THE STAR AWARD

THE STAR AWARD

WEEK 6 QUESTION 2
"The Workforce" Please respond to the following:
•
Review “The Star Award” in Chapter 10. Select three candidates (from the field of
five) to receive bonuses. Justify your response with one or two reasons.
THE STAR AWARD
As director of the excise audit bureau in the West Dakota Department of Taxation, you have to
decide who on your staff should receive a new performance bonus. The legislature created the
bonus back in February, and the division of personnel has now issued all the regulations. You
have the forms and instructions, and by the end of the month, you have to send your choices to
the taxation commissioner, who will forward them to personnel.
Two things motivated the West Dakota legislature to create the performance bonus. First, key
legislators had concluded that state employees were simply not working hard enough. Legislators
constantly receive complaints about the lackadaisical attitude of state workers, and they
concluded that the fixed civil service pay scale was not attracting new talent or motivating
existing employees.
Second, West Dakota is running a budget surplus for the second straight year. Naturally, the
legislature has cut taxes—twice. But despite those efforts, the budget continues to show a
surplus. Consequently, the Speaker of the House decided to use a portion of it to reward the
“stars” of state government.
The new Star Award will give the top20 percent of employees in each unit a $5000 bonus, to be
paid in 1 2 monthly installments during the coming fiscal year. The bonus is supposed to go to
those employees who are not only “outstanding” but also genuine stars. The head of each unit
must determine the criteria for choosing who the stars are. To ensure that the bonus can be
included in the July payroll checks, each manager must submit a “star list” by June 20.
Your audit bureau has 1 5 employees with a wide range of responsibilities and job classifications
—everything from clerk I to senior auditor. And, predictably, they also possess a range of talent,
enthusiasm, and effectiveness.
Here are the most obvious candidates for the performance bonus:
• Larry Beck, senior auditor. As a 23-year employee, Beck is clearly your most knowledgeable
and effective auditor. Everyone goes to him for advice. Everyone looks up to him. But in two
years, Larry will be eligible to receive his pension, and he knows it. He can still be a top
performer—when he wants to. Recently, however, he has lost a little drive, although most people
in the Department of Taxation still think of him as your unit’s star.
• Jim Beatty, auditor III. With an advanced degree in accounting, Jim draws your unit’s tough
assignments. He understands the subtleties of the excise tax and thus works with both the
department’s legal counsel and the attorney general’s office explaining the intricacies of each
case and helping to formulate strategy. He can, however, be condescending toward his less
knowledgeable colleagues, few of whom understand the complexity of his work.
• Rachel Gonzalez, auditor I. Straight out of law school with a verve for public service, Rachel is
a real go-getter. In fact, she has struck gold several times, having gone over the books of
numerous firms in such detail that she found mistakes most other auditors would have missed.
Unfortunately, she also discovered some “errors” at a firm owned by the House Speaker’s
cousin. The firm refused to acknowledge any error, and eventually the department’s legal
counsel decided to settle out of court. The firm paid the taxes that Rachel claimed it owed (plus
interest) but admitted no guilt for any tax violations and paid no fine. Rachel would be a gutsy

choice on your part, but it might create a few problems politically when the Speaker hears about
it.
• Martha Rutledge, administrative assistant II.
With 35 years in the Department of Taxation, Martha knows everybody and everything. She runs
your life. In fact, she really runs the day-to-day business of the audit unit, permitting you to
concentrate on long-term, strategic concerns. You trust both her skills and her judgment; she
really functions as your deputy director. Of course, she is still paid as an administrative assistant.
It’s hard to imagine Martha slacking off in her duties under any circumstances; it’s also unlikely
that an award would make her any more diligent. She’ll be doing her same conscientious job
right up until the day she leaves.
• Samantha Black, clerk I.
Two years ago, straight out of high school, Samantha passed the civil service exam with flying
colors. You immediately hired her, and she quickly became a real team member—both
competent and cheery. Every auditor wants to give his or her clerical work to Samantha.
Moreover, others in the department have heard of her talents, and she has already turned down
several offers as a clerk II. You, however, don’t have a clerk II position into which you can
promote her.
The rest of your employees are quite proficient and professional. They’re smart; to do their work,
they have to be. Like any other manager in the taxation department, or in state government for
that matter, you have a couple of people whom you wouldn’t mind replacing. Still, you have a
talented team that does its job without requiring much attention (except when you step on some
politically sensitive toes). Your people are overworked and underappreciated. If the bonus is for
performance, 90 percent of them deserve one.
But you have only three to give.
Case Questions
1 . Before turning to specifics of the case, consider the following more general question. Most
would agree the six factors in the following list are important in determining whom to hire and
promote:
• Capacity
• Experience
• Integrity
• Knowledge
• Motivation
• Understanding
How would you rank these in relative importance?
Support your answer.
2. Who in this case would you pick?