This Document Contains Cases 1 to 12 Case Chapter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A Mir Kiss? ! ! ! ! Arctic Mining Consultants ! ! ! ! ! ! Barrie Super Subs ! ! ! ! ! ! Fran Hayden Joins Dairy Engineering ! ! ! ! ! ! Going to the X-Stream ! ! ! ! ! ! Keeping Suzanne Chalmers ! ! ! ! Northwest Canadian Forest Products Ltd ! ! ! ! ! The Regency Grand Hotel ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Simmons Laboratories ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Star Enterprises ! ! ! Tamarack Industries ! ! ! ! ! The Outstanding Faculty Award ! ! ! Chapter 1: Introduction to the Field of Organizational Behaviour Chapter 2: Individual Behaviour, Personality, and Values Chapter 3: Perceiving Ourselves and Others in Organizations Chapter 4: Workplace Emotions, Attitudes, and Stress Chapter 5: Foundations of Employee Motivation Chapter 6: Applied Performance Practices Chapter 7: Decision Making and Creativity Chapter 8: Team Dynamics Chapter 9: Communicating in Organizations Chapter 10: Power and Influence in the Workplace Chapter 11: Conflict and Negotiation in the Workplace Chapter 12: Leadership in Organizational Settings Chapter 13: Designing Organizational Structures Chapter 14: Organizational Culture Chapter 15: Organizational Change CASE 1: A MIR KISS? These case teaching notes were prepared by Steven L McShane, The University of Western Australia Primary Case Topics Conflict, cross-cultural issues, team dynamics Case Synopsis This case describes the actual events in the replica of the Mir space station at Moscow's Institute for Biomedical Problems (IBMP). The Mir replica included four Russian cosmonauts who had already completed half of their 240 days of isolation, and an international crew of three researchers from Japan, Canada, and Austria. The Canadian, Judith LaPierre, was the only female participant. Trouble began when two of the cosmonauts fought on New Year’s Eve. Later that evening, the Russian cosmonaut commander tried to kiss LaPierre twice. He tried again the next morning. The researchers were appalled by the behaviour of the cosmonauts and by IBMP’s inaction. Japan’s researcher quit and was replaced by a Russian researcher. The connection between the cosmonauts and the researchers was permanently sealed soon after. When revealed to the public, IBMP’s Russian scientists dismissed the kissing incident by saying that it was one fleeting kiss, a clash of cultures, and a female participant who was too emotional. Discussion Questions and Suggested Answers 1. Identify the different conflict episodes that exist in this case? Who was in conflict with whom? Students should be able to identify several conflict episodes and conflicting parties in this case. Lapierre experienced conflict twice with the Russian commander who tried to kiss her. The international researchers experienced conflict with the Russian cosmonauts who were fighting with each other. The Russian cosmonauts who were fighting obviously were in conflict with each other. The international researchers experienced conflict with IBMP because of their inaction. The Japanese space program also experienced conflict with IBMP to the extent that they withdrew from the program. (Although not explicitly stated in the case, LaPierre and her husband experienced conflict with Canada’s space agency over its inaction and failure to protest IBMP’s response to the incidents.) 2. What are the sources of conflict for each of these conflict incidents? Different values and beliefs – This seems to be one of the most significant sources of conflict in this case. The participants had different cultures, different genders, and different educational and professional experiences. The Russians seem to view sexual harassment as less important than do people in Canada, Japan, and Austria. Kissing a woman is apparently considered a compliment (at least, Russian men think this way), whereas it is a personal violation in Canada. The cosmonauts had a different view of their fighting and general experience in isolation than did the international researchers. Task interdependence – Each of the conflicting parties had some level of interdependence with each other. Typically, this was reciprocal interdependence because their actions affected each other throughout the experiment. The researchers and cosmonauts had high interdependence (until they were sealed off from each other) as they shared space and resources in a small area. Ambiguous rules – There seems to be a lack of agreement over proper behaviour. The cosmonaut fight and the sexual harassment incidents clearly violated rules for some people, but weren't viewed as important or clear rules by the cosmonauts or scientists who ran the lab. The participants did not clarify what behaviours are inappropriate (although it is never possible to clarify every behaviour that may result in conflict). IBMP’s interpretation of its role differed from what the international researcher’s expected of that group. Communication -- Although not overt, these people spoke different languages and communicated through English, which was not anyone's 1st language. Certainly the potential for miscommunication as well as reluctance to communicate. Incompatible goals – This is a relatively minor source of conflict compared to other factors. The researchers seem to have a different set of goals than did the IBMP researchers or the cosmonauts. Scarce resources – Some students might identify this as a critical source of conflict, but there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that anyone lacked resources. There was limited personal space, but no other resource seems to be an issue here. 3. What conflict management style(s) did Lapierre, the international team, and Gushin use to resolve these conflicts? What style(s) would have worked best in these situations? LaPierre and Gushin (IBMP researcher) mainly relied on the avoiding conflict management style. Gushin denied there was a problem, at least, not a problem with the cosmonaut’s behaviour. LaPierre initially was quiet on the kissing incident, although she was more active with the international researchers in complaining with the cosmonauts’ behaviour. The international researchers developed a forcing style through their letter of complaint, and the Japanese representative left after diplomatically complaining. (Implicitly, the Canadian space agency developed an accommodating style because it did not complain even though LaPierre’s husband notified the agency a day or two after the New Year’s Eve incident.) It is useful to consider the appropriateness of other conflict management styles where rules of behaviour have been violated. For example, it would be silly to apply a compromising style – should the researchers let the cosmonaut kiss LaPierre once each week? Collaborating is strongly recommended in this textbook because conflicts are rarely completely win-lose. In this incident, the parties might agree on a structural solution that would satisfy everyone. They might try to find ways in which each party can behave comfortably without offending others. To some extent, this involves establishing rules of behaviour, a structural solution described below. 4. What conflict management interventions were applied here? Did they work? What alternative strategies would work best in this situation and in the future? The main strategy tried here was to reduce task interdependence. Specifically, the scientists locked the port between their compartment and the cosmonauts. This seems to have been successful, but it is doubtful that isolating conflicting parties will work in outer space for long periods of time. LaPierre and perhaps the Japanese agency also tried to clarify rules, but without success. Rule clarification can potentially work where the parties can anticipate the types of conflict. However, there are so many potential areas of conflict, that forming rules is usually a reaction more than a proactive conflict management strategy. What should be done here? This is a good question for debate. To correct fundamental causes of conflict, the lab should consider more diversity-type cross-cultural training and team building so everyone knows how the others will perceive their actions (e.g.., trying to kiss women isn't usually perceived by them as a compliment.). CASE 2: ARCTIC MINING CONSULTANTS These case teaching notes were prepared by Steven L McShane, The University of Western Australia Primary Case Topics Motivation, individual performance (MARS), leadership, team dynamics Case Synopsis A crew of four people staked claims for Arctic Mining Consultants. The case describes their production over the seven days, as well as incidents that occurred over this time. In particular, the case describes how the leader (Parker) reacts to the lower performance of Millar and the other crew members. This is one of my favourite cases because it covers diverse topics and has a personal touch to it. Students seem to be very involved in the case -- it is written in a way that they can easily visualize (even though few of us have worked in these harsh conditions.) We don’t have an epilogue, except to say that Millar works in the forest industry in a management position. Symptoms The main symptoms in this case are that Millar’s work effort decreased by the end of the project, Millar was thinking about quitting during the assignment, Millar did not accept subsequent job offers from Parker, and Millar felt dissatisfied with the assignment and with Parker. Problem Analysis The main problems in this case relate to the issues of motivation, leadership, and team dynamics. Motivation Expectancy theory explains why Millar didn’t work as hard at the end of the assignment, and why he did not accept further assignments. Millar had a low E-to-P expectancy due to Parker’s poor coaching. Rather than working with Millar on further improving his performance, and rewarding Millar for his good performance, Parker criticized Millar. This criticism continually weakened Millar’s perception that he is able to perform this type of work. Millar’s low perception of competence made him “give up” during the last day. (This is significant because Millar’s extra effort would have enabled the crew to complete the assignment on time.) Millar’s lack of effort on the last day can also be explained by his P-to-O expectancy. Specifically, Millar believed that he received insults from Parker no matter how well he performed the task. Notice that on the days that Millar completed 8.5 and 7 lengths, Parker said nothing. On days when Millar’s performance was lower, Parker criticized Millar. The P-to-O expectancy also explains the effect of pay and the bonus on Millar’s motivation. Specifically, on the last day, Millar felt that getting an extra day’s pay was almost as good as receiving the bonus, particularly considering the hard work (a negative outcome) he would have to endure to complete the work by the end of the day. (Note: Rather than using expectancy theory, students can analyze Millar’s motivation through behaviour modification, particularly Parker’s use of punishment. Equity theory might also explain Millar’s behaviour on the last day of work. Specifically, he compared himself to Boyce, who continually had lower performance than Millar yet received less verbal abuse. Millar adjusted his inputs (job performance) so that his outcome/input ratio would be balanced with Boyce’s ratio.) MARS Model The key to this case is that Millar had misguided role perceptions. Specifically, he put his effort into higher quality (“picture perfect”) posts and too much blazing (marking out the area), whereas Parker required more quantity than quality. Millar was motivated to perform the work, and he demonstrated an ability to perform the work. Some students will argue that Millar had more difficult territory than the others (i.e. the situation undermined his performance). However, the evidence suggests otherwise. The team covered extensive area over an entire week, so the law of averages suggests that the territory would be fairly evenly distributed over that time. Also, Parker and Talbot worked on the territory of others (assisting them) without any decrease in performance. Even if Millar had