1
HR Business Case – Assessment 1
Managing Change 21884, AUT2021
Stark Parker is a global professional services firm
with operations in Australia, New Zealand and
South-East Asia. The company has more than
5,000 employees and has been advising their
clients on risk, strategy and people for over 75
years.
With the lockdown coming out of the COVID-19
response, more companies than ever before are
relying on virtual employees working from their
homes, many for the first time. That presents an
interesting new dynamic for both the employer and

the employee. Stark Parker has been also forced to
transition from their employees being physically
present in their offices to working remotely. The
CEO of the company is aware that even if a
vaccine or effective treatment will open the
possibility of safe return to the traditional
workplace, remote work will take a permanent
place in the employment mix. Virtual teamwork
models, done right, allow organisations to better
recruit talent, achieve innovation, and define a
future of work that is more flexible, digital, and
purposeful.
However, the company approached virtual work by merely
replacing face-to-face
communication with virtual meetings without any additional
considerations. Apart from
traditional difficulties of managing virtual teams, such as
missing visual cues and gestures that
people can pick up on with in-person communication or not
being able to get the point across

effectively, there are further issues. In particular, face-to-face
one-on-one coaching sessions
between managers and their employees have been replaced by a
suitable virtual alternative.
Yet, non-existent in-office interaction has made employees
feeling unsupported especially
during these difficult times. The question of how staff may be
supported and developed to face
future challenges tends to be neglected since managers are busy
going from one Zoom meeting
to another. Lack of management by results (supporting
employee autonomy on when, where
and how they do their work) in the company, the managers feel
that they cannot trust that their
employees are actually doing the work and employees are
feeling micromanaged. Moreover,
newly hired employees feel highly disengaged, and
communication with divisions in Asia has
become more problematic as travel restrictions prevented
managers from having face-to-face
interactions with their colleagues from other cultures. As a
result, lack of socialisation and
genuine support from managers – an essential part of office life
– deteriorated the firm’s culture

by creating a lack of trust and disengagement.
In your HR leadership role, you would like to contribute to an
increase of productivity through
a more engaged workforce as well as making the company more
attractive to talent. To do this,
P
h
o
to
b
y
E
d
w
a
r
d
J
e
n
n
e
r
f
ro
m

P
e
x
e
ls
https://www.pexels.com/@edward-
jenner?utm_content=attributionCopyText&utm_medium=referra
l&utm_source=pexels
https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-using-her-laptop-on-
video-call-
4031821/?utm_content=attributionCopyText&utm_medium=refe
rral&utm_source=pexels
2
it has become clear to you that the company’s approach to
virtual work is underdeveloped and
what is more, the current way of how remote work is done is not
effective. You are not alone
in this view. In conversations with frontline managers and
employees, you have established
that their feelings about the current way of working range from
resignation to downright
hostility (‘toxic working environment’, ‘demotivating’, ‘too
stressful’ and ‘lack of support’).

The problem is, the senior executive team is nervous about
tinkering with a system that, in their
minds, has worked fairly well. There are a number of views in
the leadership team. The CEO
is fundamentally open to change as long as it aligns with the
company’s value statements (see
below) and helps increase the company’s competitive market
position. In particular, his
message on the company’s website is: “For the many challenges
this pandemic poses, it also
presents opportunities – new ways of thinking and working, new
approaches to business and a
greater emphasis on community-focused solutions.” He is joined
by the Marketing and Sales
Operating Officers who believe that the firm’s culture would
benefit from becoming more
collaborative and trusting. The Divisional Leaders tend to have
a more neutral position: they
are aware of frontline managers’ and staff’s disengagement with
the current way of virtual
work across all divisions, but see it as a ‘necessary evil’ since
they believe there are no
alternative options and that virtual work is just short-term
solution. The Chief Operating

Officer and Chief Financial Officer believe that the company
has a solid system that everyone
knows how to use and that provides clear communication
channels, so why change it?
To make matters more complex, there is a degree of change
fatigue in the organisation. The
company’s approach to change has traditionally been to have
experts design the change and
then tell managers to implement it. But the workforce consists
predominantly of unionised,
long-time employees, so it is difficult to mandate changes if
they do not like them. As one of
the frontline managers has told you: “We’ve been through
different change management
programs, and the perception at the front lines is that if you
duck your head, they go away.
There is a certain amount of cynicism in the organisation.”
Knowing this, you are fully aware
that the senior executive team will likely have concerns and
queries around the proposed
change, e.g.:
- What are the key benefits for the firm? Is it really worth the
effort?

- What will make this change initiative successful, as opposed
to other failed change
initiatives by external consultancies that they have endorsed in
the past?
- How does your proposed change initiative align with the
company’s current value
statements and external market drivers?
- What is the business case for it, compared to the status quo in
how virtual work virtual
is currently handled by the firm?
- How will staff and frontline managers be involved in the
process so that the initiative
does not end up being undermined, as has been the case with
previous (top-down)
driven change efforts?
Stark Parker’s value statement
1. We strive for excellence in what we do. We are committed to
the continuous
improvement of our services, and we achieve this by
continuously developing and
deepening our knowledge of our people, our customers, and our
business.
2. We lead in ways that provide recognition, motivation, and
empowerment – by listening,
seeking feedback, and working with our staff on the attainment
of shared goals.

3
3. We encourage accountability and ownership across divisions
and roles, and we strive
for a culture of empowerment.
4. We treat each other with respect. We embrace diverse
communities, cultures and points
of view. We understand how we differ and how we are similar.
5. We work together as one team. To collaborate well, we trust
each other and work
together towards shared goals because we know that this is how
we can offer our
customers the best service.
General instructions
In this assessment, students will develop a persuasive and
critically informed business case for a human resource
management change initiative - HR Business Casedownload.
Addressing a specific scenario, students are asked to prepare a
short presentation of their business case for a senior
management audience. Students will outline the business
problem against the background of contemporary drivers of
organisational change and indicate, in general terms, their
human resource management solution to the problem. Their
business case will critically evaluate the proposed solution in
consideration of alternative options, key benefits, requirements
and success factors. Through this assessment, students will
develop their organisational development competencies, as well

as their ability to influence decision-makers in considering
innovative human resource management strategies that align
business requirements with organisational cultural, social and/or
ecological concerns.
Assessment Criteria
1. Clarity of Communication (30%) – Information is structured
and presented clearly drawing on verbal and non-verbal means
of professional communication
2. Critical Analysis (40%) – Substantive analysis of the
business problem and consideration of alternative options and
implications
3. Persuasive Argument (30%) – Ability to develop a persuasive
value proposition tailored to strategic needs and priorities of the
target audience
Detailed instructions
In this assessment, you will prepare and record a 5-minute video
presentation and upload a link for it via Canvas. In preparing
for this video, you will assume the role of a company’s HR
director that seeks to tackle a specific organisational challenge
(please read the HR Business Casedownloadwhich will be
presented in our first seminar). In responding to the challenge,
you will first need to consider and map out a human resource
management change initiative that addresses the organisational
scenario. Your task is then to develop a business case for this
change initiative. Your video presentation is essentially a
‘pitch’ to senior management designed to persuade them to
implement your proposal in the organisation. It involves the
following core components:
1. What is your proposed change initiative/strategy?
2. Why should senior management endorse your proposal (see
related questions in change scenario)?
3. Briefly, how will you implement the change in ways that will
be embraced by the business?

Assignment 1: Business case presentation (Individual)
Assignment 1: Business case presentation (Individual)
Criteria
Ratings
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClarity of
communication (30%)
Information is structured and presented clearly drawing on
verbal and non-verbal means of professional communication.
HD
Presentation style is appropriate for audience; information is
presented clearly and fluently and is unambiguous; clear and
logical structure; demonstrates expert language capability with
respect to grammar and expression; exemplifies highest level of
professional communication standards.
D
Presentation style is appropriate for audience; information is
presented clearly and fluently and is unambiguous; clear and
logical structure; demonstrates advanced language capability
with respect to grammar and expression; exemplifies
professional communication standards.
C
Presentation style is appropriate for audience; information is
presented clearly and fluently with few ambiguous elements;
structure largely clear and logical; demonstrates good language
skills with few errors/weaknesses in grammar and expression.
P
Presentation style is adequate but not the most appropriate for
audience; information is not always presented clearly or
fluently; structure does not follow clear logic; several
ambiguous elements evident; demonstrates adequate language
capability with errors/weaknesses in grammar and expression.
F
Presentation style is inappropriate for audience; information
presented is incoherent and ambiguous; structure is unclear and
confusing; many errors in grammar and expression.

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical analysis
(40%)
Substantive analysis of the business problem and consideration
of alternative options and implications.
HD
Analysis of the business problem is comprehensive and
accurate; presentation identifies and evaluates impact of
significant inter-relationships and inter-dependencies in
data/evidence. Considers alternative options and implications
for the company.
D
Analysis of the business problem is largely comprehensive and
accurate; presentations identifies and evaluates impact of
significant inter-relationships and inter-dependencies in
data/evidence. Considers different implications for the
company.
C
Key influencing factors are considered in the analysis; minor
gaps and misinterpretation in underpinning data/evidence; sound
evaluation of data/evidence.
P
Depth of analysis is inconsistent across factors considered;
omissions and misinterpretations in underpinning data/evidence
base; basic level of data interrogation; adequate range of
perspectives considered.
F
Scope and depth of analysis is limited with misinterpretation of
data/ evidence; significant omissions in evidence/data used and
perspectives considered; lack of data interrogation.
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePersuasive
Argument (30%)
Ability to develop a persuasive value proposition tailored to
strategic needs and priorities of the target audience.
HD

Value proposition is well-developed and scoped; is imaginative
in direction; demonstrates sophisticated level of logic in
reasoning; extends a novel idea to create new solutions or
solutions that cross boundaries.
D
Value proposition is well-developed and scoped; shows some
imagination in direction; demonstrates sound logic in reasoning;
extends primarily tested ideas to create bespoke solutions.
C
Value proposition is developed with some limitations in scope;
follows tested direction to produce adequate solutions; largely
demonstrates sound logic in reasoning.
P
Adequate value proposition developed but limited in scope;
solutions based on partial evidence or incomplete reasoning.
F
Developed value proposition is illogical/ inappropriate/
simplistic; previous knowledge is not applied; underlying issues
are not addressed; reasoning unsupported by data analysis.