You have been given a case study about an organization that's experiencing high employee turnover rates. This case study is in the attached images. The question is to reflect critically on theory and practice from an ethical and professional standpoint and develop skills in identifying when, how and why to use strategic interventions (specific actions and initiatives to create feasible and practical changes) to improve and develop organizations. The expectation is to write critically and avoid describing the content or material. What would be a suitable structure to answer this question satisfactorily, and what focus should be in each section?

Elizabeth Sculley is the managing director at iThera. She just returned from a site visit to iThera (Huddersfield). The primary functions of iThera (Huddersfield) are ensuring that the iThera network of computers operates smoothly, installing and running an up-to-date software portfolio and providing trouble-shooting services for its network users. These functions involve helping university students in the online drop-in sessions, maintaining computer labs and public libraries IT systems, and supporting teaching, research and administrative staff using the network from PCs in their offices and personal laptops in Yorkshire in the United Kingdom. Elizabeth is frustrated that iThera (Huddersfield) lags in productivity. There is no sign of things getting better. When John Holmes was appointed site manager, he said he would study the situation and devise a plan to improve the situation. It has been five months, and this plan has not been materialised yet. She wanted to find out the issue(s) and if the site manager has a practical and financially feasible plan to improve the lag in productivity. Unless iThera (Huddersfield) change how things are, there is a real danger that the site will not be able to deliver services as expected. John manages iThera (Huddersfield) with a team of support staff. The site has five functional units, and a team at each unit provides various services. Each team comprise a team leader, who reports to John Holmes, and between eight and ten information systems officers. During her visit, Elizabeth met with John. When she asked him how things are, John replied: We've got a tricky problem here; it seems like we have to turn up at the 'leaving do' of one of the information systems staff every week. It's all very pleasant, the usual speech and have a drink, but with all these people leaving we are having real difficulty running a service. We always seem to be a couple of people short at the Huddersfield site. It sometimes feels like we're welcoming someone to the site one week and handing over their leaving present the next! We also lose people with a bit more experiencethan that. Of course, it's all down to money, and who can blame them? We can't pay competitive rates in this sector, and people are bound to go to where they can earn more. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't the best ones who always leave. They come to us after their degree with a couple of years' information systems work behind them, we give them some valuable experience, and then they go off somewhere else. You've got to keep at the cutting edge of knowledge; otherwise, your skills are not marketable. These people probably want a new challenge after a couple of years; I suppose the work must seem pretty routine once you've mastered it, but as we have only five team leaders, there is no prospect of promotion. The officers who have been here long tend very rarely to leave. In fact, as they have reached the top of the pay scale, they are actually paid quite well, and, given their skills, it would be hard for them to earn as much elsewhere. The trouble is that they are not our best people, are no longer motivated, and to be honest, drag everyone else down. The other thing is, it is really difficult to find good new recruits, only last week I interviewed 12 people, and none of them were any good, but we are so thin on the ground that we had taken on someone who hasn't really got the skills and experience that we need. I'm at a loss to know what to do, particularly as we can't change the pay rates because they are agreed at a national level. During the meeting, several pieces of information were shared and discussed. The first piece was the previous site manager's, Ginni Salzberg, statement from his exit interview. He said he had several sleepless nights about the productivity issue and thought it was due to the employee turnover issue at the site. He was unsure if the following would have led to meaningful improvements: To conduct exit interviews and gather feedback from departing employees, as they are unlikely to comment on push factors. To implement a system to acknowledge the work of team members, as there is already a performance management system in place. To offer learning and development programs, such as workshops, seminars, online courses, and certifications, as there is no guarantee of a return on investment To explore non-financial benefits, such as offering flexible working hours, work-from-home options, health and wellness programs, and additional vacation days, as there is no point in a system without meaningful pay increases To consider utilising online job portals, professional networking platforms, and partnering with educational institutions to attract a wider pool of candidates as they are not in a position to sponsor visas. To develop partnerships with universities and colleges to establish internship programs that provide hands-on experience and a pipeline for potential hires and connect with talented graduates seeking employment opportunities as talented graduates will find jobs from other sectors. He seemed to have had his ideas about the nature, extent