Market Competitiveness: Human Resource Management Approach Sample College Essay

When a question is raised regarding the attractiveness of a job, the first thing that comes to mind is the salary. This is hardly surprising since it is the most approachable, transparent, and well-known way of rewarding employees. However, while employers’ market competitiveness can be indirectly assessed based on the salaries they offer to their workers, this is not the only defining factor. A range of bonuses and intangible rewards provided by the company may increase its competitiveness on the job market.

Recent trends displayed in the hiring practices show that salary does not have the dominant position in defining the company’s attractiveness for employees. It still plays a major role for people who seek an immediate and tangible reward but becomes less important once the questions of long-term involvement arise. More and more companies adopt the approach of a total compensation package, which includes some bonuses, compensations, and incentives that add to the attractiveness of the position (Martocchio, 2011). The incentives may include medical insurance, payment for education of employees’ children, vacation coverage, and the membership in certain clubs or other establishments. A growing body of evidence suggests that such incentives contribute to employee loyalty and lower turnover rates more than salary does (Martocchio, 2011).

First, they communicate the company’s policy to the employees: for instance, family-oriented incentives promote the company’s desire to create a more friendly environment that does not compromise personal life. Second, the comprise the “psychological contract” – an intangible concept that defines the employee’s expectations regarding the new job. As long as these expectations (not necessarily related to pay) are fulfilled, the workers stay satisfied, and the company retains its competitive advantage. Admittedly, the introduction of intangible rewards has a weak point: it requires the staff to be interested in the provided benefits. The improperly constructed compensation package can introduce additional spending without providing any actual improvement in employee satisfaction.

Admittedly, some of the compensation options are of limited use for companies with limited financial capabilities – for instance, the membership in a gym or a traveling bonuses still requires financial coverage from the employer. However, they are flexible enough to allow for an effective HRM policy at minimal expenses. An alternative approach may be establishing partnerships. A gym subscription, for instance, may be provided to company A’s employees by company B which owns a network of gyms based on the negotiated terms. Transportation, traveling, cellphone fee, education, and training are some of the other fields which may increase the attractiveness of the job for applicants.

Finally, the companies oriented primarily at profit can utilize profit-sharing bonuses as an alternative. This approach has one notable advantage: it stimulates the employees to maximize their efficiency by establishing a direct relationship between their output and the reward. It also is more streamlined and simple than the fixed pay as it is not dependent on the synchronization with the rest of the job market – instead, it is calculated based on the company’s revenues (Berger & Berger, 2015). It also fosters trust between the employer and the team, as it is a more “honest” way of reward than a fixed salary. However, it requires a certain amount of caution as it can repel applicants with more conservative traditional views. Besides, in its most basic form, it suggests dividing the payment equally across the team, which can create the feeling of unfair treatment among employees with higher output.

To minimize the drawbacks associated with the implementation of these approaches, several preliminary measures should be introduced. First, an analysis of the market must be conducted to determine the estimated bonus derived from the predicted profits. This would allow us to adjust the bonuses to the employee demand and illustrate possible attractiveness for the applicants to prepare the grounds for a hiring department.

Second, the company’s structure must be analyzed to determine the roles each member plays in the process. In case the difference is significant, individual bonus schemes must be implemented to fairly compensate each employee (Berger & Berger, 2015). On the contrary, if the difference can be ignored, a more encompassing approach must be sought to create a sense of interdependence and mutual vision and values.

Third, a target audience should be determined. This will allow excluding unnecessary emphases in the hiring practices and help in conceiving the appropriate compensation package.

Fourth, a study of the needs of potential employees must be conducted to balance the package. For instance, if the company is strongly oriented at profits and decides to introduce the individual profit-sharing schemes, it will likely be attractive to the performance-oriented, energetic, and strongly motivated people. Such an audience rarely considers family-oriented incentives as a primary selling point and focuses instead on opportunities for growth (Martocchio, 2011). Thus, it would be wise to provide them with educational and training options at the company’s expense.

Finally, the selected elements of the package must be analyzed to determine their cost and compared to their perceived value. Partnerships must be sought whenever possible to decrease expenses and increase the net value of each element to maximize the efficiency of the package.


Berger, L., & Berger, D. (2015). The compensation handbook, sixth edition: A state-of-the-art guide to compensation strategy and design. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional.

Martocchio, J.J. (2011). Strategic compensation: A human resource management approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Pfizer’s Palace Coup’ Scandal Case


Corporate management is complex as challenges are often diverse. The ability of the managers to maintain efficient performance and the ability to prove resilient to the management wrangles are considerable factors that make managers proficient (Yukl & Lepsinger, 2004). More frequently, controlling the top management officials where personal interests and professionalism are constant dilemmas often proves challenging (Yukl & Lepsinger, 2004). The case of Pfizer’s Palace Coup is among the cases that present significant management dilemmas. Pfizer is a global pharmaceutical firm.

Sometime in 2010, the company, under the Chief Executive Officer, Kindler encountered some significant leadership scandals. This essay presents a case analysis of the case of Pfizer’s Palace Coup to evaluate the scandal of leadership approaches.

