judgments by evaluators, could unfairly impact candidate performance.

Q2: When using teams to interview applicants, as Carrier Corporation does, what potential
problems might exist with the use of invalid predictors and interrater reliability?

Problems with Invalid Predictors:

i. Focus on Irrelevant Criteria:

 Team members may evaluate candidates on traits unrelated to job performance,
such as personality, charisma, or perceived likability, instead of actual job-related
skills.
ii. Subjective Judgments:
 Personal biases and preferences of team members could lead to unfair
assessments, particularly if clear evaluation criteria are not established.

7
Issues with Interrater Reliability:

i. Inconsistent Standards:
 Without proper training, different team members may interpret evaluation criteria
differently, leading to inconsistent and unreliable assessments.
ii. Dominance in Decision-Making:
 Stronger personalities within the interview panel might overshadow others,
reducing the diversity of perspectives and leading to groupthink.
iii. Lack of Training:
 If panel members are not trained in evaluation techniques, their assessments may
lack validity, and their ratings may vary widely.

Recommendations to Improve Selection Processes

i. Structured Assessments:
 Use standardized interview questions and evaluation forms tied to job-related
competencies to minimize subjectivity and ensure consistency.
ii. Panel Diversity:
 Include a mix of individuals from different roles and backgrounds to provide a
balanced perspective and reduce bias.
iii. Training for Interviewers:
 Train all panel members on evaluation techniques, ensuring they understand the
importance of objective assessment and interrater reliability.
iv. Combination of Methods:
 Complement team interviews with objective tests, such as skills assessments or
practical simulations, to provide a more holistic evaluation.
v. Regular Calibration:
 Periodically review and align team members on evaluation standards and
expectations to ensure consistent application of criteria.