more difficult terrain throughout the week, he was short by only 2.5 lengths, which would have been achieved if he focused on quantity and less quality from the beginning. Leadership According to the Path goal leadership model, Parker is effective at setting goals (Achievement-oriented style). However, he does not provide enough (any?) supportive leadership. He does not treat them with respect nor is he concerned for their well being. Yet, path-goal theory says that the leader should be supportive because the work (physical labor, deadlines) are stressful. Parker also fails to use the directive style, yet there is some evidence that he needs to clarify performance criteria. Specifically, near the end of the assignment, Parker complains that Millar is too neat with is work, that is, he should focus more on quantity than quality. This suggests that Millar (and perhaps the others) could use some guidance on the type of performance required for this assignment. Team Dynamics There are several team dynamics operating in this case. Parker and Talbot share one tent, and Millar and Boyce share the other tent. This physical arrangement may have weakened relations between Parker and the employees in the other tent. Team cohesion is perhaps also low due to the low task interdependence in this assignment. Team cohesiveness seems to be low because the team norm of completing the project on time was not supported by Boyce. (Boyce said that he worked only as hard as he had to.) Recommended Solution It is probably too late to encourage Millar to work with this company again. However, several long term actions would improve motivation, performance, and retention of other employees. One recommendation would be to find out why Parker did not provide more supportive and directive leadership. If he lacks supervisory knowledge, then the company should consider providing him (and perhaps other crew leaders) leadership training. the lack of clear role perceptions is a major issue here, which can be traced back to Parker’s lack of clear direction and coaching (he noticed Millar’s work earlier in the week but said nothing). There may be some problem with the size of the bonus relative to the size of the paycheque for an extra day’s work. Depending on its cost effectiveness, the company might consider increasing the size of the bonus. If Millar (and perhaps other employees) are paying too much attention to the quality of takes and not enough attention to the quantity, then it may be useful to provide some basic “role perception” training. This would be a short session (one-half day?) where employees learn about the performance standards more clearly. CASE 3: BARRIE SUPER SUBS Note: Barrie Super Subs is revision of the famous “Perfect Pizzeria” case, which was written by J. E. Dittrich and R. A. Zawacki Primary Case Topics Employee motivation, behaviour modification, organizational power and influence Case Synopsis Barrie Super subs is one of 300 restaurant franchises throughout Canada. Each operation has one manager, an assistant manager, a few team leaders, and many employees (mostly college and high school students who work part-time). Most employees earn minimum wage. The manager and assistant manager get a bonus for keeping costs (wastage) low. However, employees raise costs by helping themselves to food, and by adding free ingredients when their friends order a sub. Errors are supposed to be charged back to the responsible employee, but the night manager rarely writes this up because of peer pressure. The manager tried to reduce costs by reducing the free food allowance only to staff who work six or more hours (most work less than that minimum), but employees still nibbled whenever the manager or assistant manager were away. Morale fell and about 20 percent of the experienced employees quit. The high turnover and resulting staff shortages required the manager and assistant manager to train staff and spend more time in food preparation (even managers are discouraged from working directly in food preparation.) Accidental wastage increased due to new staff but deliberate wastage feel while the managers were in the restaurant. However, wastage increased again almost immediately after the managers stepped back from daily operations. In response, the manager withdrew all free food allowance and threatened to fire employee caught consuming food. Suggested Case Analysis Symptoms An important symptom in this case is the high level of food wastage. another symptom is morale problems -- employees were dissatisfied with their benefits (no more free food allowed) and management. Similarly, Barrie Super subs suffered from poor employee-management relations. Valued employees quit. The restaurant experienced lower productivity due to inexperienced staff hired and staff shortages. Employee loyalty is very low. Employees remain with the company only due to continuance commitment. Problem Analysis 1. Lack of Motivation to Minimize Food Costs The level of food wastage at Barrie Super Subs was high because employees had little motivation to reduce food costs. This can be explained in terms of the P-to-O expectancy in expectancy theory. Employees received several positive outcomes from the high food wastage. They enjoyed eating the free food (+). They enjoyed the support of their peers for taking food (+). Employees also fulfilled their social needs (drive to bond) and possibly need for status (drive to acquire) by giving free ingredients to their friends (+). Lastly, employees seem to feel inequity in their level of pay relative to other people in the labor market and compared with their previous rewards (better free food allowance). They redressed their feelings of inequity by taking food (+). There were few negative consequences of keeping food costs high. The manager’s threat of dismissals wasn’t very effective because some employees didn’t value the job anyway (i.e., some quit) and others probably didn’t believe (low P-to-O expectancy) that the manager could fire them. Specifically, most employees were taking food, and the manager couldn’t fire everyone. Employees perceived almost no positive outcomes of keeping food costs low. They received no rewards contingent on food costs. They apparently weren’t praised by the manager for keeping food costs low (and, in any event, relations were so poor that any praise wouldn’t have much valence.) Employees perceived negative outcomes of keeping food costs low. They would receive peer pressure from other employees. Their friends might be critical, thereby leaving relatedness needs unfulfilled. 2. Team Leaders Lacked Power and Motivation The team leaders were given legitimate power by the company, but employees continued to eat and give away food because they had more power over the team leader (ostracizing at school) than the team leader had over them. Team leaders had legitimate power, but they did not exercise that authority due to risk of ostracism and, in any, event, employees would reject the team leader’s legitimate power over them. Team leaders also had reward and coercive power in the sense that they could write up reports of food wastage. However, these team leaders were not motivated to complete these reports. Expectancy theory provides an explanation for this lack of motivation. The night manager apparently didn’t receive any positive outcomes for writing up the reports. No bonus went to the night manager. The night manager received less than minimum wage, so it is likely that he/she felt inequitably rewarded (and possibly took some food). There were also negative outcomes of writing up these reports. The night manager valued friendships with some of the employees, so relatedness needs would be threatened if reports were written. 3. Ineffective Use of Punishment This case clearly illustrates the problems with using punishment to change behaviour, as well as the negative consequences of punishment. The manager’s use of punishment strained relations with employees. Another problem with punishment that is apparent in this case is that it is usually effective only when the source of punishment is nearby. As soon as the manager stopped working in the restaurant, employees returned to their previous behaviours of eating and giving away free food. This case also illustrates the problem that punishment creates disruptions in work activities. When employees quit due to the punishment imposed (reduced food allowance), the managers had to help with food preparation and train several new people. These disruptions undoubtedly disrupted the work flow and increased production costs. Recommended Solution One of the most important solutions to this case is to link food costs (wastage) to employee rewards. This would motivate employees to reduce wastage and may reduce their feelings of inequity. One strategy would be to offer employees a bonus on their salary based on achieving specific food wastage targets for the month. Depending on the ability to collect more precise food wastage data, the manager might link food wastage on each work shift to bonuses for employees working on that shift. This would further strengthen the P-to-O expectancy. Bonuses would probably work best because employees feel they are underpaid relative to others in the labor market. However, the manager might first consider using token awards, such as t-shirts, free subs coupons, or challenges with rewards donated to the school or some other cause. It will be difficult to completely restore employee-manager relations in the short term. However, some actions may help. The manager would certainly improve relations somewhat by removing threats and other sources of punishment, except for the most serious infractions. The manager might also let employees create special social events on or off the job. This will be difficult at first, but employees might support them over time. (Example: the restaurant might have a special “top hat” sub promotion in which employees wear top hats and customers get a discount for one premium sub with the works.) This would improve social bonding among employees and improve loyalty to the company. It might improve employeemanagement relations if the manager gets involved and is seen as the source of these positive events. Barrie Super Subs needs to rethink the team leader’s role. It is evident that peer pressure and lack of legitimate power (in the eyes of employees) makes the team leader’s duties of reporting food wastage unreasonable. Fortunately, the performance-based reward system for employees should minimize the need for supervision. If the team leader needs a power base for his/her role, then the company should consider hiring people who are not as closely associated with the employees, are paid more, receive a bonus for minimizing food wastage, and have reward and coercive power over employees. CASE 4: FRAN HAYDEN JOINS DAIRY ENGINEERING This case analysis offers two sets of notes. First, we provide analysis following the symptoms-problemsrecommendations model. These notes are based on discussion and assignments using this case in Steve McShane’s classes. This analysis is followed by a question-specific case analysis prepared by the case author. Instructors who would like students to have questions to guide the discussion may prefer that analysis. These case teaching notes were prepared by Steven L McShane, The University of Western Australia Primary Case Topics Emotions and attitudes, organizational commitment, distributive and procedural justice, work-related stress Case Synopsis This case describes the experience of Fran, a high-achieving management graduate as she takes up her first full-time position at Dairy Engineering. Fran has high expectations of her new job but from day one, experiences dissatisfaction which increases over the months. Her job is routine and does not call for much initiative. She then runs into difficulties with her boss as she experiences the realities of organizational politics for which she is ill-prepared to cope with. What happened? The relationship between Fran and her boss was irretrievably damaged. He did not trust her and she felt threatened by him. She did move out of MIS but after three months, found another job and left the company. For Fran, this