Jelly Belly is one of the leading chocolate manufacturing organizations in south Asia region.

The mainly manufactures tropical fruit flavored chocolate. In 2006 , this company has started a new line of product- Jelly Bellys Every Flavored Bean. Anush Farabi, an employee who joined the R&D department of this company in 2004 , was transferred to the Every Flavored Bean section in 2005. Before his arrival to that department, the R&D team of this product found only 15 flavors and colo rs which would go with the taste and color of beans. Within the next two years h e developed more than 30 flavor and color for this product. Anush got two promotions in the next two years which is a rare occasion in a com pany like Jelly Belly. Yes it is true that Anushs ingenuity, innovativeness and pa ssion towards his work is very praiseworthy but if you want to work in a organiz ation like Jelly Belly you will have to be more punctual and regular and people always learn from the past, said Anushs one time boss Himesh who, it is rumored, h ad given a formal complaint letter regarding Anushs promotion to the CEO who pers onally dealt with promotion at that time. There were numerous complaints against Anush He was often late at work, went to several unannounced vacations and was a bit temperamental. The company gave him quite a few warnings but he didnt change. He has become a non-expendable asset to this company as Every Flavored Bean has become one of our major products, said th e CEO, explaining the reason of Anushs second promotion in the directors meeting. In 2010, he was to get another promotion but the company annulled it because of his temperamental misconduct and lack of regularity and punctuality. Although hi s work was ranked as very good, he only got a 5% increment as punishment. Because of the recent global economic depression, the company was forced to drop more than one of its product lines and laid off several employees as cost cutti ng measures. Before the depression, the Jelly Belly used productivity to measure the performance of its employees. Goals were set by the team manager for every individual employee and if that employee could surpass the target by a specific extent, he would get promoted. But now, to decide which employees to lay- off, t he HR Director has undertaken a new policy to appraise the performance of employ ees. Now there is also a rating system in the appraisal process. An employee is rated on some key characteristics like punctuality, creativeness and capability of working in a group etc. by his/her coworkers, supervisor and subordinates. We know that this lay- off might increase or generate dissatisfaction among the e xisting employees and result in turnover and absenteeism. So we decided to do th is appraisal twice a year and if an employee cant work up to the expectation he w ill get another half year to improve his situation or find another job elsewhere . It will seem fair. And this peer and subordinate evaluation will help us detec t the least preferred employees and laying-off those might generate satisfaction among employees, said the HRD Thomas Sapre in the last director meeting. In this new system, the promotion is given not on the basis of the productivity but on the recommendation of the supervisor and anyone can question his/her supervisor or subordinates evaluation of oneself if he/she thinks the evaluation was not fa ir. Due to some family problem, Anush was irregular at work. But last year, he had b een regular in his work and though he was still temperamental sometime, the over all change was satisfactory and he developed more new flavors for Every Flavored Bean. His work for the years was very good. He was expecting promotion this year. But when the news of promotion got out he saw that he only got a 10% increment but no promotion whereas one of his coworkers whose work was only satisfactory g ot promotion and became his supervisor. Anush was enraged and frustrated. He did not know who to blame for this: the people who were supposed to assess his perf ormance or the new assessment system. What was most shocking was that, even thou gh his overall performance was rated as very good, promotion had not been recomm ended. He thought that the promotion committee might undo this damage but it was not to be. He felt aggrieved when the committee did not do it and protested for mally to the new Chairman of the Promotions Committee. The Promotions Committee invited the Head of the Every Flavored Bean Division to attend a meeting on this issue. The Head of the Department addressed a detailed

communication to the Promotions Committee, drawing their attention to the fact that the annual confidential report was based on the year s work, but recommenda tion for promotion was based on sustained good work and responsible conduct over a reasonable number of years. Though Anush did very good at that particular pro duct, he proved it numerous times that he wasnt comfortable in working in a punct ual, regular, teamwork manner. Promotion also implied greater responsibility, a nd if one was known to have been not fully serious with work for a long time and of questionable conduct, promotion could not be recommended on a single year s good work. Objectives: 1To identify the probable problems that might be faced during performance assessments. 2To recognize the importance of maintaining the correct procedure while c arrying out performance appraisals 3To be aware of the ethical issues that might arise when implementing par ticular HR decisions. 4To be able to apply theoretical knowledge in decision-making and analysi s of real-life situations Questions: 1. What are the HR issues this company is facing and how should these issues be addressed? 2. What should the Performance Appraisal be based on and how should people be as sessed in this particular company to make the assessment effective? 3. Was the companys way of treating Anush ethically justified? Explain your answe r.