Lesson 7 Case Study: Mommy-Track Backlash
Lesson 7 Case Study: Mommy-Track Backlash
Due date: Wednesday, October 12.
Words limit: 2000
“Please don’t tell me that I need to have a baby to have this time off.” Those words were still ringing in the ears of Jessica Gonon an hour after a tense meeting with Jana Rowe, one of her key account managers. Jessica, the vice president of sales and customer support at ClarityBase, considered Jana’s request for a four-day workweek, for which she was willing to take a corresponding 20% cut in pay. Although the facts seemed simple, the situation was anything but. Just last week, Davis Bennett, another account manager, had made a similar request. Both Jana and Davis were well aware that Megan Flood, another account manager, had been working a reduced schedule for nearly two years in order to spend more time with her children. The eight account managers were in charge of helping the company’s largest clients install and maintain database applications, which often required hand-holding and coddling. Because Megan had an abbreviated schedule, the other account managers were assigned more difficult clients.
· But if Jessica agreed to a shorter workweek for Jana and Davis, who would take on the toughest customers?
· And what would happen if the other account managers started asking for similar deals?
· How can Jessica maintain the productivity of her department and meet her staff’s needs for flexible work schedules while striking an equitable solution for both parents and nonparents?
Using the readings in support, provide a 2000 word maximum essay summarizing the case, identifying the issues (supported with citations), and provide your recommendations (supported by citations). You should also evaluate your recommendations (strengths and weaknesses) to address the issues.
Format
DO NOT include outside readings in your analysis, but citations are required. Remember, the word limit is 2000 words and penalties are incurred for going over the limit (does not include title page and bibliography) and late submissions.
Basic Structure of a Policy Paper
1. Introduction (and Summary). These are sometimes broken out as separate sections, with the introduction dedicated to the paper’s broad goals and underlying motivations and the background allowing a fuller development of the historical rationale and context for the issue. Sometimes they are joined to describe the context for the ultimate goal, the decision to move forward with research on the topic, or the big picture for your research. This is also where you summarize the case and a BRIEF introduction of the issues. Remember, this is a professional assignment, not a class assignment, so assume the reader has only a cursory understanding of the case. Also, be mindful that the majority of your grade comes from other sections of the paper.
2. Issue Identification and Policy Options. This is where you would identify the COURSE issues involved in the case study (2-3) and possible policy options (2 per issue) to overcome/solve the issues. You are free to use any issue you find in the COURSE, but I recommend using the ones most easily distinguished in the case and can be best defined and supported by the course materials. Policy options also come from the COURSE. You may want to explore the pros and cons of possible policy options.
3. Recommendations. This can be a single section covering the reasons you select each recommendation. Included in your discussion may be the reasons for your recommendations, implementation difficulties, and potential outcomes. 4. Conclusion. Here, you might return to the big picture or the motive of your analysis: What is the goal of the analysis or of your policy recommendation/s? What will happen if the decisionmaker does not act on your research or move forward with the recommendation? What will happen if she does? While you do not want to succumb to rhetoric, this is your opportunity to remind your reader of the importance of your analysis. A short conclusion is always helpful.
5. Bibliography. While professional white papers may not reference their sources, any academic papers must provide a full bibliography (APA citations required).
References:
Hayashi, Alden M. & Ojha A. (2001). Mommy-Track Backlash. Harvard Business Review
Rubric
Individual Case Analysis Rubric
Individual Case Analysis Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis of Issues Problem
3 pts
Exceptional (94- 100%)
• Presents an insightful and thorough analysis of all identified issues/problems • Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s) • Makes appropriate and powerful connections between the issues identified and the course lessons and topics studied in the reading • Demonstrates complete command of the course concepts and analytical tools studied
2.7 pts
Developed (90-94%)
• Presents a thorough analysis of most of the issues identified • Demonstrates an accomplished understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s) • Makes appropriate connections between the issues identified and the course lessons and topics studied in the reading • Demonstrates good command of the course concepts and analytical tools studied
2.4 pts
Developing (80-90%)
• Presents a thorough/good analysis of most/some of the issues identified • Demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the topic(s) an issue(s) • Makes appropriate but sometimes vague connections between the issues identified and the course lessons and topics studied in the reading • Demonstrates limited command of the course concepts and analytical tools studied
0 pts
Undeveloped (0-80%)
• Presents a superficial or incomplete analysis of some of the identified issues • Demonstrates an inadequate understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s) • Makes few or no connections between the issues identified and the course lessons and topics studied in the reading
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis/Evaluation of Options and Recommendations
3 pts
Exceptional (94- 100%)
• Supports diagnosis and analysis of issues with strong arguments and evidence; presents a balanced and critical view; interpretation is both reasonable and objective • Presents detailed, realistic, and appropriate recommendations clearly well-supported by the information presented and concepts from the readings • Presents interesting and thoughtful options to address the identifies issues
2.7 pts
Developed (90-94%)
• Supports diagnosis and analysis of issues with good arguments and evidence; presents a fairly balanced and critical view; interpretation is both reasonable and objective • Presents specific, realistic, and appropriate recommendations clearly supported by the information presented and concepts from the readings • Presents thoughtful options to address the identifies issues
2.4 pts
Developing (80-90%)
• Supports diagnosis and analysis of issues with limited arguments and evidence; presents a somewhat one-sided view • Presents a realistic and appropriate recommendations somewhat weakly supported by the information presented and concepts from the readings • Presents limited options to address the identifies issues
0 pts
Undeveloped (0-80%)
• Supports diagnosis and analysis of issues with few arguments and evidence; argument is one-sided and not objective • Presents recommendations with little support from the information presented and concepts from the readings
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Mechanics
3 pts
Exceptional (94- 100%)
Writing demonstrates a sophisticated clarity, conciseness, and correctness; includes thorough details and relevant data and information; extremely well organized
2.7 pts
Developed (90-94%)
Writing is accomplished in terms of clarity and conciseness and contains only a few errors; includes sufficient details and relevant data and information; well-organized
2.4 pts
Developing (80-90%)
Writing lacks clarity or conciseness and contains numerous errors; gives insufficient detail and relevant data and information; lacks organization
0 pts
Undeveloped (0-80%)
Writing is unfocused, rambling, or contains serious errors; lacks detail and relevant data and information; poorly organized
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Guidelines
1 pts
Exceptional (94- 100%)
Uses APA guidelines accurately and consistently to cite sources
0.9 pts
Developed (90-94%)
Uses APA guidelines with minor violations to cite sources
0.8 pts
Developing (80-90%)
Reflects incomplete knowledge of APA guidelines
0 pts
Undeveloped (0-80%)
Does not use APA guidelines
1 pts
Total Points: 10
Please complete all readings (chapter 8 in the textbook, readings 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the case study. Then read the instructions carefully and write up following the instructions.
The number of words it’s not strict at 2000 words, it can be less like 1500 or 1700 or 1800, excluding cover page and the references list.
Read Textbook chapter 8
