1) If i was in charge of making reasonable assumptions to develop criteria for the the layoffs for the sales department, I would want to see more information in my opinion. Although they gave the performance evaluation as well as the years, I would still want to have more information provided so I could make a more accurate layoff. If i had to just go off of the charts provided, I personally would say first to talk to the individuals Deb as well as Kelly about how their progress is. My criteria would have to be first to talk to each individual on how they rate their performance, talk about what the positive and negatives are as well as keep a close eye on the progress for the next 2 weeks to month.

2. Layoffs within the individual would honestly not be communicated at first, not to scare the individual, but I personally believe that everyone has a right to know about layoffs. With the individual being laid off, I would let them know it has absolutely nothing with them, if there was no reason besides the stats provided. I would also tell them it is was a hard decision to make. Personally, i would be thinking about laying off potentially Deb and kelly, more on the side of Kelly since her goals and ratings are not meeting the sales as well as the company goals.

3. Some strategies that I would tell the employees that who stay in the organization is that meeting our quotas every year is very important and has a good factor on how you stay in the organization. Some strategies that I would tell them is that if you know you are struggling, please tell someone and get help, communicate with all the associates and managers as well and also, to motivate them to make goals, maybe bring in rewards. For example, every week at my job, if we meet our company goals, we get rewarded points to get particular clothing items for free, as well as the other managers will bring in snacks and buy you Starbucks for an incentive.

2)Deciding who stays and who leaves in a company is generally a tough task. Some employees separate on their own due to a variety of reasons such as child care, difficulty, commute time, not satisfied with work type, and other reasons. However, other times, the company cannot afford to keep everyone on board and tough personnel decisions have to be met. During these instances, it’s important to develop criteria to decide who will remain. 

In this scenario, goals are met for a reason. I would get rid of the three employees who haven’t met last year’s goal.  This number is exactly the number that I need to decrease my employee list by.  However, I would consider other factors before making my final decision. Has one of the employees who met the goal missed it the prior 2-3 years? Has one of the employees who missed their goal had their sales goal increased mid-year? Is one of the employees who met their sales goal constantly tardy or calling out of work creating additional work and/or stress for their other co-workers? These are some of the factors that could alter or at least influence my final decision on personnel matters. It’s important for me to be fair, human, and more importantly, legal, in my termination choice.

Additionally, as long as the employee has been a decent worker it would be my plan for the separation to be temporary. Once, the company can afford to bring them back, I would like to. This would be beneficial to them and their family. Also, the company would benefit from having a tenured employee back on board and not have to spend additional funds on training costs at a later date.

I would discuss with the employees the need to meet or exceed their goals. I would give lower performers 6 months to increase their numbers instead of making sudden cuts to the bottom three. This would cause healthy competition within the company. Longevity bonuses would be provided annual to the employees who make their goals since they obviously are performing well and helping the company stay. If there’s a negative consequence for not meeting the goals, I would like to have a positive consequence/reward for meeting or exceeding it.

3)Before Billy Beane joined Oakland Athletics the employee assessment and talent management practices were based off external factors. Many of the discussions they had regarding potential players had nothing to do with performance but more about image. One thing I found a little disturbing was considering the appearance of a player’s girlfriend as a valid reason not to hire that player. They even went further to say the player wouldn’t have confidence because he was with his girlfriend who they didn’t find attractive. Even when discussing potential players it seemed like they focused on the wrong things as someone who was good looking was a star in their eyes, while someone that had talent but was rough around the edges was worthless. 

On the other hand Jonah Hill’s character recommends a totally different approach. He said buying players shouldn’t be the only goal, for their team they need to focus on buying wins which means you need to buy for runs. Jonah Hill’s character focuses on maximizing the talent on the team by scouting players who can come together and give them wins. This idea was perfect for them because they were able to find talented players who are overlooked and undervalued for a number of bias reasons. They used an equation to look among 20,000 players to find the most valuable players that no one could see. Unlike Oakland Athletics, Beane and Peter focused on runs, wins, and steals, rather than age, physique, and appearance. In the movie they even brought up the player Chad Bradford who they saw as a star for their team because he had one of the highest numbers of strikes. But no one even knew this because he was overlooked by the industry just because he “threw weird.”

4)Prior to Billy Beane’s arrival, the talent management practices to player assessment were biased and focused solely on the looks of their future team. The talent management practices were focused on who looks the best, who is the most confident, and how the crowd will react to the players. Brad Pitt’s character is focused on the talent of the players he can pick from and how he can pick from players who will work for cheaper due to their underrated skills. When Jonah Hill’s character is introduced, he describes the same concerns to the team that Brad Pitt’s character does. The difference between these two characters is that Jonah Hills character knows exactly how tot calculate runs, hits, and all skills per player that would bring in higher ratings and income. Jonah’s character recommends choosing players who are overlooked due to the fact that they look different to the part or because their play looks odd to the rest of the league. Jonah Hill’s character is going to lead this team to success. Using the formula’s, he has; he is very experienced in creating and understanding the analysis of any player in the league. He can see what team is paying way too much for a player and which player is underrated. Jonah’s character gives this team quite the advantage. He actually makes it possible for this team to pay the least amount of money to get a team that may become one of the highest ranking teams if this analysis pays off throughout the season. Jonah’s character gives the team insight to managing a team that will take them from the bottom of the barrel to the top.  He takes the focus of looking for players who look good and can be the face of a magazine. Instead looks for people who can play the game they set out to win.

Please answer each 200 words minimum.