1. How equitable and sensible were the specific headcount and quota allocations given out by Jacoby in January 2006?
Jacoby tried to create a unit system to determine how to allocate funds and specific headcount and quota allocations. He tried to give the director of each region the flexibility to use the quota allocations as they saw fit. When assigning quotas and headcounts he specifically considered past performance. He tried to be as fair as possible, but of course with any change, they are going to be road bumps and people are always going to feel they are not getting fair treatment.
a. Which region would likely yield the most profitable investment of headcount in H1 2006: East, West, Federal, or Latin America?
I honestly felt like the East would be the most profitable. Garton felt he was being picked on and it caused him to go above and beyond to meet the goal. He could have chosen to given up, but once a salesperson reaches that level of achievement within a company, they are more likely to rise to a challenge just to prove they can do it.
b. Should the East and West regions be equally profitable (i.e. achieve the same revenues per unit)?
On paper, they should be equally profitable but in reality that would be nearly impossible. You are looking at different management styles between Garton and Hall. The west and east do have slightly different markets as well. What is important to a consumer in California may not meet the needs of someone in Virginia. Though the numbers are similar, the regions have completely different mind-sets.
c. Force-rank Jacoby, Garton, Hall, Cheng, Chapas, and Dreyer in order of their likelihood to achieve their target from 1 (most likely to achieve the goal) to 6 (least likely to achieve goal).
1. Garton
2. Hall
3. Cheng
4. Chapas
5. Dreyer (only because there is not enough information given to make a quality