Camp Happy HRM Case PDF

Preview

Summary

Camp Happy Case...

Description

S

w

CAMP HAPPY VALLEY

Sara McCormick prepared this case under the supervision of Elizabeth M.A. Grasby solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality. Ivey Management Services prohibits any form of reproduction, storage or transmittal without its written permission. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Management Services, c/o Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7; phone (519) 661-3208; fax (519) 661-3882; e-mail [email protected]. Copyright © 2002, Ivey Management Services

Version: (A) 2009-11-09

In February 2001, Adam Cameron, programmer for Camp Happy Valley (Happy Valley) in London, Ontario, was wondering what he could do to boost the camp’s morale. After a disappointing season last summer resulting in many complaints from staff, campers and parents, Cameron knew changes had to be made to ensure the camp’s upcoming summer season would be a success. Cameron, a first-year student at The University of Western Ontario, knew that the reading week in February would be the only time he would have to fully develop his action plan before the 2001 camp season began.

THE CAMPING INDUSTRY

Camping was considered a unique and valuable industry. As described by the camping association, “whether a day or resident camp,1 camping allows a child to be immersed in an experience not available anywhere else.” Camp experience was regarded as a valuable asset by educators and employers because of the skill sets gained by the campers and staff while at camp. Camp was also considered a practical solution to concerns regarding the behavioral problems of an increasing number of troubled youth. The camping industry had seen tremendous growth since the 1960s. In total, the number of children who attended camp in Ontario each summer was approximately 800,000 to approximately 125,000 staff.2 The Ontario Camping Association estimated that the gross revenues of camps were $460 million. A large percentage of these revenues fuelled the economies of smaller communities in the province and were considered to be a major source for their survival. Further, outdoor sporting goods companies and various other suppliers relied on the purchases made by camps. Based on the large operating and overhead costs incurred by camps over a short operating season, the Ontario government assisted with this burden by instituting the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1990. 1

A resident camp was synonymous to an overnight camp; generally, campers registered for week-long intervals, some spending their entire summer away at camp. 2 All data was sourced from the Ontario Camping Association, 2001.

Authorized for use only by Juan Cordero in HR Management 2 at Oklahoma State University from Mar 25, 2015 to Jul 07, 2015. Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

9B02C016

Page 2

9B02C016

1. Increasing the ratio of campers to staff, thereby decreasing the quality of program; 2. Decreasing the ability of camps to offer financial assistance to campers of lower socioeconomic classes;

3. Forcing camps to raise their fees or decrease the funding allocated to meeting operational standards; or 4. Forcing camps to close. CAMP HAPPY VALLEY HISTORY

Happy Valley began in 1965 as a summer day camp for children living in the city of London, Ontario. Since its inception, the camp’s objective had been “to maximize the camper’s experience through a multitude of activity in a positive and safe atmosphere.” Happy Valley became an accredited member of the prestigious Ontario Camping Association (OCA) in 1965, a non-profit organization. The OCA set approximately 400 operational standards, and members had to agree to meet or surpass these standards to maintain their membership status. As membership in this organization was voluntary, Happy Valley leveraged its membership with the OCA to further promote to the public its commitment to a safe environment for the campers. Happy Valley had always operated as a non-profit organization, whereby all profits were reinvested into the camp to continually improve the camp’s facilities. Any revenues exceeding expenses in an operating year could be “banked”3 for a maximum of five years before reinvesting the funds into the camp.

FACILITIES

Happy Valley’s location prohibited its ability to offer waterfront activities, which were often considered an integral part of the camp experience; however, the camp itself was self-contained and had the feel of a “typical” camp environment. The camp facilities included an outdoor swimming pool, sport fields, an indoor gym, and a large multi-purpose room. Additionally, the indoor areas allowed the camp to continue during inclement weather.

CAMPERS

All campers were assigned to sections by age group and then were further sub-divided into smaller, more manageable groups of approximately nine campers each. In total, there were 10 sections of campers, spanning the ages of two to 12 years. Each group of nine campers was assigned to an average of three counsellors, who were supervised by the section head. 3

“Banked” money referred to excess funds that could be held over from one period to the next.

Authorized for use only by Juan Cordero in HR Management 2 at Oklahoma State University from Mar 25, 2015 to Jul 07, 2015. Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

According to this act, “a person employed as a student at a camp for children is exempt from the following provisions of the existing act: minimum wage, overtime pay and public holidays.” However, as of December 21, 2000, the Ontario Legislature had passed a new Employment Standards Act but was still in the process of re-evaluating the current regulatory exemptions for particular sectors. The Ontario Camping Association felt that removal of these exemptions would have serious negative impacts on the camps, including:

9B02C016

For many children, the decision to attend camp was not their own. Parents usually decided on the camp and were generally concerned with the reputation of the camp, the facilities, the quality of the programs and the opportunities offered by the camp. Safety measures and the quality of care offered by the staff were concerns. Happy Valley’s fees varied based on the age of the camper and the length of the session. On average, Happy Valley charged a per-camper fee of $700 for two weeks, $1,100 for four weeks, $1,600 for six weeks and $2,000 for eight weeks. Camper fees were not as critical a factor because most parents appeared to have high disposable incomes. Since Happy Valley did not advertise its facility, referrals from other parents were critical in attracting new campers. Therefore, it was very important that parents’ concerns were minimized and, if and when they arose, were handled properly.