was a disastrous and damaging start to her career but from which she learned some valuable lessons. Symptoms 1. Possible loss of Fran Hayden (she was thinking of quitting, or might get fired) • good potential as an employee 2. Fran experienced distress (stress beyond normal levels) • taking the stresses home, resulting in quarrels with her boyfriend and flat mates • even her colleague Vernon noticed she looked miserable 3. Possibly loss of good ideas • Mike indicated unwillingness to discuss new ideas any more Other symptoms that students might suggest (but aren’t symptoms) Symptom? Comments loss of motivation Not clear that Fran’s performance declined, therefore no loss of motivation. Job dissatisfaction Could be placed as a symptom (even though cause of turnover intention and likely some stress. But case has many pieces of info that hang together better under job dissatisfaction as a problem. Otherwise, would need to discuss these as separate problems (possible, but messy and some are not very conceptually deep alone). Fran violated communication protocol Possibly a symptom in that she did something that offended some staff, but seems to be mainly Peter. However, it sounded like she would have sounded out Peter if he wasn’t away. Also, Peter’s boss called Fran about this, and said he would speak to Peter. Problem Analysis Low affective commitment and job dissatisfaction Several of Fran’s experiences contrast with the main strategies to build affective commitment. Justice/support -- Not clear that there is injustice here regarding Fran (no comparison other inequity or inequality), but plenty of incivility from Peter. Humanitarian values, including courtesy, are important predictors of affective commitment Lack of Trust in Leaders -- Fran’s trust in Rob declined over time because Rob was not following through on his promises to act on her concerns. (Note: This is likely NOT an example of espoused-enacted values congruence because Rob was not articulating values, just actions he would take, but didn’t.) Fran left Rob’s office on one occasion "wondering what to believe". She also doubted that he read her report. Fran did not trust Peter at all, considering him something of a loose cannon. Involvement -- Quite low, in three ways. First, she was not integrated into the unit -- she wasn’t even expected on her first day, and the job was not what she was hired for. Second, the job was trivial compared to the job for which she was hired. This lack of task significance may have also related to lack of involvement. Third, Peter and Rob were nonresponsive to her requests. Shared values -- Fran’s values (as indicated by her actions) were quite different from those around her. Fran’s actions reflect an egalitarian, low formalization set of values (she talked to whomever without concern for “proper” hierarchy), whereas the people who most affected here had much more emphasis on hierarchy and face time. Although not stated, it is possible that her values as an accountant might differ somewhat from values of MIS (but this is a very weak inference and might be best excluded). In addition to the above, Fran’s psychological contract violation and job tasks with low motivation potential likely influenced her affective commitment. This analysis should also report that Fran displayed high continuance commitment -- she was reluctant to quit after just 5 months of employment because of the cost of appearing poorly on her resume. Injustice Mike referred to Peter taking his ideas and claiming them as his (Peter’s) own. Although limited information, this an incident of injustice because Mike puts forth in the inputs (ideas) and receives no credit for it, whereas Peter seems to have received the outcomes without corresponding inputs. This motivated mike to stop suggesting ideas, which is reducing inputs. Stressful workplace Several facts indicate that Fran worked under conditions that were unnecessarily stressful (i.e. created distress) • Role-related stressors • Work underload --Fran is performing work work well below her skills, and she doesn’t have enough work to fill her day. • Role ambiguity -- possibly stress over leader responsibilities between Rob and Peter (some mentioned “leadership ambiguity” and “leadership identity crisis” • role conflict -- might exist here in that Fran is an accountant in MIS. However, little evidence of this role incongruence other than work underload. • Interpersonal stressors • Peter repetitively engages in psychological harassment -- incivility, bullying (e.g., yells at Fran for going to training program; tries to isolate Fran from others; insults Fran in front of others; effectively removes her from the department) • Organizational politics -- e.g. #1: Rob is not supporting Fran to defend against Peter’s power plays, which one might infer are motivated by personal status needs (personal power needs) rather than department needs -- e.g. #2 Vernon asks Fran for a written documentation of Peter’s actions, which puts Fran in firing line of conflict between Peter and Rob, Vernon, and possibly senior mgt. In spite of these stressors, Fran held up to some extent based on her determination to take action (transfer) and consciously decide to stay rather than quit. this suggests resilience (partly from social support of friends). Still, symptoms of stress were apparent. Psychological contract violation (Note: Psychological contracts are not discussed in some versions/editions of this book.) One of the major problems in this case is major violations of Fran’s psychological contract. • Arrives to work as the new Asst. of Cost Accounting to find the job does not exist. • Put into job outside her career interest (MIS vs accounting) -- particularly problematics because she was interested in a position with Diary Engineering for the opportunity to gain practical experience in accounting • Ends up doing is "entirely clerical" and underworked -- not enough work to keep her occupied • Has to apply (again) in a transfer to get the job she was originally offered (???) • Interviewed and hired by Rob, so didn’t experience Peter before first day of work. Other problems that students might suggest (but aren’t clearly problems) Potential problem Comments Poor leadership Somewhat limited details. We can “label” Peter and Rob in terms of low emotional intelligence through their behaviour, but this offers limited explanation, particularly when their behaviour is used to explain their EI levels (i.e. circular). Better to focus on their behaviours as given (i.e. limited explanation why they act that way) and refer to these behaviours in other problems. Fran is de-motivated But did Fran reduce her work effort? EVLN states that some people put out just as much work effort but act on dissatisfaction in other ways. (Fran applied voice and exit, not neglect.) Fran WAS motived to leave, but this is explained under other headings. You might be able to analyze the motivation to leave under expectancy theory, but not clear that such an analysis is necessary given the other analysis here. Recommendations Short term recommendations Fran should be moved immediately into an accounting role to (a) realign situation with her psychological contract, (b) reduce stressors (harassment, work underload, role ambiguity of leadership), and (c) potentially improve her org commitment and job satisfaction (more involvement, more support with less harassment) Long-term recommendations 1. Need to investigate the causes of Peter’s behaviour toward Fran. Is this unique or common (evidence of latter? Can Peter’s behaviour problems be corrected, or should he be moved to a job better suited to his skills (if available)? We don’t have enough details, but seems to be related to very low emotional intelligence and possibly personality disorder. Correcting Peter’s behaviour could avoid future problems of stress, turnover intentions, low loyalty, and lack of motivation to submit ideas. 2. Need to investigate Rob’s inaction. We don’t have enough details, but seems to be a high need for affiliation (including conflict avoidance), which is not well suited to a management position. Or, it might be that Rob underestimates his responsibility as leader. As with Peter, we need to determine whether Rob can be coached to improve his performance as a leader, or needs to be moved to job better suited to his skills. 3. Generally, based on the behaviours of Peter and Rob, the company should investigate whether leadership development is a concern throughout the organization. If so (or in any event(, a 360 feedback system may help to improve leadership under certain conditions. 4. Fran’s hiring experience might be unique. If not, the organization needs to look into developing a standardized process of socialization of new employees. This includes assurance that they get a realistic (accurate) preview of their job, including duties and boss; that they enter the job for which they are hired; that the induction process engages the newcomer, such as actively preparing the workplace for their first day and spending time over the first few months (through a buddy and formal orientation) to become aware of the workplace and help form friendships. Fran Hayden Case Analysis with Questions These case notes were prepared by Glyndwr Jones, School of Management Studies, University of Waikato 1. Describe Fran’s emotions and attitudes since joining Dairy Engineering. How have they changed, and why? Franz emotions can best be described as ‘see-sawing.’ She started on a high, with expectations of being able to contribute at Dairy Engineers as the first step on her career. She received her first set-back on day one when, to her disappointment, found that there was no position in Costing for her and she had been allocated to MIS. After completing the first run of ‘Big Ugly’ Fran’s spirits fell as she found that there did not appear to be enough work for the four graduates. She wondered why the company needed her. The next phase saw Fran’s emotions hit another low when, after returning from the management workshop, she found that she was in trouble. Her spirits dropped again. This is a crucial point in the cases as Fran confronts, for the first time, the politics of organizational life, for which she is ill-prepared. These events influence her attitude and she begins to become disillusioned with the company and the position. Toward the end of the case, Fran is beginning to seriously re-consider whether she had made the right move. Fran’s emotions influence her attitude and behaviour, and by the end of the case, she is considering moving on. 2. Describe Fran’s level of loyalty (affective commitment) and explain why she has this level of loyalty. The case illustrates well the need for managers to show concern for developing employee commitment and loyalty to the enterprise. Fran started with the organization but there is no evidence that any formal induction procedures exists in the company. The fact that she turned up and no job was available is evidence of this. From there on, Fran is left to ‘swim or sink’ on her own. Over the period of the case, it can be seen that because of the mismanagement of the new employee, there is little sign of a growing affective commitment on Fran’s part to the organization, in fact the very opposite is occurring. But this is not accidental; this process can and should have been managed if the organization is really concerned about attaining and developing its human resources. In this case, it did not do any of this and by the end of the case; Fran has become disaffected with her position and the company. 3. Discuss Fran’s psychological contract with Dairy Engineering. There is no evidence in the case about Fran’s employment contract with the organization but one did exist under the then current legislation. More importantly however is the notion of a psychological contract between Fran and the organization. Again, this is not something that needs to be left to chance; it is something that needs to be managed and again here is little evidence in the case that this occurs. Fran increasingly comes to question her loyalty to the organization as she finds herself caught up in political ‘in fighting.’ 