and causes of the labour turnover problem. He thought these suggestions would not improve the situation without a substantial pay increase. The turnover situation is critical for the business, and the nationally agreed rates cannot be changed. Besides, the managing director views pay as a short-term intervention for turnover issues.Notes from exit interviews with other former employees were also discussed during the meeting. &me of them were: - ! felt like too many rules and policies were in place, making it difcult to be creative and innovative. a I felt that the company did not do enough to support me when I faced a difcult personal issue. a lfelt the organisation was more concerned with meeting its bottom line than taking care of its employees. - i felt the organisation wasn't flexible enough to accommodate my personal needs. - ifelt uncomfortable discussing my concerns with my manager because I worried my privacy would not be respected. a i have a QD-year-old mother who lives independently 40 miles away and whose short-tenn memory is progressively failing. at i have two children; one has been diagnosed with autism, and the other with attention decit hyperactivity disorder. I cannot balance my work and caring duties. - lworked excessive hours, and I cannot do that anymore. 9 It is a dictatorship; the command and control approach would suit a Victorian factory. at My role triggered mental health issues, and the iThera {Huddersfield} has a "dysfunctional\" workplace with performance meetings characterised by \"high emotions, often tears\". - My skills and experience are ignored. - Sometimes, colleagues were upset for various reasons [sometimes unconnected with work}. a Team leaders are ineffective, and this company does not measure their leadership skills. a Team leaders do not have the skills, experience, capability or motivation to manage. let alone lead. - There is no trust; every day, there are new checklists we have to do. Too much management by email. We do not know this organisation's values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. We get no support from our managers. We want exible working to be fair, inclusive and productive for all. However, when he was still the site manager, Ginni Salzberg dismissed all these points. He denied a 1culture of divisiveness' or unpleasant inghting. He was unconvinced there was a \"consistently high level of emotion" running through performance meetings. He claimed that colleagues had urged everyone not to overwork, and one had been told to reduce his travel and put time in his diary to go to the gym. John also shared the proposals from the team leaders about a way forward. These were: - Vikram Lay: Review the feedback received from exit interviews and identify common themes or concerns. Use this information to formulate targeted action plans to address the reasons for employee departures. In addition to reco nition, conduct r ular erfomiance reviews and rovide constructive feedback to employees. Identify opportunities for growth and advancement within the organisation and discuss career development plans with individual employees to show a clear path for progression. Assess the effectiveness and relevance of the current learning and development programs. Consult with employees to understand their career aspirations and training needs. Tailor the programs to address these needs and provide opportunities for employees to acquire new skills and knowledge aligned with their interests and the organisation's goals. While maintaining the existing non-financial benefits, focus on addressing the underlying concerns. Review the workload distribution, consider job rotation or job enrichment to provide variety, and ensure that employees have opportunities to take on new challenges and responsibilities. Review the recruitment process to identify areas for improvement. Ensure job descriptions accurately reflect the skills and experience required for the positions. Consider involving current team members in the recruitment process to gain insights and perspectives. Explore opportunities for creating additional positions or roles within the organisation. This could involve restructuring the department, introducing new projects or initiatives, or expanding the scope of existing roles. Establish a clear leadership development program that includes mentoring, coaching, and opportunities for team members to develop their leadership skills. Jack Plank: You can engage in discussions and negotiations at a higher level to address the issue of pay rates. Highlight the challenges faced by the site due to the inability to compete with other sectors and advocate for a review of the national-level agreements to attract and retain top talent. Introduce a career development framework within the site that provides opportunities for employees to upskill, acquire new certifications, and attend conferences or workshops. This will help them stay at the cutting edge of knowledge and provide a sense of growth and development. While financial benefits may be limited, explore other non-financial benefits that can improve the work experience. This could include flexible working arrangements, remote work options, wellness programs, and additional leave allowances. These perks can enhance work-life balance and improve employee satisfaction. Develop a clear career progression path within the department, providing opportunities for employees to advance to leadership roles. Implement a mentorship program where experienced officers can guide and mentor junior team members, helping them develop their skills and grow within the organisation. Collaborate with universities and educational institutions to establish internships and build relationships with talented graduates. Additionally, consider partnering with