Lisa Clark was a reluctant supervisor. As executive assistant to the Commissioner of Client Services with the Department of Disability Rehabilitation, she had the responsibility to supervise the day-to-day work of a secretarial and clerical support staff in the Commissioner's office. While she liked her work, she did not enjoy supervising. Lisa, white, supervised a three-person staff of female minority-group members. Given her distaste for supervising, she was fortunate that her staff performed their work smoothly and competently, even when they were busy. Amy Johnson was the senior secretary, having been with the Commissioner for over eight years. Amy was very professional and competent, able to handle her various tasks skilfully and effectively. Joan Carter handled more of the technical procedures and operations associated with disability rehabilitation matters. Joan, in her position for just over a year, was just beginning to achieve proficiency in this complex area and was doing an adequate job. Both Amy and Joan were grade S's in the civil service system. And then there was Sara Haskins, a 21-year-old office clerk, grade 6. Sara had been moved into this front office position six months ago under less than favourable circumstances. Before the transfer, she had been working as a clerk in the nearby regional administrative office. However, her performance in that job was lethargic and uninspired. She had to be supervised closely on a regular basis, and while the work she did met minimum standards, there were occasional errors and lapses. Non-exempt employees in the department belonged to the State Service Employees Union. Rather than risk problems with the union over firing her, the decision was made to move her to the Commissioner's office. Lisa saw Sara as quiet and without much of a personality, "a real lump" as Lisa put it. In addition, Sara had very poor communication skills, and others in the office had little to do with her and showed little enthusiasm for working with or supporting her. Sara spent about three months learning the routine assignments associated with her new position. At that point, Lisa decided to expand her responsibilities so that Sara could serve as a back-up for most of Amy's and some of Joan's duties, on an as-needed basis-for example, whenever either Amy or Joan were on vacation or out sick. Both Amy and Joan supported this plan. The effort to cross-train Sara met with two problems, though. The first problem became obvious fairly quickly: Sara just did not seem to understand what was going on. She appeared to be personally uninvolved in, almost bored by, the cross-training efforts. For example, whenever Amy or Joan would explain a procedure, Sara seemed to pay little attention to what they were saying, although she did take a lot of notes. Consequently, on a few occasions when Amy or Joan was absent, Sara could not do the work, saying she did not know how. Sara's reluctance to participate in the work of the office could be especially troublesome when things got busy, for she rarely pitched in and helped others. The Commissioner's office was frequently assigned special "rush" projects that had to be prepared, completed, and distributed to various field offices or constituent groups as quickly as possible. When these conditions arose, everyone was expected to help out. Too often, Sara seemed content to sit passively at her desk, even when her work was completed, and watch as everyone else hustled to meet deadlines. After one such particularly frustrating episode, Lisa talked to Sara privately, cautioning her about her lackadaisical approach to her work. During the conversation, Sara mentioned that she had been taken advantage of before and felt she was being asked to do grade 8 work when she was only being paid to do grade 6 work. This comment posed a second problem that faced Lisa in cross-training Sara. Shortly after her meeting with Sara, she discovered that Ted Matthews, the personnel officer for the department, was concerned about this same issue. According to Ted, the union could file a grievance claiming that Sara was in the wrong pay classification to the work assigned to her. He suggested that they avoid any union problems by giving Sara a temporary adjustment in salary; if Sara performed well, she would be given a permanent increase to a grade 7. Lisa and Ted agreed that for them to make the increase permanent, Sara would have to do a much better job than she was presently doing. Ted, also a minority employee, explained the decision to Sara in a private meeting. He also gave her a pep talk, pointing out that extra effort now would pay off down the road. Sara's reactions were difficult to gauge, although she did not appear overly enthusiastic during or after the meeting. Lisa figured it would take a little time for Ted's message to sink in and did not become immediately concerned. She knew it was unrealistic, and unfair, to expect an instantaneous transformation. Nonetheless, over the course of the following three weeks, Lisa became more and more perplexed: It appeared that Sara simply had not "gotten the message" at all. Finally, one afternoon she had a discussion with Amy that not only confirmed the issue, but made Lisa realize the further action was necessary. Amy came into Lisa's office shortly after lunch and closed the door. "I need to talk to you about Sara," she began. "You know how busy we've been with the new regulations and the downsizing. I've got work piling up and Sara is just not pitching in." Lisa knew what Amy was talking about, having given her a couple of big assignments earlier in the day. However, Lisa was also surprised by Amy's observations. Even though Amy had never been particularly enthusiastic about Sara's performance, she usually implied that Sara was doing her work acceptably. Amy continued: "I've got a pile of things to do, and Sara won't help out. I've asked for her assistance a couple of times, but she either ignores me or really complains about helping. And just a minute ago, when I asked her, she just looked at me and said, 'I'm not going to do that.' I need help, and I've no time to argue with anyone." Lisa leaned back in the chair, wondering what to do next.

1. What is the case study about?
2. Identify the ten (10) HR elements in the case study.
3. Identify the main issue in the case study. This should be recognized as the cause of the current problem.
4. How could main issue have been avoided? Provide details and an explanation that is linked to the case study.
5. What should Lisa recommend. Present recommendations and identify the positive and negative impacts it may have on the company. Also indicate what actions, policies or theory support your decision/recommendation.