4. What would you have done in Fran’s position? What should she do now? Hindsight is a great thing so saying what Fran should have done is easy but think about the pressures she was under. i. She was a new graduate, keen to achieve and show willingness. Hence jumping at the chance of going to the management workshop and producing a report for the department. ii. An important lesson; the situation existed before Fran came along. When a new graduate joins an organization, all the components, the elements and processes are already in place. A new graduate needs to acknowledge and recognize that they are very unlikely to be able to change anything. They will have to fit in quickly. There is a saying; ‘History weighs heavily on organizations’ and this is certainly true in this case. What should Fran do now? She has few options. She will not be able to stay in her present position with her current boss, that is clear. In the short–term, she can make efforts to transfer to another department. Longer, term, I think she should be looking for a new position but she cannot do that now because any future employer is going to ask the obvious question – why did you leave Dairy Engineers? But I think that within the next year, , she will need to move on. 5. What pressures do you think the main participants might be under in this case? The case provides scope for students to explore the roles and pressures the main protagonists are experiencing and consider why. They can do this by analyzing each of the major players. For example, Fran’s boss is conscious that out of the other managers, he is the one who is lacking in ‘expert’ knowledge. This is likely to be worrying him... We do not have enough information to say what pressures there are but plainly, there is a political ‘in fighting’ going here over resources. To add to this, the head of accounts is a somewhat weak, ineffectual leader who does not seem to want to face up to Fran’s boss. Fran becomes the ‘meat in the sandwich.’ 6. What skills might have enabled Fran to better cope with the situation? Can these skills be taught in business schools? Could Fran have been better prepared by her studies for such an eventuality? I doubt this. Of course, exposure to organization politics perhaps in her management course might have helped but this is the real world of work. I am afraid to say that there is just no short-cut for experience, which Fran does not have 7. What would I have suggested to Fran? • That she keep her own counsel, kept her head down, listened and learned and got to understand the lay of the land in the company – fast. • Set realistic goals. University and the world of work are very different. For much of the work in an organization, know-one is really y looking for you to obtain an A. The company wanted ‘Big Ugly’ done, and done on time. That is it . You cannot get an A+ and it is not called for. In many positions, ‘satisfying’ is what managers are looking for. • Unfashionable as it may seem, Fran has to learn to balance competing demands and competing bosses. This is not easy. She must make sure that she does not go over the head of her boss; this is a no-no and in this case, Fran will not be able to regain the respect of her boss. • Look for another position! Comments for Instructors One variation is to use the case as a ‘prediction’ case. This means not handing the case out in one go but physically ‘cutting it up’ at critical points and asking: what do you think will happen next? There are several critical turning points in the case where this could be utilized. For example, when Fran came back from the management workshop and after she had applied for a transfer. In my experience, the case lends itself well to a role play with a number of students acting out the role of Fran, her boss and the head of accounting. CASE 5: GOING TO THE X-STREAM These case teaching notes were prepared by the case author, Roy Smollan, Auckland University of Technology Primary Case Topics Organizational culture, organizational change, organizational structure Case Synopsis The case covers elements of organizational change, culture, structure, leadership, conflict, power and politics in an IT company introducing a new product. The culture and structure of the organization are changing as it grows in size and introduces more formality in decision-making, new HRM practices, a new accounting system and new strategies. Conflicts arise that derive from personality and perceptual differences about the changes that are taking place and about ongoing operational issues. Discussion Questions and Suggested Answers 1. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of X-Stream’s organizational culture. Nature of organizational culture: Organizational culture is regarded as a set of assumptions, beliefs, values, customs, structures, norms, rules, traditions and artifacts (Schein, 2004), and a system of shared meanings. Description of culture: X-stream’s culture has a strange mix of informal, competitive, participative, supportive and political forces. Each department seems to have its own subculture that is different to the others and seems to derive from the leadership style and behaviour of its manager. How much is common is difficult to describe but the influence of Gil as CEO is significant. Strengths: Gil aimed to create a company where innovation and empowerment were important and this is at least partly evident. The people-oriented approaches of Gil and Denise seem to promote trust, engagement and commitment. The casual, fun-type of atmosphere could enhance innovativeness and job satisfaction. The high standards of Jason should result in high quality products. Weaknesses: Values are not widely held despite Gil’s intentions. Departmental sub-cultures and leadership styles undermine unity of purpose. The use of nicknames is offensive to some staff. The political behaviour of Don undermines trust. Loose controls have affected performance. 2. Analyze the sources of the resistance to the proposed changes by Gil and Alkina and discuss how the company could deal with the resistance. Resistance to the changes: The new performance management system has been opposed by at least three staff – Don, Jason and Heather – and possibly others. People resist change when they believe it is unfair and when they have something to lose, such as power, status and authority, and more tangible aspects, such as salaries, benefits, office space, etc. Jason, who appears to have an autocratic management style, may expect that he will obtain negative ratings in the 360 degree performance management system. Don, who is arrogant and has committed a number of indiscretions, may likewise feel that his approach will result in negative appraisals. Heather believes nobody is qualified to judge her performance. Other new HR policies such as more formal job descriptions, person specifications and recruitment and selection procedures may be resisted because they will take more time and because they go against the informal approach that has always existed. Dealing with resistance: To deal with the resistance Gil and Alkina need to meet with all staff (in New Zealand and Australia separately) to explain why the changes are necessary. In these meetings they can answer any questions from staff. It might be useful to engage staff in the design of the new processes and documents because participation enhances acceptance of change. Those who unreasonably persist in their opposition need to be firmly told that the changes will take place and must be adhered to. The implementation and success of the changes must be tracked and corrective action taken if necessary. 3. Discuss the type of organizational structure you believe the company should adopt and explain why you think this would be the best. Current structure: At present there is a functional structure, but it is not evident how the departments are structured. The structure of the Australian operation is also not clear, nor is how the people there liaise with the New Zealand head office. Alternative structures: There are a number of alternatives to the existing structure and each will have its own advantages and disadvantages. In the New Zealand office the structure could be changed to a divisional one, with departments for hardware and software. Website design could be included in software or in a division of its own. Since there is currently only one person in it (Heather) it would probably work better if it was part of software, but, given Heather’s unusual personality and habits it might be difficult for her to work under another manager. The advantage of this structure is that each division has a clear focus on it own customers. However, the functions of accounting and human resources also need to be accommodated. A hybrid structure might therefore work better. Reporting to Gil could be a manager of hardware (with departments of R&D, production and marketing), a manager of software (with suitable sub-departments), and the administration department (with accounting and HR). The disadvantage could be lack of communication between the hardware and software divisions and lost opportunities in identifying and working with common clients. Productive forms of liaison would therefore need to be worked out. In any structure, communication of information and decision-making processes need to be established so that people have the maximum amount of information and input they need for effective decisionmaking and job satisfaction. CASE 6: KEEPING SUZANNE CHALMERS ! Primary Case Topics Motivation, job design, money and rewards Case Synopsis This case describes a meeting with software engineer Suzanne Chalmers and Thomas Chan, the vice-president of software engineering at Advanced Photonics Inc. (API). Chalmers arranges the meeting to indicate her intention to leave API. Chan tries to keep her by offering better conditions and, eventually, more money and share options. But Chan knows that Chalmers is already a millionaire from her share options and the appreciation of API’s share price. The case highlights the difficulty in motivating people to stay and the relative importance of financial rewards compared to other sources of motivation. Soon after the meeting, Chalmers submits her resignation and, after a few months rest, takes up a position at a start-up company. Discussion Questions and Suggested Answers 1. Why didn’t money motivate Suzanne Chalmers to stay with API? In this particular situation, the needs fulfilled by money (mainly physiological, safety, and social) were not strongest for Suzanne. Instead, it seems that Suzanne required more self-actualization, particularly work with more variety and challenge. The job seems to be getting routine. Furthermore, she later took a job at a start-up firm where she probably performed a wider variety of tasks. Students might also argue that Suzanne is motivated buy money, but that the potential financial gains at a start-up are much greater than at API, which is a mature company with less upward stock potential. The case clearly points to Suzanne’s need for more challenging work, but the financial potential of a small firm cannot be dismissed, either. Also, it is incorrect to assume that someone who is already financially well off is no longer motivated by money. Money is a complex resource that can motivate even for people who seemingly have enough already. 