Abu Dhabi Campus
College of Business
Course Title
Course Code
Exam
Date / Time
Academic Year
Compensation & Benefits Management
0505420
Assignment 3 (CLO 2 & 5)
(Online submission)
2023-2024 / 2nd Sem
Instructor
Dr. Iffat Sabir
Student’s ID
Students Name
Question No.
1 to 10
Marks
1 Mark Each
Total Marks
10
Student Score
1
Instructor Signature
The Case for Flexibility
Group Activity: 03 students
Submission: 20th March, 2024
Read the Case provided and Answer the following Questions:
1. Why is this case important? Do you think it highlights problems organizations may face and
why?
2. Why do you believe the ED immediately rejected the program director’s idea?
3. What should the ED have done when first approached by the program director about an FWA
program?
4. Do you feel the program director was right in going to his friend on the board?
5. What could the program director have done to pursue his idea without breaking the chain of
command?
6. What could other organizations learn from understanding the issues READ, Inc. experienced?
7. Now that you have read this case, how would you approach your manager about implementing
an FWA or other work-life programs?
8. Are FWA programs a viable option for all organizations? Why or why not?
9. From your experience with this case, how do non-profit organizations differ from the forprofit organizations you have studied?
10. How can employers help their employees accept and embrace change?
2
Guidelines:
– References must be included at the end of the solutions (if any).
– Use Times New Roman Font (Calibri, Arial) with 12 size and one-line spacing.
– Use 1 inch margin for the pages with portrait orientation.
– Zero tolerance for the plagiarism. (plagiarism beyond 20% is liable to marks deduction and
beyond 30% will lead to cancellation of assignment).
– AI-generated assignments are liable to cancellation of assignment.
– Assignment will be marked using the rubric attached below.
No Proficiency
(1)
Limited
Proficiency (2)
Adequate
Proficiency (3)
Understanding and
Defining the issue
Doesn’t
understand
enough to get
started or make
progress.
There is a limited
understanding of
the issue which
makes the
discussion partly
incorrect.
Understands the
issue adequately.
More focus on all
aspects of the
issues could be
underlined.
Considers Multiple
Perspectives
Fails to formulate
and clearly
express own
perspective, (or)
fails to anticipate
objections.
Formulates a
perspective that
considers weak
but not strong
alternative
positions.
Formulates a
clear and fair
perspective that
considers
important tradeoffs between
views.
Evaluate Evidence &
Give Recommendations
Fails to identify
important
information or
give
recommendations
Successfully
identifies
information but
fails to evaluate its
credibility or give
recommendations.
Identifies and
evaluates
important
evidence offered
and gives
appropriate
recommendation.
Category
3
Excellent
proficiency (4)
Very convincing
clarification of the
issue. It
demonstrates
strong skills in
reviewing
appropriate
literature.
Very strong
understanding of
the various
aspects that
explain the issue.
High skill in
reporting
conflicting or
complementing
views.
Very high skill in
identifying the
required
information that
support
discussion and
gives useful
recommendations
The Case for Flexibility
Scenario
READ, Inc. (Reading to Enhance Adult Development) is a small (annual operating budget is approximately $800,000) nonprofit
organization whose mission is to teach adults to read and to help them manage the challenges associated with illiteracy. The
organization provides literacy education and community enhancement programs throughout the Greater Lehigh Valley, Penn.
area, a two-county, three-city region with more than 400,000 residents. READ, Inc. employs nine full-time staff and manages
more than fifty volunteer tutors and trainers. Employees create and coordinate a variety of literacy programs and services for
illiterate adults. Most of the programs are conducted by the full-time staff; volunteers serve as tutors.
READ, Inc. is governed by a volunteer board of directors, all of whom support the organization’s mission and goals. Liza Daniels,
a retired public school English teacher, is the organization’s executive director (ED). Daniels has been with READ, Inc. for fifteen
years, first as its program director for four years and its ED for the past nine years. Robbie LeBerta, a recent graduate with a
master’s degree in social work administration, has been the program director for the past eighteen months.
Daniels is responsible for the overall management of the organization and works directly with the board to ensure the mission
is advanced and the organization’s goals are achieved. While LeBerta is involved with the creation, planning, and evaluation
of programs, he is primarily responsible for daily program activities and operations. (For more background on the roles and
responsibilities of these positions, refer to the PowerPoint handout, “Background on NFP Boards: A Primer”.)
During a weekly staff meeting, LeBerta requests that READ, Inc. adopt a flexible work arrangement (FWA) program for full-time
staff. LeBerta explains that as a single parent of a daughter in elementary school, it is often difficult to ensure her transportation
from school, let alone participate in school activities (parent-teacher conferences, after-school activities). A more flexible schedule
– such as working from 7:00am to 3:30pm with a half-hour lunch – would allow him to meet his parental obligations without
neglecting his work.