Case Analysis: Main Issues

Leadership design or style- a management problem that presents itself in the case of Pfizer’s Palace Coup is a poor leadership style (Elkind & Reingold, 2011). A paramount aspect that dominates the case is the idea of how leadership influences performance and strategies of adopting changes in organizations. In the case of Pfizer Palace Coup, Kindler seemed to use an authoritarian style commonly known as the dictatorial leadership in his management (Elkind & Reingold, 2011). From a management perspective, authoritarian or dictatorial management style happens when leaders use coercion to carry out their administrative duties. The issue of changing the leadership technique in the case of Pfizer Palace Coup, is however complex and dilemmatic, as several demanding issues were pertinent to this scenario.

The technique of using authoritarian leadership to handle the surging management pressures at Pfizer matches the assumptions of Chris Argyris, a theorist who developed the theories of double-loop learning, single-loop learning, and the theories of action (Argyris, 2010). In his management theories that discuss actions, Chris Argyris believes that human beings have mental maps that determine how they act in situations. Every situation in Pfizer was complex as certain situations required logical decisions on how to handle personal relationships and professional relationships (Elkind & Reingold, 2011). Kindler deployed the wrong management techniques to deal with serious concerns in the company. Kindler favored some behaviors of the senior managers and disfavored the behaviors of others due to the influence of personal relationships.

Whereas Kindler wanted to implement changes that may have positively influenced the performance of the organization, the approach that he used was unprofessional. However, the problem was not dependent on Kindler as the C.E.O of the organization. In the case, it is noticeable that the leadership scandals were allover the management system as most of the managers complained about the board members (Elkind & Reingold, 2011). The managers believed in handling the company problems through what Chris Argyris refers to a single-loop learning approach. In single-loop learning, leaders often affirm their positions and administrative demands through the established goals, values, rules, or plans (Argyris, 2010). The fall of Kindler was also the fall of all managers since all of them believed in similar leadership styles.

For the managers in Pfizer, and especially Kindler, everyone under his authority was to abide by the authoritatively imposed plans. Kindler and other managers believed that members should ensure that plans, objectives, goals, and commands should remain embraced rather than being questioned. This kind of leadership is coercive and workers tend to resist in an environment where managers use excess authority to implement their strategies or command their actions in the management (Argyris, 2010). In Pfizer, each manager, especially Kindler, tended to rely on the established policies and regulations to impose authoritative leadership skills in the management. The scenario at Pfizer reveals that managers can sometimes remain overwhelmed by their management roles and use wrong management techniques.

Yukl’s Real Life Suggestions in the Case

Based on the case of Pfizer, managers tended to use their techniques to influence leadership in the company (Elkind & Reingold, 2011). Such approaches are contrary to Yukl’s management taxonomy that suggests that leaders should embrace flexible and adaptive leadership techniques when unusual circumstances arise in their companies (Yukl, 2013). Yukl’s management taxonomy asserts that managers should develop adaptive behaviors to deal with unique dilemmas or unusual circumstances that occur within their leadership (Yukl, 2013). According to Yukl (2013), management practice involves encountering several crises, and dealing with such crises requires leaders to act with unusual behaviors and actions to solve the management complications that arise. Yukl’s management taxonomy also suggests that leaders should be good at problem-solving.


The case of Pfizer’s Palace Coup presents several leadership lapses that have persistently marred the effective performance of the Pfizer. Kindler and other managers tended to believe in a management approach that dwelled on the foundations of the theory of single-loop learning. The manager believed that rules, regulations, plans, and commands should remain upheld and operational rather than questionable among the employees. Chris Argyris believes that a single-loop approach can sometimes be unachievable because management is a complex practice. Kindler was also against the right leadership approaches suggested by Yukl. Yukl believes that when unusual circumstances occur in leadership, managers should develop adaptive and flexible leadership techniques to deal with the situations.


Argyris, C. (2010). Chris Argyris: theories of action, double‐loop learning and organizational learning. Web.

Elkind, P., & Reingold, J (2011). Inside Pfizer’s palace coup. Web.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations Global Edition. United Kingdom, London: Pearson Education Limited.

Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2004). Flexible Leadership: Creating Value by Balancing Multiple Challenges and Choices. United States, Albany: John Wiley & Sons.

Registered Nurses’ Role And Regulatory Requirements


The number of diagnostic and surgical procedures performed by non-anesthetic practitioners is rising. The State Boards of Nursing issue directions on anesthesia methods that are adapted into hospital policies to avoid inconsistencies, ensure patient safety and promote regulatory compliance. The Board decisions are founded in practice principles and recommendations developed by expert healthcare organizations and federal/state regulatory authorities. Registered Nurses’ (RNs) role in conscious sedation is one area where institutional policy informed by the Board standards and guidelines can advance best practices and compliance. The realm of practice of specialized RNs must be within the regulatory standards of their state licensure and administrative policies (Crego, 2015). This paper proposes a regulatory requirement for the RN role in administering conscious sedation to patients undergoing radiological procedures in Florida hospitals.

Description of the Regulation

The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that the RN-administration of conscious sedation occurs within the RN scope of practice as determined by the training, knowledge, and skills. The definition recognized is that of The Joint Commission, i.e., conscious sedation is a “drug-induced suppression of consciousness” to promote patient tolerance of “diagnostic and invasive procedures” (Hurford & Staubach, 2013, p. 17).

In this view, it is recognized that the administration of non-anesthetic drugs for conscious sedation falls within the realm of RN practice. However, the RN must possess the requisite training/expertise, skills, and abilities to function. Further, the monitoring of the patient under conscious sedation falls within the RN realm of practice, irrespective of whether the medication used is anesthetic or not. However, the RN role must be within the hospital policy and involve the guidance of a physician performing conscious sedation.

The administration of anesthetics or the monitoring of sedated patients does not fall within the realm of RN practice as defined by The Joint Commission. Perioperative RNs eligible to perform conscious sedation shall have the following skills and competencies:

  • A demonstrated understanding of sedatives, medication classification, dosage levels, drug-drug interactions, and contraindications
  • Skills in cardiac life support, emergency protocols for respiratory complications, oxygen delivery devices, and physiologic assessments based on the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines, etc.
  • The registered nurse should not administer drugs excluded from use by licensure. However, he/she may monitor physician-administered anesthetic drugs

The Need for this Regulation

Florida’s Board of Nursing limits non-advanced RN’s use of medications for conscious sedation. This means that all RNs must operate within the practice scope defined by the licensure and institutional policies and guidelines (Crego, 2015). However, variability in institutional policies and physician/RN practices related to the administration and monitoring of conscious sedation increases the risk of sentinel events. Therefore, there is a need for a clear position statement to regulate and define the scope of non-CRNA RN practice with regard to the administration and monitoring of medications considered anesthetics to minimize sedation complications.

Besides, such regulation will outline drugs classified as anesthetics and the acute-care patients that should receive them. It will also define the requisite advanced skills and competencies for CRNA RNs to offer moderate/conscious sedation to promote patient safety and avoid sedation complications. Demonstrated skills in “oxygen delivery, anesthetic medications, airway management, rescue procedures, and risk assessment” would determine the scope of practice of non-advanced RNs (Caperelli-White & Urman, 2014, p. 421).

Communicating and Implementing this Regulation

The regulation will be presented to the conscious sedation committee of the Board for discussion with the aim that it will result in policy adaptations in hospitals across Florida. The discussion will also focus on the scope of RN practice, barriers, knowledge deficits, and TJC definition of conscious sedation. The regulatory requirement will be communicated to nurse administrators/managers through e-mail. The nurse managers will be notified of the new regulation and best practice recommendations for policy adaptations.

Implementation of this regulation will be a three-step process. In the first step, as Fencl (2016) recommends, the hospitals will be required to implement an Aldrete tool for “discharge scoring after anesthesia” outside PACU environments (p. 506). The RNs will be required to receive training on conscious sedation and the use of the Aldrete tool post-anesthesia. The training will promote compliance with this regulation among RNs. The second step will involve a hospital policy to utilize the capnography equipment to “monitor the partial pressure of carbon dioxide” in all conscious sedation cases (Ketcham, Ketcham, & Bushnell, 2013, p. 21). The aim is to promote patient safety by preventing respiratory complications during RN administration and monitoring of conscious sedation. The third step will involve collaborating with the Nursing Education Council to support training options that improve medication knowledge of RNs at the institutional level.

Determining Regulatory Compliance

The Board of Nursing will determine regulatory compliance based on facility tours to evaluate anesthetizing procedures and equipment, evaluation of the RN staff – credentials and conscious sedation techniques, and examining hospital policies. Further, the RN practice in this area must be consistent with the credentials/skills defined in this regulation.


Conscious sedation is a multi-faceted issue. State to state differences in RN training, practice guidelines, and acts cause confusion. The regulation proposed aims to regulate RN skills and competences in the administration and monitoring of anesthetic agents. It aims to promote compliance with guidelines provided by expert organizations through local adaptation of the regulation as part of hospital policy.


Caperelli-White, L., & Urman, D. (2014). Developing a moderate sedation policy: Essential elements and evidence-based considerations. Association of Peri-operative Registered Nurses Journal, 99(3), 416-430.

Crego, N. (2015). Procedural sedation practice: A review of current nursing standards. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 6(1), 50-56.

Fencl, J. (2016). Guideline implementation: Moderate sedation/analgesia. Association of Peri-operative Registered Nurses Journal, 103(5), 501-511.

Hurford, W., & Staubach, C. (2013). A hospital policy for procedural sedation in the nonintubated patient. International Anesthesiology Clinics, 51(2), 1-22.

Ketcham, E., Ketcham, C., & Bushnell, L. (2013). Patient safety and nurses’ role in procedural sedation. Emergency Nurse, 21(6), 20-24.

error: Content is protected !!