To evaluate a policy, list the criteria the case gives, test the policy against each one using case facts, then make an overall judgement with a condition. This is the last skill in motivation at work because it uses all the others.
How do you evaluate against stated criteria?
- List the criteria exactly as the case states them.
- Test each with a case fact or number. Write pass, partly or fail.
- Weigh them. Say which criterion matters most for this business.
- Judge the whole policy. Recommend it, change it or replace it.
- Add a condition, such as what would make the judgement change.
If an answer needs a plan, the business case-answer planner turns the chain into an outline. It does not write the answer for you.
Worked example
Restoran Selera Kampung is a restaurant in Kota Kinabalu with 15 staff. The owner has stated three criteria for any new policy: it must cost no more than RM3,000 a month, customer complaints about slow service must fall below 10 a month (they are 18 now), and fewer staff must leave (four left last year, and each said the weekly rota is unfair). The policy being judged is a RM150 monthly attendance bonus for every staff member.
Step 1, criterion 1: cost. 15 × RM150 = RM2,250 a month. This is under RM3,000, so it passes, with RM750 to spare.
Step 2, criterion 2: complaints. The complaints are about slow service. An attendance bonus pays people to turn up, not to serve faster, so there is no clear link. It partly meets or fails this criterion.
Step 3, criterion 3: staff leaving. Leavers said the rota is unfair, not that pay is low. The bonus does not address the rota. It probably fails this criterion.
Step 4, weigh. The case treats complaints and staff leaving as the real problems. Cost is a limit rather than the aim.
Step 5, judge with a condition. The policy fits the budget but misses the two aims that matter most. A better option is a fair rota, which costs little in cash, together with a small team bonus for service speed. The attendance bonus could still help if lateness turned out to be the cause of slow service, but the case gives no evidence of that.
The mistake to watch for
A common slip is to judge on one criterion and stop.
Mistaken answer: “The policy costs RM2,250, which is within the budget, so it is a good policy.”
It passed cost and ignored the other two criteria the owner stated.
The correction is to test every criterion, then weigh. A policy that is affordable but does not solve the stated problem is not yet a good recommendation.
Check yourself
Use this case: a bakery in Johor Bahru allows RM2,400 a month for a staff policy, wants fewer than 12 order mistakes a month (now 20) and wants staff to stay at least a year. Policy: a RM100 bonus for each of 20 staff for every month with no mistake in their own orders.
1. Find the cost if all 20 earn the bonus. Does it meet the budget?
Show answer
20 × RM100 = RM2,000. This is below RM2,400, so it meets the budget.
2. Does the policy link to the mistakes criterion? Give a reason.
Show answer
Yes, directly. The bonus is paid for months without mistakes, so it rewards the behaviour the owner wants to change. A limit is that staff may hide mistakes instead of fixing them.
3. The case gives no information about why staff leave. What should your conclusion say about the third criterion?
Show answer
It should say the evidence is not enough to judge the staying criterion, and name what would help, such as asking staff why they leave. A bonus may help retention but the case does not show it.
Where this leads next
Work through the mixed practice set to use every skill from this module together. For the wider case-answer method, see case analysis and evaluation.
If you want a teacher to check your evaluation paragraphs line by line, our online one-to-one Business tuition is built around that kind of feedback.