2. Do financial rewards have any value in situations such as this, where employees are relatively wealthy? Yes, most people value money even when they have enough. The textbook explains that money affects employee motivation in complex ways. It satisfies most needs to some extent. For example, Chalmers might value a special bonus or pile of share options for completing a special project. The money is valued for its symbolism, not as much for what it buys. At the same time, the facts in this case suggest that money has relatively low importance to Suzanne. She didn’t mention money at all in the meeting, except in response to a question from Chan. She has been offered several jobs with more money (or higher potential appreciation of share options) 3. What innate drives seem to be motivating Suzanne Chalmers? All drives operate in everyone, with the drive to defend most active only when the person is threatened. However, it seems that the drive to learn is probably the most important (unfulfilled) one for Suzanne in this situation because she subsequently entered a new job with a variety of job duties. Students might also suggest that the drive to acquire is apparent, specifically that she wants to acquire new experiences. At the same time, Suzanne definitely does not have a drive to acquire material goods such as money or physical resources. Moreover, she doesn’t express a strong drive to bond, particularly since she is motivated to leave API. 4. Of what importance is job design in this case? Possibly a great deal. In-between the lines, Chalmers seems to indicate that her work is becoming a bit too routine. The case indicates that people rarely move around to different jobs at APL. Instead, the company prides itself at keeping employees focused on their specialized area of expertise. While this may be desirable for many employees, there are indications that Suzanne might want a career change or at least a break from her usual work. Even people in complex jobs can get tired of their jobs if they are very narrowly defined. Another piece of evidence that job design is important here comes from information about the company Chalmers joined. She joined a start-up firm, likely one (as Chan explained) where employees perform a variety of work. We cannot say for certain that this variety motivated Chalmers to join a start-up firm, but it may be a factor. 5. If you were Thomas Chan, what strategy, if any, would you use to motivate Susan Chalmers to stay at Advanced Photonics Inc? As the previous question suggests, I would look more closely at job design and career issues. There is some evidence that Chalmers wants to do something different from IP software engineering. The job seems to be getting routine. Moreover, she later took a job at a start-up firm where she probably performed a wider variety of tasks. Chan should have explored these needs with Chalmers. Instead, he focused on working conditions – the size of office, financial compensation, etc. CASE 7: NORTHWEST CANADIAN FOREST PRODUCTS LIMITED (REVISED) These case teaching notes were prepared by the case author, Peter Seidl, British Columbia Institute of Technology Primary Case Topics conflict and negotiation, perceptions, organizational effectiveness Case Synopsis The president of a forest products company will have to decide (in two years) whether or not to invest substantial sums of money in new plant and equipment at one of the company’s sawmills. New investment is required in order to keep the mill competitive. The alternative she is considering is to downsize the mill by permanently laying off over half the workforce. Half the supervisory and managerial personnel would also lose their jobs. She attributes most of the mill’s problems (poor productivity, product quality, and safety) to its poor labour-management relations. The safety committee is very dysfunctional and is considered to be a waste of time. Relations between supervisors and employees are very conflictual. The mill has numerous grievances as a result. The new general manager and the local union president will meet to discuss the potential job losses that would result if the mill does not receive the new investment.. Discussion Questions and Suggested Answers 1. Apply the conflict model (found in the chapter on conflict) to this case. That is, explain the facts of this case using the concepts in the model. There are several sources of conflict in this case. Incompatible goals. A major goal of managers and supervisors is the maintenance of a high level of production while a major goal of union leaders and workers is safety at the sawmill. The (apparently) incompatible nature of these goals is evident at the meetings of the joint labour-management safety committee. Differentiation. There are differences in values between generations at the mill. Supervisors, such as Big Bad John, think that the younger workers have a poor attitude towards work and are less likely to follow supervisory instructions than their older counterparts. Vic, the youngest union steward, says that the supervisors treat the workers like children by watching over them very closely and waiting for them to make mistakes so that the supervisors can then criticize them. Task Interdependence. It can be assumed that mill workers and supervisors work together closely and, consequently, there is a high probability of some conflict between them occurring. Refer to the comments by Big Bad John, Vic, and Des (the production manager). Scarce Resources. Tight budgets at this mill lead to poorly-maintained equipment and inadequate worker training which in turn leads to mistakes and frustration on the part of workers. This frustration then leads to a poor attitude on the part of the workers regarding the pace (and presumably also the quality) of their work. As a result of this, management pushes the workforce to increase the pace of their work in order to increase production volumes. Not surprisingly, the workers become exhausted from this faster pace and safety problems develop. The conflict that occurs at the various stages of this chain of events can be traced back to the scarce resource of budgetary funds for equipment maintenance and worker training (in addition, of course, to the specific manner by which the workers and management handle, or mishandle, conflict). Ambiguous Rules. The jurisdiction of the safety committee is not clear. The committee is required by law but management believes that the committee should restrict itself to only safety issues (as defined by management). On the other hand, the union members of the committee think that workload and production issues (that are presumably related to safety issues, at least from the perspective of the union) should also be part of the committee’s jurisdiction. Communication Problems. Stereotyping impairs effective communication. This is what Big Bad John does when he implies that the younger workers cause most of the discipline problems in the mill. Vic, a union steward, also stereotypes when he implies that managers and supervisors think that they are know-it-alls and that, therefore, they are smarter than the workers. Other Comments. It can be assumed that conflict in the mill includes relationship conflict given the nickname given to John is “Big Bad John” and by some of his comments in addition to the comments made by Vic. The manner in which conflict is handled in the mill (forcing) also adds to the emotion-laden nature of this workplace. Compromising and/or problem-solving are not evident in labour-management relations in this case. 2. From the perspective of management, what is the problem(s) in this case? From the union/employee perspective, what is the problem(s) in this case? Are these problems connected to one another? Why (or why not)? Explain. Management is concerned with productivity and product quality. Management thinks that the work ethic of the crew is a significant contributor to the productivity and product-quality problems. Also, management thinks that union stewards are purposely creating conflict by encouraging employees to file grievances. The union and the employees are concerned with safety issues but also with workload and production issues that they think contribute to an overly fast pace of work and, consequently, to an unsafe workplace. They think that employee training and the state of mill equipment are inadequate. In addition, the crew thinks that supervisors do not respect their intelligence when these crew members are treated like children. These problems are most definitely connected to one another. One way of understanding the way in which these problems are related is to consider the following chain of events. Tight budgets at this mill lead to poorlymaintained equipment and inadequate worker training which in turn leads to mistakes and frustration on the part of workers. This frustration then leads to a poor attitude on the part of the workers regarding the pace (and presumably also the quality) of their work. As a result of this, management pushes the workforce to increase the pace of their work in order to increase production volume. Not surprisingly, the workers become exhausted from this faster pace and safety problems develop. The conflict that occurs at the various stages of this chain of events can be traced back to the scarce resource of budgetary funds for equipment maintenance and worker training (in addition, of course, to the specific manner by which the workers and management handle, or mishandle, conflict). Conflict is escalated when management considers it necessary to closely supervise and monitor the crew. The crew resent this style of supervision because they think they are being treated like children and they respond by talking back to their supervisors and by filing numerous grievances against management. Thus, the conflict cycle escalates. When management increases the pace of work, some on the crew respond by taking longer breaks or otherwise being absent from work. Consequently, supervision becomes even closer. Workers resent this. Again, the conflict cycle escalates. 3. How could the parties in this case work together to ensure that the mill will receive the investment of funds needed to avoid any layoffs? The parties need to recognize that they both share a common interest – namely, the prevention of significant job losses among both the workers and the supervisors/managers. Mill management and the union, with the assistance of a mediator, should start emphasizing their superordinate goal of preventing these layoffs. This can be achieved by improving communication with one another and adopting a problem-solving (or collaborative) style of conflict management. After improving communication, the parties may come to understand that the issues related to production, safety, worker attitudes, and supervisory style are closely intertwined. Rather than merely defending their own positions and attacking the positions of the other side, the parties should focus on exploring underlying interests and finding common ground. Given the current state of the relationship between the parties, a third party neutral is probably necessary to help the parties move from their current forcing style to a problem-solving (or, at least, a compromising) style. Workplaces similar to the one described in this case have successfully made the transition from a managementcontrol orientation to a more open team-orientation. However, this has not occurred without costs. Among these costs are: traditional supervisors and managers have to change their leadership style or be transferred elsewhere and workers have to be willing to take on greater responsibility. The new workplace places a premium on joint problem-solving. The extremely poor relationship that currently exists makes it challenging to make this transition but not impossible. In fact, a crisis (such as potential layoffs) often acts as the necessary impetus to get the parties to realize that significant changes in their relationship are required for the enterprise to be successful. One area that needs to be addressed in this case is the functioning of the safety committee. Either this committee should include in its mandate workload and production issues or a separate forum should be established in which these important issues can be discussed. This is because employee involvement in decision-making is necessary if a truly collaborative workplace is to be established. Management has to accept this but workers will also have to accept the fact that it is they who will have to help solve the problems of which they now merely complain. Additional Background Information This case is based on a composite of three workplaces (two in the forest products industry and one in the mining industry) but primarily from the experience of a sawmill in British Columbia in the 1980’s and 1990’s. A new modernized sawmill replaced an old one. The old sawmill had over 600 employees and was volume-driven (not value-driven). It had numerous safety problems. It was demolished and replaced two years later by a much smaller mill (125 employees) that was designed with safety (and product value and quality) in mind. Although smaller in size, the new mill is more productive (on a per capita basis) than the old one was. The new mill has consistently turned a profit whereas the old one sometimes suffered financial losses. Workplace innovations have accompanied new technology in the new operation. The new mill has team-based production, a great deal of skills training leading to multi-skilled workers, job rotation, pay-for-skill in addition to regular wages, gainsharing in combination with a suggestion system overseen by a joint worker-management committee, other forms of employee involvement, and an open communication network. Employee involvement is very much the order of the day. The union is officially neutral about these new work systems but, in practice, it supports them. These changes were accomplished without wage or other contract concessions. Of course, many persons lost their jobs (especially semiskilled and unskilled workers) but the remaining jobs are more interesting and are filled by more skilled, better paid workers than before. Also, union-management relations at the mill level have improved. It is not a "love-in" but a more professional relationship exists in the new operation than in the old one. The impetus for the union's willingness to embark on these kinds of changes was a crisis (the closure of the old mill and the company's statement that it would not establish a new higher-technology mill with significant investments in new plant and equipment unless new, innovative work systems accompanied the new "hardware”). The union agreed. The union was not an unwilling participant in these changes and most workers were quite satisfied with the state of affairs that came into existence after the workplace transformation took place. The other two workplaces (that this case was based upon) provided additional evidence that significant, even transformational, change can take place if both the employer and the union are willing to change the nature of their relationship. The second forest industry case was about how a poor safety record could be improved when employees were given an opportunity to help design and implement their own safety programs. The mining case demonstrated how a bitter labour-management relationship, characterized by lengthy strikes, wildcat strikes, and numerous grievances and arbitrations, could be turned around once the parties realized that it was in their mutual interest to do so. CASE 8: THE REGENCY GRAND HOTEL These case teaching notes were prepared by Steven L McShane, The University of Western Australia Primary Case Topics Empowerment, job design, motivation, individual behaviour, stress Case Synopsis The Regency Grand Hotel was one of Bangkok’s most prestigious hotels when it was recently sold to a large American hotel chain. John Becker, an American with 10 years of management experience with the hotel chain, was appointed as the new General Manager. Becker applied empowerment practices to the hotel’s 700 employees, who have always worked according to management’s instructions. He told the hotel’s supervisors to give employees the opportunity to use their initiative, and to coach and assist rather than provide direct orders. Becker reduced the number of bureaucratic rules, which upset those who previously had decision-making power over these issues. The general manager spent time encouraging empowerment among employees, although they still had trouble knowing the limits of their autonomy. Supervisors would reverse employee decisions by stating that they were major issues requiring management approval. Eventually, employees reverted back to relying on their superiors for decision making. Rather than improve customer service, the hotel’s performance deteriorated. Absenteeism and turnover of staff also increased. NOTE: This is a true case that occurred in another (but culturally similar) Asian country. The industry has also been changed to maintain anonymity. The original industry also requires high levels of customer service. Discussion Questions and Suggested Answers 1. Identify the symptoms indicating that problems exist in this case. The main symptoms in this case are that employees stop using their initiative, that employees applied empowerment ineffectively, and that the hotel experienced higher turnover, absenteeism, stress, and customer complaints. Students might also identify conflict and dissatisfaction. 2. Diagnose the problems in this case using organizational behaviour concepts. Empowerment Problems. The most obvious problems in this case is that the empowerment process did not create a setting that supports empowerment. First, it is not clear that all employees possessed the necessary competencies to feel comfortable with that degree of autonomy. Second, empowerment requires a learning orientation culture, yet it is clear that employees were not supported when mistakes were made. Similarly, although John Becker seems to trust employees, other supervisors seemingly do not have the same level of trust. Third, empowerment requires jobs with a high degree of autonomy with minimal bureaucratic control. The opposite seems to exist here. Employee decisions were reversed, thereby undermining their autonomy. The MARS model helps to explain why employees did not apply their autonomy: • Role perceptions -- lack of role clarity about how and to what degree employees can make decisions without being reversed by their managers. • Motivation -- some employees were initially motivated to use their autonomy, but not later for reasons explained in the expectancy theory section (below) • Ability -- (maybe) some knowledge for autonomous work probably missing • Situational contingencies -- generally OK; they have resources and time (note: management reversal of employee actions is not a lack of opportunity issue) Job design problems. This case can also be understood from the perspective of job design. Empowerment is a form of job enrichment,. According to job characteristics model, enrichment requires certain conditions, lacking here: • Skills/knowledge -- employees did not have competencies or role clarity to engage in empowerment • Growth Needs -- some employees probably lacked growth needs because of their contented roles taking orders from management. (But as noted above, other employees demonstrated that they did have fairly high growth need strength.) • Work context -- Fine initially, but deteriorated with low supervisor support Some concepts from other chapters are also relevant to this topic. These include expectancy theory, ERG theory, behaviour modification, and stress management. Expectancy theory Expectancy theory is the main motivation theory that applies here, particularly regarding employee motivation to engage in empowerment practices. With respect to the E-to-P expectancy, employees were uncertain about how much discretion they had in their jobs. When they did try some initiative, their supervisor’s reversed these actions. This likely undermined their self-efficacy regarding the ability to work in an empowered job. Low self-efficacy results in a lower E-to-P expectancy. P-to-O expectancy also had an adverse effect on employee motivation. Employees who tried empowerment experienced negative outcomes from their supervisors, and possibly from customers. While Becker initially supported employee empowerment, he later retreated to his office, thereby providing less favourable outcomes to employees to took initiative. Overall, employees stopped taking initiative because both their E-to-P and P-to-O expectancies decreased. Needs Hierarchy theories Some students might apply needs-based motivation theories to explain part of this case. Specifically, they might suggest that most Regency employees have low growth/self-actualization needs because they were comfortable with the previous leadership, which did not offer much job challenge. This point may be true for some employees, but several Regency staff members DID try to apply empowerment, suggesting that they had some degree of growth need strength. Furthermore, needs theories generally explain what needs people possess, not what behaviours they engage in. Behaviour modification This case can also be discussed in terms of behaviour modification. The supervisors either punished or provided extinction reinforcement to employees who engaged in empowerment practices. Stress management Some employees quit or increased their absenteeism because they experienced higher levels of stress. Several stressors explain the causes of this stress: • Role-related stressors -- ambiguous expectations and practices about how to engage in empowerment • Interpersonal stressors – Employees experienced increasing conflict with management. • Organizational stressors – It is possible that the purchase of the regency as well as subsequent changes probably added to stress, but this issue isn’t certain. 3. Recommend solutions that overcome or minimize the problems and symptoms in this case. Students might identify a variety of recommendations for this content-rich case. Some might suggest that Becker (or his successor, as some students doubt that Becker has any credibility now) requires sessions in cultural sensitivity. Others suggest that empowerment will work at the regency if employees are given clearer instruction and training, and employees see role model examples of empowerment. It might also be useful to introduce the process slowly so employees have time to adjust with less stress. The empowerment intervention is a major form of organizational change, so students who have read that chapter would recommend a number of change management initiatives, including coercion to supervisors who do not “get on board” the change effort. CASE 9: SIMMONS LABORATORIES NOTE: Simmons Laboratories is an updated version of the famed “Bob Knowlton” case, written by Alex Bavelas. William Starbuck revised this case around a more contemporary industry. We have altered Starbuck’s version of this case by changing the case title and character names so students would have difficulty hunting for solutions to the case on the internet. For those familiar with the Bob Knowlton case, Bob Knowlton is Brandon Newbridge in this version; Simon Fester is Lester Zapf in this version. These case teaching notes were prepared by Steven L McShane, The University of Western Australia Primary Case Topics Perceptions, leadership, emotional intelligence, conflict management, team dynamics, creativity Case Synopsis Brandon Newbridge, who discovered new technology, leads a project team at Simmons Laboratories to refine that technology. One evening, a highly intelligent and knowledgeable stranger, Lester Zapf, appears at the lab. Newbridge felt vaguely annoyed from his initial meeting with Zapf. The next day Newbridge’s boss, Dr. Goh, advises Newbridge that Zapf has been appointed to join the Newbridge’s project team. Zapf contributed important developments to the team’s objectives, but operated independently of the team and received credit alone rather than as part of the team. Newbridge felt threatened by Zapf’s presence and Zapf’s apparent support from Goh, but Newbridge made no attempt to speak to Goh about his concerns. Newbridge eventually quit Simmons Laboratories, leaving a note to Goh explaining his reasons. Ironically, Goh had decided to place Zapf in charge of another project that was going to be set up very soon. Goh had hesitated to communicate this transfer to Newbridge, who Goh assumed valued Zapf’s contribution to his project. Suggested Case Analysis Symptoms Loss of a valued employee, Brandon Newbridge; dissatisfaction among staff; likely reduced work performance Problem Analysis 1. Perceptual distortions This case is filled with perceptual misunderstandings, with unfortunate consequences. Newbridge misunderstands Goh’s perception of his capabilities and value to the organization. Goh also lacks awareness of the effect that Zapf is having on Newbridge and the entire staff. Goh particularly lacked sensitivity to and awareness of the effect of Zapf on Newbridge’s self-concept -- the extent to which these events undermined his self-worth at Simmons Labs. Ultimately people move to environments where they feel valued, and for Newbridge that no longer occurred at Simmons. 