industry-specific job portals, attending career fairs, and leveraging employee referral programs to attract qualified candidates. Instead of relying solely on exit interviews, regularly conduct stay interviews with existing employees to understand their concerns, motivations, and areas for improvement. This proactive approach allows for early identification of issues and enables timely interventions to address them. Gerald Spiegel: A strategic review is needed of job design, pay rates, onboarding, training, work culture, and recruiting and hiring practices. Advocating for higher pay, investing in skills development, assigning mentors, surveying exiting staff, building an internal talent pipeline, screening and sourcing candidates more effectively, and fosteringengagement through team building and recognition programs are some specific actions that could help retain talented employees. The goal should be implementing short- and long-term solutions that provide challenging work, opportunities for advancement, competitive compensation, a supportive environment, and a focus on culture fit and required skills during the hiring process. With a multi-faceted approach, the root causes of turnover can be addressed, and both new and experienced employees are more likely to feel motivated and engaged in their roles. Ken Pandit: First, I recommend conducting stay and exit interviews to understand why people leave. This will provide insights into their motivations and allow us to address issues proactively. For example, we may find opportunities to provide more training, coaching, or advancement opportunities to increase. Next, I suggest reviewing our compensation and benefits package to ensure competitiveness. While pay is restricted, we may be able to offer other perks like flexible schedules, professional development funds, or remote work arrangements. Even small improvements can boost retention. Matt Dorsey: I propose expanding our recruitment channels. Reaching out to universities, professional associations, niche job boards, and employee referrals could connect us with more qualified, motivated candidates. We should highlight our strengths like training, benefits, and culture. To aid retention, it may also help to improve our onboarding process. Assigning mentors, providing extra training, and setting clear expectations can increase job satisfaction and commitment. Check-ins after 30/60/90 days can catch issues early. Finally, I think an employee engagement survey would offer valuable insights. We can identify pain points and implement targeted solutions. Increased communication, recognition programs, and team building could re-energise staff. John, however, could not hide his hesitation in following any of the proposals. He felt they were shallow and superficial. He was unsure if they were evidence-based, practical and financially feasible. He referred to one-to-one meetings with the team leaders, during which he tabulated several points. Issue Vikram Jack Gerald Ken DEW Training & Not enough Too much time Training is Training is too Training too Development investment in and money outdated advanced and focused on training spent on Impractical weaknesses training Compensation & Pay and Pay and Incentives reward Incentives are Pay structures Benefits benefits are not benefits are too the wrong ineffective are too rigid competitive generous behaviors motivators enough already Work Flexibility Lack of Too much Flexibility Flexibility policies Flexibility has flexibility drives flexibility has are too restrictive are too open- hurt talent away undermined ended collaboration accountability Recruiting Recruiting is Recruiting casts Recruiting focuses Recruiting focuses Recruiting Approaches not proactive too wide a net, too much on too little on misrepresents enough lowering quality credentials credentials the work Performance Standards are Standards are Ratings are Ratings are overly Process lacks Management too lax unreasonable inflated harsh transparency Corporate Culture Culture lacks Culture resists Culture Is too Culture lacks an Culture Is Innovation change hierarchical appropriate disengaged structure Career Progression Progression Promotions Promotions Progression Progression paths are too happens too undervalue happen based on opportunities are rigid hastily capabilities tenure, not ment stifledEmployee Leadership Leadership Communication is Communication Message lacks Communication lacks shares too too informal follows too much empowerment transparency much red tape uncertainty Learning & Not enough Employees are L&D too detached L&D distracts too L&D options are Development investment in not accountable from work much from work too narrow L&D for own development Organisational Structure is too Structure Structure limits Structure lacks Roles are too Structure rigid changes too cross- alignment broadly defined frequently collaboration Goal Setting Goals lack Goals are Goals focus too Goals do not Goals are stretch unrealistic much on profits prioritise customer dictated without needs input Remote Work Lack of remote Too much Remote work Remote work has Remote work work drives remote work policies are unfair limited innovation has decreased talent away has fragmented productivity culture Resource Resources too Resources too Budgeting process Budgeting process Resources Allocation concentrated at diffused across lacks incites infighting aligned poorly the top business transparency with the strategy Change Changes are Changes are Changes are Changes are Changes create Management made too implemented made without watered down confusion quickly too slowly consultation through consensus * The case study is not based on an actual organisation or real people; any similarities to known organisations or people are coincidental