Overview
Assignment 1
Decision Making and Problem Solving (MGT 312)
Due Date: End of Week 4, 25-07-2026Course Name: Decision Making and Problem Solving | Student’s Name: |
Course Code: MGT312 | Student’s ID Number: |
Semester: Summer Summer | CRN: 50490 |
Academic Year:2025-26; SUMMER SEMESTER | |
For Instructor’s Use only
Instructor’s Name: Dr. Sager Alharthi | |
Students’ Grade: / 20 | Level of Marks: High/Middle/Low |
General Instructions – PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY
• The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (WORD format only) via allocated folder.
• Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.
• Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented; marks may be reduced for poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover page.
• Students must mention question number clearly in their answer.
• Late submission will NOT be accepted.
• Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students or other resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions.
• All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced) font. No pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism).
• Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted.
Restricted - مقيد
Course Learning Outcomes-Covered
• Demonstrate a solid understanding of decision-making process for complex issues pertaining to business environment both internally and externally. (CLO # 2, PLO1.2)
Assignment Instructions:
Read the below case study titled as “Case Study: The Silent Scores — A Performance Appraisal Story”and answer the following Questions:
Case Study:
The Silent Scores — A Performance Appraisal Story
Khalid Al-Rashidi had worked for Najma Holding Group in Riyadh for eleven years. He knew the corridors of the company's gleaming King Abdullah Financial District tower the way he knew the streets of his own neighborhoods. He had onboarded new clients, mentored junior analysts, and consistently delivered above his quarterly targets. Every year, as December approached, he would sit across from his manager, shake hands, receive a score somewhere between "good" and "very good," and walk back to his desk — never quite sure what the number truly meant, or what he was supposed to do differently.
In 2022, Khalid was passed over for promotion. A younger colleague — well-connected, socially visible, and close to senior leadership — was appointed to the Senior Relationship Manager role instead. When Khalid requested feedback, his manager smiled warmly and said, "You are doing fine, Khalid. Just keep going." No specifics. No development plan. No explanation.
Two weeks later, Khalid submitted his resignation.
He was not alone. That same year, Najma Holding Group lost 11 of its top 40 performing employees — most of them quietly, without fanfare, citing "limited growth" or "better opportunities" in their exit forms. The HR Director, Layla Al-Mutairi, flagged the numbers to the CEO during a board meeting in February 2023. "We have a talent retention crisis," she said plainly. "And I believe it begins with how we evaluate our people."
The CEO, Faisal Al-Ghamdi, asked for evidence. Layla returned two weeks later with a report that would change the company.
What Layla uncovered was not malicious — it was structural. Najma's performance appraisal system had been designed in 2009. It was a single annual review, a one-page paper form, completed by line managers in fifteen minutes every December, and filed away until the next year. There were no KPIs. No benchmarks. No calibration across departments. The five categories on the form — Productivity, Teamwork, Communication, Initiative, and Overall Contribution — carried no definitions, no examples, and no measurable standards.
In a region where personal relationships, family connections, and social harmony carry deep cultural weight — where challenging a colleague's rating can feel disrespectful, and where face-saving often overrides honest feedback — the absence of objective criteria had quietly allowed something dangerous to take root.
Managers rated employees based on who they knew, not what they delivered. Employees who shared lunch with senior leaders consistently scored higher than those who quietly outperformed from their desks. In some departments, Emirati and Women in client-facing roles received lower "initiative" scores despite handling mentorship and team coordination that went entirely unrecorded.
The problem was not that managers were bad people. The problem was that the system gave them no framework to be fair.
Layla's employee survey confirmed the damage. Out of 1,200 respondents, 68% said they did not trust the appraisal process. 54% believed personal connections mattered more than performance in determining ratings and promotions. Exit interview data from the previous three years showed that nearly half of departing employees had cited "lack of recognition" and "unclear growth path" as primary reasons for leaving — the very symptoms of a broken appraisal system.
Most telling of all: when Layla's team asked employees to describe the annual appraisal in one word, the most common responses were "pointless," "stressful," and "unfair."
Faisal Al-Ghamdi read the report in silence. He had built Najma from a small investment advisory boutique into a regional financial services group over eighteen years. He understood the value of relationships in Arab business culture — trust, loyalty, personal connection were not weaknesses to be eliminated. But Vision 2030 was demanding meritocracy, transparency, and institutional excellence. A performance system that measured perception instead of performance was no longer just a HR inconvenience. It was a strategic threat.He approved Layla's reform plan before the end of the month.
Over the following nine months, Najma rebuilt its performance management framework from the ground up — but designed it with Gulf workplace culture in mind, not against it.
Role-specific KPIs were introduced across every department, co-created by team leaders and employees together. A quarterly check-in model replaced the single annual review — not to eliminate personal warmth, but to spread honest conversations across four structured touchpoints where feedback felt less loaded. A calibration panel was established, bringing managers together to compare and justify ratings before any scores were finalized — creating peer accountability without singling out individuals.
Most importantly, every appraisal now ended with a career development dialogue — a forward-looking conversation where the manager and employee mapped out skills, aspirations, and a clear 12-month growth roadmap together. For the first time, employees could see a direct line between their performance data and their future at Najma.
By early 2025, the results were measurable. Voluntary turnover dropped from 29% to 17%. Employee engagement scores rose by 22 points. In the annual promotion cycle, six of the eight promotions awarded went to employees whose consistent quarterly data — tracked across multiple managers and verified by calibration — made the decision almost self-evident. No one asked about wasta. The numbers spoke clearly for themselves.
Khalid Al-Rashidi, now working at a competitor firm in Dubai, heard about the changes from a former colleague. He smiled when he read the headline on LinkedIn. Not with bitterness — but with the quiet recognition that sometimes, it takes losing the right people to finally build the right system.
Assignment Question(s):(Marks 10)
1. Identify the main problem and sub-problem of above case study. [Marks 2]
2. Write the problem statement about the above case. Problem statement should include the followings: [Marks 8]
a. Briefly summarize the problem[300-400 words]
b. Identify symptoms of the problem
c. Describe the size and scope of the problem
d. Identify the consequences
e. Explain any other research or investigation that you may pursue
3. Fina the root cause of the problem with the following techniques[Marks 5]
a. 5-Why analysis.
b. Draw and explain cause-and-effect diagram based on the problem of the case?
4. If you are consultant and asked to solve the problem, how will you solve the problem of case? What are the steps you will follow to solve?[300-500 words][Marks 5]
Answers
Restricted - مقيد