2. Ineffective management of creative employees This is a classic situation where a stereotypically creative person with low interpersonal skills (including low emotional intelligence) causes more problems than is necessary. These mavericks are often completely passionate, clever and unknowing (and uncaring) of “normal” business practice. They often don’t operate thoughtfully within the existing culture. They only see what’s within themselves and their passion. It’s a big mistake however to think that they don’t and can’t contribute. They are risks to the company but if taken on for the right reasons and managed thoughtfully, can become fantastic assets. The manipulative clever ones are the ones that challenge a company and its managers fourfold! The broad problem here is that the creative maverick in this case -- Lester Zapf -- was not effectively managed by Goh or other leaders. Zapf was given free rein to become involved without any feedback or direction regarding the impact of his actions. There was no attempt to buffer the effects of his behaviour on Newbridge and other staff. 3. Lapses in Emotional intelligence/social competency This case illustrates several examples of low emotional intelligence, as well as the consequences of that condition. Goh could not read Newbridge’s subtle signals that he was unhappy with Zapf’s presence. Similarly, Goh apparently did not empathize well with Newbridge’s circumstances, in spite of being aware of Zapf’s personality and behavioural style. Zapf is a classic example of someone with high insensitivity to the emotions and needs of others. He did not seem to be aware of how his actions affected -- or would affect -- people around him. 4. Conflict and decision-making styles This case illustrates the challenges (as well as opportunities) that occur when people have different perspectives of the world and different approaches to making decisions. The case analysis would particularly examine differences between Zapf and Newbridge in the context of their likely Myers-Briggs Type Indicator scores. 5. Leadership problems To some extent, this case can be analyzed form the perspective of Newbridge’s leadership. Newbridge was in charge of this unit and was aware of the problems that Zapf was creating in morale within the unit, yet he did not attempt to solve these problems. This might be considered an example of laissez-faire leadership -- a lack of active involvement in managing the situation where the situation called for action. Newbridge did not control Zapf’s dominance at team meetings, which likely undermined the decision-making process as well as the self-worth of other team members. 6. Team dynamics Zapf was clearly a poor choice of employee for a team setting, and his presence in the unit may have undermined team dynamics. Zapf ignored the team’s preferences and did not attempt to work effectively with other team members. His actions have undermined team cohesion (breakdown in cooperative spirit) because of conflicts that emerged and the events that undermined individuals in team meetings. The organization’s stated reward system -- the person who produces gets ahead in this outfit -- also likely created a competitive environment that threatened individual employees, at least when the new employees (Zapf) joined because he violated the cooperative norm in the team that otherwise buffered that competitive effect. Recommended Solutions There are several strategies to address situations involving creative employees with low emotional intelligence and low team orientation. One increasingly validated approach is to hire people for their social as well as intellectual competence, recognizing that both are needed in effective organizations. Essentially, it is difficult to leverage the benefits of highly creative/intelligent people who lack social skills because organizations are social entities (everyone needs to interact with others to some degree), and the best ideas tend to come from teams, not lone star employees. Another way to resolve the problems with socially-challenged creative employees is to develop their social skills. For example, it may be useful for Goh to coach Zapf on how his actions might affect others, and to help Zapf understand that achieve his creative goals requires support from co-workers. These people can also develop their emotional intelligence -- become more sensitive to the emotional reaction that others have of the person’s behaviour. At the same time, leaders can work with people around socially-challenged creative types by validating their worth and supporting the challenges they face when working with creative, yet irritating staff. The case solution might involve ways for employees to develop their mutual understanding (increasing the open area in the Johari Window), such as through more social events, anonymous 360 degree feedback, or other mechanisms that can still maintain relationships. It seems to be too late to get Brandon Newbridge back at Simmons Labs, although future employment prospects should be considered and discussed. However, the case illustrates the need for companies to train managers in how to leads teams where some staff do not work effectively in team settings. This would include coaching employees with poor social skills, finding creative ways for these people to work with minimal damage to workplace relations, and working with other employees to e-validate their self-worth and buffer any stress they experience when working with these people. CASE 10: STAR ENTERPRISES—RITA’S ISSUES AT WORK This case analysis offers two sets of notes. First, we provide analysis following the symptoms-problemsrecommendations model. These notes are based on discussion and assignments using this case in Steve McShane’s classes. This analysis is followed by a question-specific case analysis prepared by the case author. Instructors who would like students to have questions to guide the discussion may prefer that analysis. The following case teaching notes were prepared by Steven L McShane, The University of Western Australia Primary Case Topics Equity theory, organizational commitment Case Synopsis Rita, one of the most experienced employees in the quality control section, is asked to work as the acting quality control manager when the regular manager was transferred to another part of the company. Rita assumed she would permanently have this management position, and she demonstrated strong motivation to perform her new role. However, the company advertised the position externally and hired someone else, apparently without considering Rita for the position. Rita resented the new manager, particularly when he required her assistance for work issues with which he was unfamiliar. Rita also resented the new manager changing quality control systems that Rita had introduced earlier. She was thinking about leaving the organization. Suggested Case Analysis Symptoms Rita is dissatisfied with the situation, her performance (and motivation to perform) has fallen, she has taken more sick leave, she engages in less org citizenship behaviour (and is less motivated to do so), and she is thinking of quitting Problem Analysis 1. Feelings of Inequity This case can be partly analyzed using equity theory. Rita’s comparison other is the new managers. The inputs she seems to consider are her work experience and being a good performer (except on budgeting). She noted that the company had recognized her contribution to the company’s success. In contrast, the new manager had no history of contributing to this company. And although he apparently had been hired “highly recommended” and was experienced in quality control, he lacked experience in this industry (automobiles, whereas he was previously employed in appliances). The main outcomes that Rita considered are the management position along with the associated higher pay and enjoyment of the work involved. Rita experienced underreward inequity because the new manager was offered the position rather than Rita. Rita mentioned that she would “show them (the company) what they were losing out on,” implying that she had more to contribute than the new manager. Rita tried to reduce her feelings of inequity in a few ways. First, she reduced her inputs by minimally performing her job and engaged in less organizational citizenship by limiting how much she helped the new managers. Rita also withdrew from the situation by having more absenteeism (which might also reduce inputs) and eventually thinking of quitting. 2. Declining Affective Commitment This case identifies a few conditions that explain why Rita’s affective commitment to the organization declined. First, the perceived injustice (see equity analysis above) is a key influence on affective commitment. Second, Rita felt that she was not receiving support from management. She says she was “treated so badly” because the company did not consider her for the position. Third, Rita feels less trust in management, largely because of the inequity and lack of management support. Fourth, Rita has less involvement in organizational activities. Previously she was involved in improvements to quality control practices, whereas these practices were being removed by the new manager and it doesn’t seem that the new manager or anyone else is asking for her participation in new improvements. Declining affective commitment leads to the symptoms of lower performance and organizational citizenship as well as increased probability of quitting. Recommended Solutions The damage has been done regarding Rita’s relationship with the organization, but it might be possible to repair it. More important, the recommendations would identify ways to prevent these problems from occurring in the future. A short-term recommendation is to involve Rita more actively in changes within the department. the case suggests that perhaps the new manager needs more development as a participative leader, so perhaps training him would help. Rita may be initially reluctant to be involved and particularly to work closely with the new manager, but meaningful participation should eventually change that. Second, this case suggests that the organization might not have introduced sufficient career development practices to prepare for internal promotions. Even if Rita is not qualified or capable in the long run to perform management roles, career development would provide an opportunity for her to discover her strengths and redirect her to more advanced positions in the company where she can further develop and benefit the organization. Finally, this organization needs to consider how to provide clearer expectations along with explanations about its decisions. It is evident that Rita was not informed about her lack of opportunity for this position and the reasons were not provided at all, let alone in a timely fashion. The following case teaching notes were prepared by Nuzhat Lotia, University of Melbourne Discussion Questions and Suggested Answers 1. Identify and discuss why Rita was upset at work? Analyze the sources of conflict in this situation. Rita was upset at work as from her perspective her goals and interests of upskilling herself, wanting the higher position and more money were being negatively affected by the organizational and managerial interests and context of limited resources and wanting to fill the position with an appropriately qualified and skilled person. Thus, there was conflict due to incompatible individual goals and organizational or managerial goals. The source(s) of her conflict were: different goals (Rita wanted the higher position and the money); limited resources (the decision not to send her on the training); lack of or miscommunication (her assumption that she would be made permanent in the acting position). The conflict was then escalated due to communication problems. Rita did not communicate how the decision to hire from outside affected her and withdrew from work. She no longer took initiative and decided to do the minimal work possible. 