HRMG 4203 Week 2 Case Fact Sheet Example

A Fact Sheet for the Commerce Street Hotel Room Attendant Case: Twenty-Two Facts in the Case's Own Words, Where Each Appears and What Each Does Not Establish

Student Name

Walden University

HRMG 4203: Human Resource Management: Analysis and Problems

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

A Fact Sheet for the Commerce Street Hotel Room Attendant Case: Twenty-Two Facts in the Case's Own Words, Where Each Appears and What Each Does Not Establish

Purpose and Rule

This fact sheet extracts what the case states about room attendant departures at the Commerce Street Hotel, an invented convention property of 620 rooms near the Indiana Convention Center. One rule governs it: nothing enters unless the case states it, in a paragraph or an exhibit. Each fact appears in the case's own wording where possible, with its location and with a note on what it does not establish. The third column matters most. Bazerman and Moore (2013) describe how decision-makers fill gaps in information with assumptions that feel like facts; writing down where each fact stops is a guard against that.

The Sheet

Table 1

Facts About Room Attendant Departures, Commerce Street Hotel

Composite case. Locations refer to the case's paragraphs and exhibits.

Why the Silences Are Listed

Four rows record what the case does not give. They are facts about the case itself, and they matter because each one will tempt a reader later in the term. Without local wage data, any claim that attendants left for better pay is an assumption. Without leaver interviews, the exit forms are the only record of reasons, and "better opportunity" is a box, not an explanation. The missing reason for the weekend start rule matters because a rule nobody can explain may be easier to change than one with a purpose behind it.

Where Several Facts Stop

Three facts in particular stop short of what readers will want them to say. The rule that new hires start on the weekend team does not tell us who made it or why, so it cannot yet be treated as a mistake. The concentration of late checkouts on floors 14 to 22 does not tell us who cleans those floors; the case never gives floor assignments by tenure, so the link to new hires is a question, not a fact. And the jump in weekend departures from 3 to 19 is a count, not a rate, which means part of it may reflect more hiring onto that team. Hom et al. (2017) note that turnover comparisons need a base, the number employed, before they mean anything.

The Case's Adjectives, and No Others

The case describes the weekend team as "stretched," the late-checkout program as "popular" and the Sunday complaints as "persistent." It calls the new supervisor "experienced." These four words are the only descriptions in the sheet, and each appears in the case. The sheet adds no adjectives of its own, because an adjective such as "chaotic" or "underpaid" carries a conclusion the facts have not yet reached (Bazerman & Moore, 2013).

How the Sheet Will Be Used

Later analyses will line these facts up in time: late checkout in March, departures rising from April, the supervisor's promotion in May and the software in June. That order will matter when candidate causes are tested, since a cause cannot follow its effect (Kepner & Tregoe, 1965).

References

Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2013). Judgment in managerial decision making (8th ed.). Wiley.

Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 530-545. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103

Kepner, C. H., & Tregoe, B. B. (1965). The rational manager: A systematic approach to problem solving and decision making. McGraw-Hill.