Drawing on economics and organizational behavior concepts, the authors develop a model of employee “voice” (defined in terms of the frequency of grievance filing) and employee intent to exit the firm. They test the model using data on a sample of nonmanagement employees of a large multinational telecommunications firm in 1991. Employees' loyalty to the firm and their perception of the grievance procedure's effectiveness are the main independent variables. In tests that focus exclusively on employees who reported having been treated unfairly by the employer at some time, loyalty is found to have had a consistently strong negative association with both the exercise of voice and intent to exit the firm. One implication of these findings is that loyal employees who experienced unfair workplace treatment primarily responded by suffering in silence.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..

Synopsis Captain Joseph Brunetti was given the assignment to provide his superior officer an analysis of what to expect when the US Army implemented its new process to evaluate the performance of noncommissioned officers (NCOs), called sergeants. Brunetti had about 104 sergeants in his unit. The US Army created a new process in 2015 to evaluate sergeants to overcome the deficiencies in the Army’s old process, now 28 years old. Under the old process, almost every sergeant was rated at the highest levels, making it nearly impossible for the US Army to know whom to promote to higher ranks. Under the old process, very little counseling took place, so NCOs were not given guidance on how to develop themselves. Raters and senior raters (SRs) were not held accountable for their work in performance management, either. Under the new process, which included a forced distribution form of ranking, SRs had to offer counselings as well as options for future assignments. Brunetti, who had only limited experience in rating sergeants anyway, had to prepare for his boss what was called an “operations report” outlining what the organization could expect with the changeover to the new process and what may need attention as the process would continue in subsequent years. Research methodology This case has been developed from actual experiences and the assignment given to Brunetti also happened as described in the case. Since many of the individuals in the case are still employed by the US Army, the names of the individuals and the company units in this case have been disguised. Even so, the events of the protagonist’s tours of duty prior to the assignment described in this case did occur, but some of the locations within the USA have been changed. The other persons quoted from public documents or otherwise referenced in the articles are the actual persons so identified. The old NCOERs in Exhibit 3 are as these were written but the personally identifiable data about the individuals have been blackened out. Relevant courses and levels This case is suitable for both undergraduate and graduate courses in human resource management and especially on the topical material on performance management and performance appraisal. The case can also be used in both undergraduate and graduate courses in general management, for modules on human resource management. The Relevant Theory section below is centered on human resource management. Theoretical bases This relevant theory which undergirds this case centers on the broad concept of performance management and on performance appraisal instruments. The case underscores the important concept that performance management has to be more than “completing the appraisal form.”

The authors present a case analysis of how a business school brought about curriculum innovation.The school used something borrowed, specifically experiential learning laboratories, and something new to attain measureable curriculum change, with only modest investments.The authors urge that the nimbleness of a medium-size school committed to personal touch and with a strong bias to transform concepts into practice can have a natural advantage in providing unique learning experiences, compared to a highly leveraged program encumbered by size.These learning laboratories translate to experiential learning opportunities that are more like apprenticeships and professional mentoring.Given the difficult labor market, schools that can develop demonstrable job competencies in their coursework for students will add value as these students immediately seek employment and, more broadly, develop their career paths.

No abstract