Case Study

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Case Study: ABC Care Homes

ABC Care Homes is a charity that manages 10 care homes for the elderly spread over the North of England.  This comprises 7 ex-local authority care homes, and 3 new, purpose built special needs housing developments, mostly sheltered housing. 

Over the last 8 years, the charity has grown from a small voluntary group running two care homes for the elderly to a charity employing around 100 people.  It is led by a dynamic and inspirational manager whose previous experience in the private sector has ensured efficient administration and a solid fundraising base.  The chair and other leading voluntary members of the charity have given many unpaid hours to help in ABC’s development.  Public service, unpaid service, trust and openness have ensured that there is a strong philanthropic element to the organisation. No redundancies have ever been made when contracts are taken over and a great deal of autonomy is given to managers. 

As a result of this rapid growth, terms and conditions are inconsistent. Some staff have individual pay rates with a cost of living increase every April.  Some employees have been inherited from local authority care homes so there is variation in levels of pay, hours of work, shift payments and holidays.  Head office staff work a 37 hour week. Working hours in the units vary from 37 to 42.  Holiday entitlements range from 20 – 27 days, some relating to long service. Shift payments vary across units.

The small number of employees who have worked for the Charity since the early days are generally well-motivated and they like and respect the management style, but staff who were inherited from ex-local authority care homes are complacent, de-motivated and disengaged.

The CEO attended a recent conference looking at the findings of the 2009 McLeod Review on Employee Engagement, and is concerned that without financial incentives employee engagement will decline in long-serving staff and remain low in newer staff members, which will ultimately impact performance.  His hands are tied, however, as he cannot afford to offer financial incentives being a charitable organisation and needs to find other ways of engaging staff. He believes that the organisation needs to broaden and improve its approach to people management, and is looking for cost-effective initiatives that will enable the organisation to engage its high performing staff to ensure their long-term organisational commitment.

Assessment 2: INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDY- ABC Care Homes

Aim	This assignment aims to encourage you to demonstrate the importance of employee engagement as a concept and as a means of practical application to improve performance in the case organisation. It will encourage you to read around the subject in order to critically analyse relevant theories of engagement and to understand the different approaches to engaging employees.
Learning Outcomes	1. Draw up a HR strategy, and to put together an overall organizational engagement plan. 2.  Reflect and advise on the role of employee voice mechanism; advise on the adoption of appropriate consultative and involvement forms, and plan and implement them.
Tasks	As HR manager, you have been asked by the CEO to produce a three-part report of 2,000 words (+ or – 10%) which: 1. Draws on relevant academic and practitioner literature to clarify the concept of engagement and discuss how it can be measured and improved, (approximately 40% of the report) 2.  Outlines the HR strategy and related practices to improve the engagement and utilization of employees at ABC Care Homes, with explanations and justifications, (approximately 40% of the report) 3.   Addresses implementation issues arising from your report, including financial and HR resource issues and arguments to persuade managers and employees to agree to the proposals. (Approximately 20% of the report).
Word limit:	2,000 words (excluding executive summary, contents, references and appendices)
Assessment Criteria:	In order to achieve a pass in this assignment you need to do all of the following: -  Usa wide range of appropriate academic and practitioner sources in Part One, -     Identify and discuss key concerns raised in the case study, -    Put forward considered and appropriate proposals for change, with thought given to justification, resources and implementation, -      Use Harvard referencing correctly.

Rubric for assessment

Criteria	70% +)	60-69%)	50-59%	40-49%	35-39%	<35%
	EXCELLENT	COMMENDABLE	GOOD	SATISFACTORY	MARGINAL FAIL	FAIL
Knowledge and Understanding	Comprehensive knowledge of engagement demonstrated. Emergent hot topics also considered where appropriate. Comprehensive discussion of a range of engagement concepts and definitions. Evidence based argument demonstrating an excellent understanding of theory and practice. Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief supported by citations from an extensive range of up to date academic and practitioner sources.	Good knowledge of engagement demonstrated. Good discussion of engagement concepts and definitions. Appropriate evidence based argument demonstrating good understanding of theory and practice. Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief reinforced by citations from an appropriate range of academic and practitioner sources.	Satisfactory knowledge of engagement demonstrated. Satisfactory discussion of some engagement concepts and definitions. Some evidence based argument demonstrated which draws on theory and practice. Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief reinforced by citations from an appropriate, but limited, range of academic and practitioner sources.	Some but rather superficial understanding of engagement. Limited discussion. Lacks enough evidence based argument. Limited reference to theory or practice. Uses inappropriate statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief which are insufficiently reinforced by citations from academic and practitioner sources.	Poor knowledge of engagement demonstrated. Inadequate or no discussion. Lacks evidence based argument. Insufficient reference to theory or practice. Uses statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief that are not reinforced by citations from any appropriate third-party sources.	No knowledge or misunderstood knowledge of engagement demonstrated. No discussion. Theory or practice not referred to at all or used inappropriately. Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief made randomly and not reinforced by any citations from any appropriate third-party sources.
Business awareness	Strategic perspective critically explored. Comprehensive awareness of contextual issues.	Strategic perspective clearly explained. Good understanding of contextual issues	Strategic perspective described rather than explained Satisfactory understanding of contextual issues.	Limited understanding of contextual issues.	Poor understanding of contextual issues.	No understanding of contextual issues.
Analysis and evaluation	Intuitive and creative thinking applied in order to generate innovative proposals. Fully justified. All implementation issues are addressed. Persuasive proposals demonstrating feasibility, implementation, prioritisation and consideration of resources costs where appropriate.	All key issues addressed. Presents convincing, business-focused proposals. Clear and well-justified solutions flow logically from analysis. Prioritisation, implementation and consideration of resources and costs where appropriate.	Most of the key issues addressed. Presents convincing, business focused proposals. Some prioritisation, implementation and some consideration of resources and costs.	Key issues not identified or addressed fully enough. Proposals are unconvincing, brief and /or inappropriate Limited reference to implementation and/or priorities where appropriate. Resource and/or cost implications not fully addressed.	Key issues not identified or addressed. Few or no solutions are proposed. Inadequate or no reference to resource and cost implications.	Key issues not identified or addressed. No proposed solutions. No reference to implementation. No reference to resource or cost implications.
Presentation and Persuasion	Presentation and structure meets the assessment brief to an excellent standard. Concepts expressed with exceptional clarity in a convincing and cogent manner. Extensive and appropriate referencing.	Presentation and structure of assessment evidence meets the assessment brief to a good standard. Concepts clearly and concisely expressed in a confident and persuasive manner. Good range of relevant referencing.	Presentation and structure of assessment evidence is appropriate to the assessment brief. Concepts expressed in a clear and systematic manner. Acceptable referencing.	Presentation and structure of assessment evidence meets the assessment brief to a less than satisfactory standard. Limited expression of concepts. Inadequate referencing.	Presentation and structure of assessment evidence is poor and falls significantly short of the required standard. Fails to express concepts clearly, systematically and/or confidently. Poor referencing. References not supplied, used inaccurately, or not attributed.	Presentation and structure of assessment evidence is extremely weak and fails to meet the required standard. No concepts identified. No referencing / extremely poor referencing evidenced.

To get solution visit our website www.arabessay.com