Question

Anita Douglass was the regional sales manager for a national chain of fitness centers. Her job was to direct a sales force that sold fitness center franchises to operators. The salesperson’s job was to recruit responsible, ambitious people who would invest their own time and money in operating a center. Each operator would pay a franchise fee to the company. The company, in turn, would lease the building, supply all the equipment, and help with the financing, if needed. Sales throughout the nation were very strong, as there was a heavy demand for fitness training. Douglass’s sales territory was second best in the nation. All her salespeople were doing very well, except two. Marty Crane and Julie Forester consistently failed to meet their sales goals. Both were running out of excuses and Douglass was running out of patience. Douglass was angry and embarrassed about their poor performance. She figured the only reason her boss hadn’t inquired about Crane and Forester was because she could “bury” their performance in the overall performance of her sales territory. If these two salespeople had been at the top of the pile instead of the bottom, her sales territory would be number one in the nation. Despite their common substandard performance, Douglass viewed the two salespeople somewhat differently. After Crane’s first bad performance evaluation, she undertook additional training. Even though the extra training didn’t seem to help, at least she tried. Crane seemed to be working hard but getting nowhere—described in her last performance review as “an ineffectual diffusion of energy,” otherwise known as “spinning your wheels.” Crane had a pleasing demeanor, which may have been part of her problem. Douglass thought that perhaps Crane was more concerned with having people approve of her than making a sale. Maybe Crane would perform better for the company in a job outside of sales, she thought. Forester, on the other hand, seemed indifferent about failing to meet her sales goals and attributed her poor performance to everyone other than herself. If Forester ever worked up a sweat, it went unnoticed by Douglass. Forester conveyed the impression that the company was lucky to have her, although the reasons for this privilege were indiscernible. None of the other salespeople wanted to have anything to do with Forester. They wouldn’t trade sales territories with her, and they didn’t want Forester covering for them when they went on vacation. Douglass thumbed through the personnel files of Crane and Forester. It was becoming increasingly difficult to justify not firing them. If only one of them got the axe, Douglass decided it would be Forester. Then Douglass caught herself in midthought. The performance of both these salespeople was equally bad. How could she justify keeping one and firing the other? Douglass surmised that the only difference between Crane and Forester was that she liked one more than the other. Douglass had the reputation of being tough but fair. She couldn’t understand why this was becoming a difficult decision for her, and why she was considering being more charitable to Crane than to Forester.

Questions:

1. What is it about Crane that makes Douglass view her differently from Forester?

2. Are these issues relevant in judging job performance? Should they matter?

3. If you were Douglass, what would you do with Crane and Forester?

4. Do you think Douglass’s boss would be critical of Douglass for tolerating poor performance, or admire her for being patient with members of her staff?

5. What other information would you like to have before deciding whether Crane and Forester should be retained or fired?

Answer 1

Answer:

Q1. Crane was very hardworking, though her sale was not good, she was trying to improve her performance. She took additional training after first quality review, that shows her committement and zeal to perform better and acceptance of her mistake on the her part. She was a pleasant woman, her relationship with others was also good. Overall, she had the potential to perform better, perhaps in department other than sales.

On the other hand, Forester was not committed at all.She never accepted her shortcomings;thus never tried to improve, and her interpresonal skills were also bad,resulting to administrative hassles for the company.

Thses are the reason Douglass views Crane differently from Forester.

Q2. Committement for the job, ability to identify own shortcomings and take measures to rectify it, hard working nature, attitute towards co-workers etc, are relevant qualities to judge job performance. These issues matter but only when translated to add some value to the organisation.

Q3. I would have transfer Crane to the administrative department to assess her performance for a month. She could be a good resource there. I would have given Forester one month to improve her performance. After the end of the period, I would have taken the decision.

Q4. Yes, I think Douglass's boss would be critical of her for tolerating poor performance. The company was investing its resources upon then and getting no return for that investement. Futhermore, it would have been demoralising for other hard working employers who were performing better. Douglass indecision could cost company some fortune and her boss wouldn't have wanted that.

Q5. Crane performance in other department under pressure and Forester performance under pressure are the only additional information I would like have before deciding future course of action.