STAFF COMPLEMENT

Happy Valley employed a total of 5004 staff members for 1,5005 campers. The super staff team (included in the 500 count) was composed of the program director, 10 section6 heads, the swim director, three head swim staff, the programmer and five administrative staff (see Exhibit 1). This group oversaw the camp counsellors, swimming staff and specialists who were brought in to teach the campers such things as archery, drama and music. Cameron described the attitude of the super staff team. Happy Valley employs a lot of fun-loving people. While there is a definite hierarchy, the group really functions as one cohesive team. The super staff have a lot of additional responsibility and usually a little more experience, but [we] don’t carry around the attitude that [we’re] better than the rest of the staff. For the most part, everyone gets along. Cameron believed that the primary reason the staff were initially attracted to Happy Valley was the opportunity to spend the summer working with friends who were employed at the camp. Cameron thought that some of the other factors influencing a staff member’s decision to work at a day camp included the “camp” experience without the commitment of staying overnight, the low ratios of staff to campers and the desire to work with children. Cameron thought that camp staff returned to Happy Valley for another summer primarily based on the quality of their experience — leadership skills gained, the social atmosphere and the campers themselves — from the previous summer.

STAFF COMPENSATION

Two factors controlled employee salaries at Happy Valley. Since Happy Valley was a not-for-profit company, it restricted its salary expense to a small percentage of annual revenues. Second, the exemptions in the Employment Standards Act allowed camps to pay their staff less than minimum wage.

4

The 500 staff members refers to the total number of staff employed for one summer season. However, not all staff members worked for the full nine weeks. The actual number of staff in the camp at any one time was approximately 300. 5 Although there were 1,500 campers registered for a summer season at Happy Valley, a maximum of only 1,000 campers were in camp at any one time. Campers could register for two-, four-, six- or eight-week sessions. 6 A “section” is a group of campers in the same age group.

Authorized for use only by Juan Cordero in HR Management 2 at Oklahoma State University from Mar 25, 2015 to Jul 07, 2015. Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

Page 3

Page 4

9B02C016

Happy Valley found that because of the competitive recruiting environment, it could not pay the same low salaries to the swim staff. While some summer camps employed lifeguards with the minimum training requirements, Happy Valley demanded that all of its swim staff be certified by the Red Cross, Royal Life Saving Society Canada (RLSSC) and the National Lifesaving Society (NLS). The starting salary for junior swim staff was $1,500, while a senior swim staff member received $2,500 for the summer. These staff members also received $75 for each additional summer employed at the camp. Further, swim staff were paid an additional $30 for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) certification and $30 for aquatic emergency care (AEC) certification.

STAFF RECRUITING

Happy Valley found that only one in four staff members returned the following year. Because of this high staff turnover, compounded with the competitive recruiting environment, Happy Valley began recruiting for new staff almost immediately after the camp season was over.

Super Staff Selection

Sue Johnson, the camp’s director, was directly responsible for hiring the super staff team. Since the majority of the super staff team was made up of returning staff, Johnson made many of her decisions about this group at the end of the summer. It was critical that all members of the super staff were hired by December (at the latest), because this group conducted the interviews to select new staff.

Returning Staff Selection

The staff (counsellors, swim staff and specialists) received a mid-summer evaluation and a final evaluation, both of which were completed by their section super staff member. At the end of the summer, the section head made one of three recommendations: do not hire; hire with a good interview; or rehire. Any staff member who was interested in returning for a second summer and who had received a “good” or “rehire” recommendation attended a very informal interview with a super staff member. The super staff9 conducted all the interviewing and hiring of the candidates “whenever they had a chance”; there was no formal process to decide who would interview whom. For returning staff interviews, the staff members were asked to explain their reasons for wanting to return and to tell what they learned from their camp staff experience.

7

One summer for a staff member was nine weeks. This included one week spent in pre-camp training and eight weeks in camp itself. 8 The remaining portion, the honorarium, would be calculated on a daily basis and the staff member would be paid accordingly. 9 Excluding the administrative staff.

Authorized for use only by Juan Cordero in HR Management 2 at Oklahoma State University from Mar 25, 2015 to Jul 07, 2015. Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

For 2001, junior (15 to 16 years old) and senior (17 years old and older) counsellors would receive summer7 salaries of $533 and $1,980 respectively. Each staff member’s salary would be divided into two equal parts — an honorarium and a bonus. A staff member had to complete the summer session to receive the bonus; therefore, if staff members quit or were fired at any point during the summer, they would forfeit half their salary.8 Happy Valley paid an early signing bonus of $75, and $75 for each additional summer that staff members were employed at the camp.

Page 5

9B02C016

In the past, Happy Valley had placed advertisements for staff at the YMCA, employment services, high schools and local pools (specifically targeting swim staff). Happy Valley also relied heavily on referrals from current staff and rewarded those staff who successfully recruited others with gift certificates (around $25 to $50) to popular stores such as Roots and HMV. In total, the super staff interviewed 1,000 new and returning candidates for approximately 470 positions. New staff candidates were evaluated on their spirit, their ability to be responsible, their level of maturity and any related experience that would benefit them in the staff position. The super staff member then gave a “poor, okay, good, or excellent” rating; anyone who received “poor or okay” was rejected. Those candidates given a “good or excellent” rating had to supply the camp with three references who were then contacted by someone from Happy Valley. After giving a rating, the interviewer then noted a few comments about the candidate and made a decision as to where that candidate would fit best, based on which sections still needed staff members. This candidate was then recommended to the section head. Cameron described the reference check process: We [Happy Valley] rely heavily on the references to speak to the level of maturity and responsibility of the candidate, as fostering a safe environment for the campers is very important to us [Happy Valley]. However, checking references is never an organized process. The super staff member is supposed to contact all of the references for all of the candidates they interview. Too often, we [super staff] can’t get a hold of the reference and there ends up being a huge pile of references that still need to be checked. At that point, it becomes the responsibility of whoever has a chance to sit down and do the reference checks. We have to check at least two references before we can offer a candidate a contract with the camp and all three references have to be contacted before the contract is signed. We lose so many potential staff members because by the time we check all of their references and get around to offering them a position, that person has already taken a summer job elsewhere.

STAFF TRAINING Super Staff Training

Super staff were required to attend a one-week training session which took place during the first week in June. There were three objectives of this training week: to allow the super staff an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the training manual, to develop interesting and creative ways to present the manual material to the camp staff, and to foster a positive team feeling among the members of the super staff team. Unlike the rest of the staff team, the super staff were employed fulltime beginning in June. There were often many workshops, covering a variety of different topics (including “defining customer service” and “how to be an effective leader”) planned for the month to augment the initial super staff training week. Cameron noted that because of the tedious administrative tasks (last-minute hiring, program planning and other camp preparation) that had to be completed before the camp season officially began, there was often not enough time to administer the workshops.

Authorized for use only by Juan Cordero in HR Management 2 at Oklahoma State University from Mar 25, 2015 to Jul 07, 2015. Use outside these parameters is a copyright violation.

New Staff Selection

Page 6

9B02C016

Pre-camp, which took place during the last week of June, was a mandatory training session for all Happy Valley camp staff (excluding the administrative staff). The main objectives of this training week were to develop staff skills, familiarize staff with the camp (i.e., objectives, facilities, policies), and foster positive interstaff relationships. Cameron, who had assumed the responsibility for organizing the training week, had no materials to work from because the previous organizer had resigned, leaving very little material behind. Cameron felt that the structure of the past summer’s staff training week was a major contributing factor to recent problems at the camp. Last summer, pre-camp was based around a 75-page manual. The training was monotonous, as it was often the same person speaking; people got bored quickly. Cheering and other team spirit activities were left to the end of the day, at which point most staff members were tired and felt that the team-building activities were a waste of their time. The result from that week was a lot of lonely staff members and no team feeling. To make matters worse, this lack of team spirit continued on throughout the summer. The kids’ attitudes directly mirrored the poor attitude of the camp staff, and the infirmary10 (which historically saw very few campers) saw an increase in camper attendance. There, they received personal attention and care from the nurses, a role that should have been filled by the staff. These same kids would then go home and complain to their parents, resulting in a noticeable increase in parent complaints to head office.

ADAM CAMERON — PROGRAMMER

I first came to Happy Valley four years ago as a member of the junior swim staff. I applied for the job because a lot of my friends worked there and I was looking for a fun summer. I received a promotion each year but always with the pool staff. Therefore, it was a challenge when, in November 2000, Sue asked me to take on the new position of programmer. She had become very concerned about the lack of staff spirit, motivation and positive leadership around camp and expressed an interest in “turning the camp around.” I am really proud to work at Happy Valley and I love the kids; I guess that Sue saw that pride and enthusiasm in me. Plus, after working here for four summers, I know a lot about the camp and found that less experienced staff members would often come to me for advice. I realized that I could gain valuable leadership experience by accepting the new position, so I decided to go for it. I am excited to play a role in the whole camp, especially with the hiring and training of staff. My other responsibilities will include behavior management of the staff and campers, staff spirit and morale, and programming of special events at camp.

CAMERON’S TASK

Cameron knew the upcoming reading week would be critical in terms of planning for the summer of 2001. No changes had been made to the recruiting process, nor had any changes been made to the pre-camp staff 10

The Infirmary was staffed by nurses to care for children who became ill while at camp.

Autho...