2. How would you assess Rita’s approach to managing the conflict that she is experiencing at work? Your answer should include a discussion of the positive and negative aspects of her approach. Rita’s approach to managing the conflict was avoidant and compromising at times. Avoiding the situation by withdrawing from work did not lead to any resolution of the conflict and in fact it frustrated Rita more and she felt resentful. She did initially compromise by helping the new manager, but as she had resolved the conflict situation, the resentment returned and she became an ineffective worker again. She did not communicate and negotiate with the general manager or the new quality control manager to come up with a solution to resolve the problem. Instead, she stopped communicating completely. She tended to be avoidant and compromising in dealing with the conflict she experienced. This had an impact on her as a worker and on the organization. 3. What do you think she should have done differently? Rita should have tried to address the issue as it occurred and not waited around as the conflict escalated as a result. She should have tried to resolve the differences between her and the general manager so that they could have come up with a solution that could be satisfactory for both parties. This could only have happened if she had understood her own emotions and communicated her discontent at the situation to the general manager in an effective manner instead of saying that she understood and later feeling resentful. The general manager too should have communicated to Rita about the decision to advertise and hire for the quality control manager position and perhaps she would have applied for the position herself. One solution could be that she could have negotiated being promoted to an associate manager position with increased pay and a greater role in undertaking managerial responsibilities and developing her financial management skills on the job. Overall, she should have used a problem-solving collaborative approach to managing the conflict. CASE 11: TAMARACK INDUSTRIES These case teaching notes were prepared by Steven L McShane, The University of Western Australia Primary Case Topics Conflict management, team dynamics Case Synopsis Tamarack Industries hires college students during summers to work on the production line. Regular employees resented being split up to reform teams with some students, so the foreman decided to allow the students to form their own team. Rivalry soon formed between members of the regular team and student team. Eventually, this led to sabotage, which motivated the foreman to break up the teams. Discussion Questions and Suggested Answers 1. What are the signs (symptoms) of conflict in this case? This case describes several symptoms from both parties (regular employees and students). In the past, the regular employees “resented” working with the college students and “complained” about their work performance. Although these conflicts did not exist this year, the regular employees resented comments about them from the college students as well as their work on shorter production runs. The demeaning remarks by the college students might also be considered symptoms of dysfunctional conflict. The most overt symptoms of conflict were the sabotage of the other team’s work. 2. Use the conflict model to (a) identify the structural causes of conflict, and (b) discuss the escalation of conflict described in this case. Your answer should also identify the signs (symptoms) of conflict in this case. The main source of conflict in this case is differentiation. The teams consisted of people with significantly different backgrounds, values, and beliefs (i.e. college vs regular staff). Some of the other sources of conflict had minimal relevance. For example, the teams had low (pooled) interdependence regarding task resources, their goals were not incompatible, and they did not lack resources to perform their work. However, there was ambiguity in rules of conduct. Also, the case suggests significant communication problems in the sense that the two teams did not talk to each other but formed stereotypes. The rivalry that formed between the teams might suggest that there was a values scarce resource -- superior performance. Only one team could be the best, which may have explained why the teams tried to undermine each other’s performance through sabotage. Conflict escalation: This case nicely illustrates the problem of escalating conflict when the underlying sources of conflict are not identified and resolved son enough. Initially, the conflict was limited to verbal taunts by students and complaints by the regular staff. Later, this conflict escalated into sabotage of production output. This case describes several symptoms from both parties (regular employees and students). In the past, the regular employees “resented” working with the college students and “complained” about their work performance. Although these conflicts did not exist this year, the regular employees resented comments about them from the college students as well as their work on shorter production runs. The demeaning remarks by the college students might also be considered symptoms of dysfunctional conflict. The most overt symptoms of conflict were the sabotage of the other team’s work. 3. Analyze this case using relevant theories on team dynamics. The main team dynamics concepts that apply to this case are team norms and cohesion. Both teams develop norms of misbehaviour toward the other team, even condoning or encouraging sabotage. The motivation for employees to engage in this dysfunctional behaviour was amplified by team cohesion. both teams became highly cohesive, for several reasons: • Member similarity -- members of each team were similar to each other; college students or regular staff • Team size -- Not much information, but sounds like the teams are reasonably small • Member interaction -- members of each team seem to have a high degree of interaction with each other and less with people on other teams • Somewhat difficult entry -- no evidence that this affected team cohesion • Team success -- this likely influenced cohesion, particularly on the college team due to its higher performance and rapid development • External competition and challenge -- the other team became an external challenge Together, the dysfunctional team norms and high team cohesion produced dysfunctional behaviour in this case. 4. If you were Dan Jensen, what action would you take in this situation? This question should generate considerable debate because the solution is not that simple. To begin, the instructor might want to ask whether the foreman’s solution is the best option here. Most likely, the foreman’s action will NOT work. On the one hand, mixing teams could improve relations among college students and regular staff because they would now work together and have more opportunity to know and understand each other (see the conflict chapter on communication and mutual understanding as a solution to conflict). However, this conflict management strategy works only if differentiation is sufficiently low. If the two groups are quite different, then mixing them together could, as predicted, spark resignations, or at least reduce organizational commitment. There is also the problem that mixing teams with cause teams to revert to an earlier stage of team development, which could hurt performance. The alternative solution is to maintain the two teams, but introduce actions that minimize conflict within the existing structure. For the remainder of this year (until students return to school), this option may be better. What actions can minimize conflict and its dysfunctional consequences? First, the foreman needs to reinforce a set of behavioural norms that includes respectful behaviour. It is likely that clarifying the need to avoid verbal abuse will help. Also, the foreman needs to be firm about the wrongdoing of sabotage. Although punishment should generally be avoided, there are times when extreme behaviour such as sabotage requires action. Another strategy is to introduce a performance-based reward that includes a financial reward for the individual’s own team as well as the other team. This might encourage cooperation or, at least, reduce attempts to undermine the other team’s performance. CASE 12: THE OUTSTANDING FACULTY AWARD These case teaching notes were prepared by Steven L McShane, The University of Western Australia Primary Case Topics Team dynamics and decision making, individual decision making Case Synopsis This case describes the experience of a faculty member who sat on an Outstanding Faculty Award committee for the College of Business. The case describes the process from nomination to selection, as well as discussion regarding differences of opinion. The committee used a structured decision process involving weighted criteria and scores for candidates on each criterion. However, the final choice went to a faculty member who received the bottom score. Discussion Questions and Suggested Answers 1. What problems in team decision making likely caused the committee to select for the award the worst applicant on their list? Students should be able to identify at least two team decision making problems in this case. One problem is that a more influential people derailed a logical decision process because their preference had more weight. The chapter on team decision making advises that no one on the team should dominate the process. A second problem is that individual committee members were easily swayed by the support that others gave to the associate dean’s suggestion. This relates to peer pressure in that others probably do not wish to appear at odds with the group attitude. Another observation here is that when a committee debates over the top two alternatives (candidates), the conflict can become so strong that a third alternative wins the race. This likely occurs because strong emotions make it more difficult for each side in the conflict to accept the other party’s preference, whereas a neutral (but less qualified) third choice receives positive support. 2. What would you recommend to future committees so they avoid the problems identified in this case? Several suggestions are possible, preferably based on the discussion in the preceding questions: Ensure that all committee members have equal status or that those with higher status (such as associate deans) avoid using their influence. Ensure that committee members develop criteria and weights for those criteria early in the process (before candidates are identified), and that they agree to stick with those criteria. Students might debate whether committee members should debate the merits of each candidate before voting. This is probably a good idea in that it brings out information. However, debate can sometimes cause people to move toward the group preference in spite of contrary evidence. 3. Discuss what happened in this case using concepts and theories of individual decision making (Chapter 7). The structural aspects of the decision making process are generally fine. The committee worked through a logical process of identifying applicants and evaluating them. After realizing that they could not evaluate the candidates holistically, they followed a rational process of selecting the best candidate through a procedure of rating candidates on a set of five criteria. This process resulted in identification of a candidate with the highest score. The problem with the decision making process wasn’t so much with the process itself; the problem was that committee members abandoned the process on a few occasions. First, after the top candidate was identified, committee members debated over the decision criteria, suggesting that some people did not like the outcome of the logical process. This reflects the human tendency to form preferences earlier than the rational decision process. When some committee members did not like the top scorer, they wanted to change the criteria to fit their preconceived preference. This problem relates to the emotionality of decision making, particularly that we form preferences long before working through inferences (reasons) for liking or disliking that alternative. Solution Manual Case for Organisational Behaviour: Emerging Knowledge, Global Insights Steven McShane, Mara Olekalns, Alex Newman, Angela Martin 9781760421649, 9780071016261
Download
Close
Close