Daniels expresses apprehension about implementing an FWA program because she is concerned about productivity losses. She
feels that FWAs and this type of flexibility in a small organization such as READ, Inc. will lead to poor or less service to customers
and more disruptions to operations. After all, she and her husband were able to raise their children and participate in many of
their school activities. Daniels tells LeBerta she understands his dilemma but rejects his proposal without any deliberation.
Frustrated with the ED’s lack of openness to consider the FWA proposal, LeBerta speaks with a board member who happens to
be a personal friend. LeBerta does not launch a personal attack on Daniels, with whom he has enjoyed a mostly positive working
relationship; he merely says that he thought her handling of the issue was unfair and that she was not sensitive or understanding of
his reasons for the request.
At the next board meeting, before the meeting’s agenda items can be addressed, the board member raises the issue of an FWA
program for staff. He does not mention any names but says that given the variety of family/work balance challenges everyone
experiences, he thinks it is an option READ, Inc. should seriously consider. The board chair and the ED exchange glances; it
is obvious that neither knew this would be raised during the meeting. In fact, the board chair knows nothing of the program
director’s request to implement an FWA program at READ, Inc.
The chair thanks the board member for his comments. He explains that without more information and research, it is not possible
to take any action on this issue. The chair asks Anna Bucconi, chair of the board’s personnel committee, to take this issue to her
committee and return to the next board meeting with a report and recommendation for the board to consider.
Following the board meeting, Bucconi gathers her committee members to plan their task to address an FWA program. She shares
her idea on how to approach the matter. First, she wants the committee to meet with the ED for her perspective on why FWAs
might be problematic. Secondly, she wants committee members and the ED to research the issue. Finally, she would like the
committee to meet and deliberate on what they learned, and prepare their report and recommendation to the board by the next
meeting (one month from now). Committee members and the ED agree that this is a reasonable approach.
A few days later, the committee meets with Daniels to discuss her concerns about implementing an FWA program. Daniels
repeats what she said to LeBerta – that her concerns are primarily related to productivity loss in terms of service to customers and
disruptions to operations that could occur as a result of the new flexibility.
13
© 2008 SHRM. Santo D. Marabella, D.S.W. & Alysa D. Lambert, Ph.D.
The Case for Flexibility
Roles
ED (Liza Daniels): The ED rejected the program for two reasons. Daniels feels that the implementation of such a program will
reduce staff productivity, inhibit their ability to be successful, and reduce the quality of programs and services provided to their
customers. The organization’s mission is to decrease illiteracy in the area; to accomplish this, employees must provide services on
the customer’s schedule, not the other way around. Also, an FWA program will make communication among the employees more
difficult since they will be working different schedules. Thus, the ED feels that an FWA program will only hurt the organization.
She attends the board meetings and can give her input on the personnel committee’s report and recommendations.
Board Chair: A member of the board of directors, the chair presides at board meetings, keeps order, and ensures that meeting
agenda items are addressed and meeting objectives are achieved. The chair asks the personnel committee for their report and
recommendations; facilitates a focused and productive discussion about the report; and calls for a vote when discussion is
completed.
Personnel Committee Chair (Anna Bucconi): A member of the board of directors, the personnel committee chair conducts
the personnel committee meeting and leads the preparation of the report and recommendations on an FWA program at READ,
Inc. (Check with your instructor: The report and recommendations are an oral presentation; it is optional for it to be a written
document). She presents the report and recommendations at the follow-up board meeting. During the deliberations, the chair
ensures that these additional issues are addressed:
• The ED’s resistance to change.
• The program director’s run around the ED to a board member.
• Ways for the board to create an organizational environment that is responsive to staff needs wherever possible.
Personnel Committee Members: The committee consists of four non-board members plus the personnel committee chair (who
is a board member). The committee members meet with consultants to learn about the advantages and disadvantages of an FWA
program. They then meet with the personnel committee chair as a team to analyze the information; prepare a report on the
information; and make a recommendation on whether READ, Inc. should implement an FWA program.
Board of Directors: The board consists of 9-21 members, depending on class size. The board conducts research on board
governance; receives the report and recommendations from the personnel committee; and votes on the recommendations. The
board can vote “for”, “against” or “for with modifications”. This can be done on the recommendations as a whole or on each
recommendation separately.
Consultants: The consultants are all students in the class, except for those on the board of directors. Consultants study literature
and research on:
• Work/Life Balance. What it is, why it is important and strategies used to achieve balance.
• Flexible Work Arrangements. The advantages, disadvantages and approaches.
• Resistance to Change. The categories of major resistance and approaches to manage resistance.
The consultants provide advice and information to the personnel committee on the topics they researched.
14
© 2008 SHRM. Santo D. Marabella, D.S.W. & Alysa D. Lambert, Ph.D.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment