This case study review analyzes the cases studies of The Case of the Diamond Ring Setting (Schermerhorn, N/A) which discusses the case of married women making the decision or not making the decision to wear their diamond rings and/or engagement rings during employment interviews. Another case study that is analyzed in this case study review is the case study of Wellness or Invasive Coercion? (Schermerhorn, N/A) CEO Jim Hagedorn makes aggressive decisions concerning the wellness of his staff in efforts to prevent high health insurance claims. He backs an aggressive anti-smoking and wellness campaign and if the employees of Scotts Miracle-Gro do not comply with CEO Jim Hagedorn’s decisions then they need to pay higher rates for their health insurance premiums.

Your 20% discount here!

Use your promo and get a custom paper on
Case Study Reviews Following the Guidelines of the American Psychological Association

Order Now
Promocode: SAMPLES20

CEO Jim Hagedorn’s decisions have been effective for helping his employees such as in the case of Joe Pellegrini whose life was saved by the CEO’s decision making. The consequences of the CEO’s decision making are the threats of lawsuits made by employees (Budgell, 2008). The third case study that is reviewed within the framework of decision making for this case study review is Super Saleswoman Won’t Ask for Raise Setting (Schermerhorn, N/A). With this case study the super saleswoman is making 20% less in her earnings compared to her male counterparts of her sales team. Another woman on the sales team is also making less than the men of the sales team do.

The super sales woman’s sister encourages her to ask for a raise, however the super saleswoman “does not want to rock the boat” and understands the societal reality that women are often paid 75% of what men make. The forth case study involves a firm that goes public with their employees’ bonuses due to criticism that they are receiving from the public due to the low wages of the lower level staff. The firm, the company, decides to go public to stem off the bad publicity, however the decision does not change the fact that the executive level employees still make millions in bonuses while the lower level employees make little dollars in comparison.

This coursework related to making decisions I will analyze and respond to the case study review questions for the case studies of Diamond Ring (Schermerhorn, N/A), Wellness or Invasive Coercion? (Schermerhorn, N/A), Super Saleswoman (Schermerhorn, N/A) and Firm Goes Public with Annual Bonuses (Schermerhorn, N/A).

When making decisions, sometimes the truth and/or not revealing the truth to gain one’s objectives comes into play (Budgell, 2008). For this case study, women were deciding whether or not to wear their diamond rings or engagement rings during a work interview because of the effect it could have on whether or not they would receive the employment. The concerns of the women were based on the decision-making of the employers. It is true that in society some employers would think that a woman does not require a job based on her marital status. The women were making decisions on whether or not they should be truthful regarding their marital status at the risk of giving the impression to the employer with their diamond rings that they do not need the job because they also have a second income coming into the home. As well, the women were deciding or going through the process of making the decision to be dishonest regarding their marital status because they understand the way cultural values are predisposed to men receiving employment because they are seen as traditionally the income providers of the home.

The factors that are at play for this case study are based on societal misconceptions and societal fallacies regarding why and how a woman should work (Budgell, 2008). If a woman has applied for a job, this means that she needs the job. Her deciding factor for seeking employment although she may have additional income coming into the home is also based on what the expenses of the household are and how many children the couple have in this case, as well as the age of the children. For example, if the children are in post-secondary education such as college, the expenses of college would greatly encourage two incomes coming into the home to afford the child or children to go to college. It is factors such as these that would encourage a woman to hide her marital status and to make that decision in order to secure the job.

The CEO Jim Hagedorn of Scotts Miracle-Gro Company in Marysville, Ohio is trying to proactively decide that he wants to have employees that do not challenge his company with the high costs of insurance payouts for healthcare. Hagedorn is thinking of the bottom line, and making his decisions based on the bottom line (Budgell, 2008). However, he is not only thinking of the bottom line. Couple with a wellness program for his employees to counterbalance the lawsuits that could come into play with this aggressive proactive leadership towards wellness and protecting health insurance claims, Hagedorn’s actions are also humanitarianly sound towards his employees. His decisions are good one and although tough decisions, benefit all of his employees at the end of the day, such as with the example of Joe Pellegrini.

In this situation, the super saleswoman is doing fantastic job. Despite this fact, she is being paid 20% less than the other men on her sales team. The sister of the super saleswoman is telling the super saleswoman that should ask for a raise. The super saleswoman knows the ins and outs of her working environment which is exactly what is influencing the decision that she is making not to ask for a raise. The considerations that are at play in this situation are that women on average are paid 75% of what men are paid (Schermerhorn, N/A). The super saleswoman knows this is a current fact of life which is the reason why she does not decide to “rock the boat” with her current employer by asking for a raise. The super saleswoman has probably factored in the income she is making and that she is satisfied with her current income and it is helping her to pay all of her bills, plus to live a comfortable lifestyle – despite the unjust situation (Budgell, 2008). If she were to take the risk, and risk the comfort of her current situation being lost, then the super saleswoman would lose her job and all the additional benefits that come with being a super saleswoman – basically leaving her with nothing. It is this lack of not wanting to take a risk of losing what she already has that helps the super saleswoman to decide not to ask for a raise, even though she is receiving encouragement to do so from her sister.

This case study is a classic case study that occurs very often. Many businesses will give millions of dollars in bonuses to their higher level executives and give little dollars in bonuses to their lower level employees. The fact that this particular company in this case study is receiving criticism from the public based on what they pay to their lower level employees was definitely most likely a deciding factor in why the company decided to release the bonuses that lower level employees make in an effort to dissuade people from continuing with the criticism of their company. If true change is to happen with this company they must addresses the inequalities in the wage disparities amongst lower level employees and the executive level staff in order to stop the criticism from the public. This latter issue would be a decision that would resolve the conflict and the problems of this particular situation (Budgell, 2008).

This coursework related to making decisions I analyzed and responded to the case study review questions for the case studies of Diamond Ring (Schermerhorn, N/A), Wellness or Invasive Coercion? (Schermerhorn, N/A), Super Saleswoman (Schermerhorn, N/A) and Firm Goes Public with Annual Bonuses (Schermerhorn, N/A). It was found that in all of the situations overall decisions are not always an easy thing to make and often come with consequences.