The case of Mary | Tài liệu môn Marketing | Trường Cao đẳng thực hành FPT
Tài liệu môn Marketing "The case of Mary" của Trường Cao đẳng thực hành FPT được biên soạn dưới dạng PDF gồm những kiến thức và thông tin cần thiết cho môn marketing giúp sinh viên có định hướng ôn tập, nắm vững kiến thức môn học từ đó làm tốt trong các bài kiểm tra, bài tiểu luận, bài tập kết thúc học phần. Mời bạn đọc đón xem!Trường Cao đẳng thực hành FPT
Môn: Marketing (MAR2023)
Trường: Trường Cao đẳng Thực hành FPT
Thông tin:
Tác giả:
Preview text:
The case of Mary Martin
Mary Martin, 30, received her bachelor degree in computer science from a reputable state university in
Midwest. She also graduated with above-average grades. Mary is currently working in the computer support
department as a programmer for a nationally based firm. During the past year, Mary has missed 10 days
of work. She seems unmotivated and rarely has her assignments completed on time. Mary is usually given
the harder programs to work on.
Past records indicate Mary, on the average, completes programs classified as “routine” in about 45 hours.
Her co-workers, on the other hand, complete “routine” programs in an average time of 32 hours. Further,
Mary finishes programs considered “major problems”, on the average, in about 115 hours. Her co-workers,
however, finish the same “major problem” assignments, on the average, in about 100 hours. When Mary
has worked in programming teams, her peer performance reviews are generally average to negative. Her
male peers have noted she is not creative in attacking problems and she is difficult to work with.
The computer department recently sent a questionnaire to all users of its services to evaluate the
usefulness and accuracy of data received. The results indicate many departments are not using computer
output because they cannot understand the reports. It was also determined that the users of output
generated from Mary’s programs found the output chaotic and not useful for managerial decision making Questions Causes of performance
To what extent was each of the following a cause of Mary’s performance? Use the following scale (1: Very little, 5: Very much) 1 2 3 4 5 High ability 1 2 3 4 5 Low ability 1 2 3 4 5 Low effort 1 2 3 4 5 Difficult job 1 2 3 4 5 Unproductive co-worker 1 2 3 4 5 Bad luck 1 2 3 4 5
Appropriateness of corrective action
(1: very inappropriate, 5: Very appropriate) Coercive actions
a. Reprimand Mary for her performance 1 2 3 4 5
b. Threaten to fire Mary if her performance does not 1 2 3 4 5 improve Change job
c. Transfer Mary to another job 1 2 3 4 5
d. Demote Mary to less demanding job 1 2 3 4 5 Nonpunitive Actions
e. Work with Mary to help her do the job better 1 2 3 4 5 f.
Offer Mary encouragement to help her improve 1 2 3 4 5 No Immediate Actions g. Do nothing 1 2 3 4 5
h. Promise Mary a pay raise if she improves 1 2 3 4 5 Discussion questions
1. How would you evaluate Mary’s performance in terms of consensus, distinctiveness and consistency?
2. Is Mary’s performance due to internal or external causes?
3. What did you identify as the top two causes of Mary’s performance?
4. Which of the four types of corrective action do you think most appropriate? Explain. Can you identify
any negative consequences of this choice?