This paper examines three organizational case studies to explore key workplace management practices. The first analyzes UPS's Compassionate Injury Prevention program, questioning whether compassion can be taught and exploring potential pitfalls of inconsistent policy application. The second evaluates FirstMerit's shift from flat-rate hourly pay to performance-based compensation in check processing, demonstrating the effectiveness of keystroke-based metrics over piecework models. The third assesses Tesco's recruitment and selection processes, highlighting the value of clear job descriptions, internal promotion pathways, and combined interview and assessment center approaches. Across all three cases, the paper argues that effective management requires balancing organizational objectives with employee welfare while maintaining consistency and equity.
This report addresses several questions relating to compassion and proper management skills in the workplace, using UPS and their Compassionate Injury Prevention (CIP) program as the lens through which to examine the topic. Four primary questions are addressed: whether compassion can be taught in a training program, whether the CIP program can help manage work/life conflicts, what negative outcomes might result from CIP training, and why only 50 of 2,400 managers at UPS are included in the training. While compassion in the workplace may seem beneficial, it can create additional and more serious problems if not wielded and applied properly.
The idea that an associate can "learn" compassion in a training seminar is questionable. Either someone possesses compassion as part of their fundamental nature or they do not. There are several reasons why compassion may not be the best approach to use in the workplace. First, rules exist for good reason, and allowing an associate to diverge from them sets a precedent that others will inevitably want to see applied to their own situations. While a sick family member may seem like a legitimate reason to make an exception, other reasons for absences are less clear—such as the birth of or bonding with a child, a vacation, or personal matters. The employee's tenure with the company and their attendance and performance history are also relevant factors.
A second concern is that some workers will abuse flexible policies or become resentful when they do not receive their own special exceptions. In a perfect world, employees would not respond reflexively to policy inequities, but in reality, such situations do warrant careful consideration. This leads to a third concern: defining what "compassion" actually means and ensuring the policy remains equitable and consistent. This question is important because UPS must prioritize profitability and operational continuity—not because compassion is unimportant, but because the business cannot persist if this dimension is ignored. That said, the CIP program can make clear that while rules should normally be the standard, exceptions should be allowed when truly warranted. For example, if an employee becomes stranded at an airport during an approved vacation and cannot make their scheduled shift through no fault of their own, they should not be punished. Conversely, an employee who repeatedly fabricates reasons to take unentitled days off should receive closer scrutiny. To be effective, the CIP must define clearly what is acceptable and what is not, and these standards must be followed consistently by everyone.
Negative outcomes of an inconsistently applied compassion policy could include lower retention rates, lawsuits stemming from claims of disparate treatment, and general discord among employees. Furthermore, the fact that only 50 of 2,400 managers—barely 2 percent—receive this training is concerning. For consistency, either all managers should participate in the program or none should.
The second case study examines FirstMerit and the plan they implemented to increase accuracy while simultaneously improving employee retention and pay structures. Previously, all employees earned $9 per hour, and turnover was so severe that 100 percent (or more) of the workforce turned over every two years. This turnover resulted in unacceptable error rates and performance levels. The analysis addresses three questions: the type of compensation plan FirstMerit used, the intrinsic rewards that might improve performance in the check processing department, and whether a lower base salary paired with a piecework plan could achieve similar results. While a base/piecework hybrid might have shown some success, a dual focus on quality and quantity is necessary—a piecework-only plan would sacrifice quality in favor of pure quantity.
FirstMerit implemented a pay-for-performance plan that valued both accuracy and quantity. The key to their approach was measuring performance using keystrokes per hour rather than the number of checks processed or other metrics. Keystrokes are a more accurate measure of actual work completed. Under this new system, employees are no longer paid uniformly by the hour. Instead, compensation is tied directly to keystroke volume and quality of output. This model exemplifies an intrinsic reward system: employees perform at higher levels, receive compensation commensurate with their performance, and are treated differently based on their actual contribution.
A salary-based plan with piecework elements might have produced acceptable results, but it would not have performed as well as the pay-for-performance framework because keystrokes and individual pieces are not in a direct 1:1 ratio. Actual time spent working correlates more closely to keystroke metrics than to items processed, so compensation should be based on the former. FirstMerit's pay-for-performance model is therefore more effective and makes clear practical sense. Employees can essentially determine their own earnings based on the quality of their work and the effort they invest, making the system far more equitable and removing roadblocks that previously caused burnout, frustration, and turnover.
The final case study addresses Tesco's recruitment and selection process for new hires. The analysis answers questions about the definitions of recruitment and selection, how these processes help Tesco find the right person for the right job, the role of job descriptions and personal specifications, Tesco's effectiveness in attracting candidates, and the benefits of using both interviews and assessment centers. While recruitment and selection processes can be inefficient or flawed, Tesco has implemented numerous best practices and should continue their current approach.
Recruitment is the general practice of finding and attracting people to apply for work at a firm, while selection involves choosing individual applicants for further review or hire from the candidate pool. The processes used for both can vary widely, and some methods are more effective than others. When properly executed, Tesco's approach enables them to attract a good pool of moderate to strong candidates and then select the best people based on prior work experience, educational background, and other factors.
Job descriptions and personal specifications are crucial for attracting the right applicants and defining who in the candidate pool is best suited for the role. Beyond recruitment, job descriptions serve an important function post-hire by clearly defining who is responsible for what and why, allowing for corrective action if responsibilities drift over time. If a job description specifies that Person A should perform a task and Person B is doing it without clear justification, that should be corrected—although the description can be adjusted if cross-training or business needs warrant it.
Tesco's use of the intranet to post jobs internally and promote from within is exceptionally wise. While external candidates can bring fresh perspectives, internal promotion is usually the better choice because it requires less training, a shorter acclimation period to company culture, and lower overall costs. Internal movements allow employees to settle into new roles more quickly than bringing in entirely new staff. Associate referrals are also valuable, but internal movements remain superior in most cases. Additionally, Tesco's dual approach of using both interviews and assessment centers is effective because it provides a complete picture of what a candidate offers. Interviews and assessments each have merit individually, but using them in concert yields the most comprehensive evaluation. However, the right assessments and interview structures must be selected and refined for either tool to be truly effective.
In the end, UPS has their heart in the right place as they surely want to make clear that while business objectives and performance matter, people still have personal and family lives that matter as well. However, the modern workplace landscape has become so litigious and contentious that such policies and changes might create more trouble than benefit in the long run, even when UPS is trying to do right by their employees. It is as if UPS is damned if they do and damned if they do not—an unfortunate position. FirstMerit's pivot was absolutely correct: compensating employees based on actual performance and effort removes roadblocks and improves equity far better than paying everyone uniformly. Tesco has established a full and complete system that is serving them well. By keeping their interview process and assessments refined and optimized, they should continue to enjoy high-performing hires and long-term organizational success.
You’re 97% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.