Please answer questions (a) and (b) Before you read the epilog, then answer ques
ID: 371563 • Letter: P
Question
Please answer questions (a) and (b) Before you read the epilog, then answer questions (c) and (d) After reading the epilog.
Before epilog: Based upon the previous case discussions and everything you’ve learned in this course, what level(s) of OB are most in need of change. Why?
Before epilog: What recommendations for organizational change do you think would be most appropriate and why?
After epilog: What is your initial reaction to the epilog?
After epilog: In looking at what Patrick has done, how would have you responded similarly? Differently? How and why?
Epilog:
This case actually took place between mid-2011 and early 2012. While some of the details have been changed or modified, much of the case is very real. Patrick is a real person, and made some real decisions; some of them good, some not-so-good. Here is what Patrick actually did:
Patrick fired Troy, put in new maintenance manager (Jamaal) with positive attitude. He put 2 new layers of hierarchy into the maintenance department to give maintenance employees more room for growth/promotion as well as more oversight. He also created a very specific set of goals for the maintenance department that were linked to the goals of the organization. Maintenance employees’ raises were dependent upon reaching those goals. Within a week of replacing Troy with Jamaal and developing the new goals, overall machine downtime was reduced by 28%, and further reduced by 51% within a month.
Patrick closed all 3 R&D facilities and moved willing employees to a location in a leased space 2 miles away (he wanted R&D to be inside of the factory, but there was not enough space to house them). While the overall result was positive and it reduced communication problems, they lost several design engineers in the process (those who were not willing to move to a new location) and thus lost a great deal of company knowledge. But, the financial cost savings were significant and immediate.
The hourly employees were really angry—they felt that every time they began to work harder (overtime on Sunday, following Patrick’s new machine attendance rules) they were “rewarded” by losing their jobs and/or their overtime. Because the plant paid lower wages than many others in the area, compensation was a constant issue. Patrick could not offer a pay raise, but did promise that in the future when productivity increased, he would NOT do a lay-off or other means of reducing head-count of wages. He also offered one more break per day, so long as the breaks were taken at staggered times, so that all machines could continue to run. This was how the walk-out was averted.
Patrick fired two key supervisors who had been known to be especially difficult to work with, and replaced them with known leaders at the hourly level.
Patrick had supervisors attempt to place people back on work schedules that better matched their original work schedule (to ease the burden of the lay-off on their personal lives).
Patrick started requiring full safety gear for all employees—no exceptions.
Patrick implemented a maintenance program that included hourly employees doing some of the preventive maintenance on equipment themselves. This change required a significant investment in training, and broadened the responsibilities or hourly employees (job design/enhancement!). It also reduced the burden on the maintenance department to do all machine maintenance.
Patrick instituted monthly town hall meetings in which he discussed a general overview of the financials of the company with all employees. In order to accommodate all shifts, he performed 3 town hall meetings on the same day; one for each shift. He performed them himself, in an effort to have more direct communications with hourly employees.
Bill is still not making contact, but all of his duties have been reassigned so as to reduce the impact of his absence on the organization. There is little that Patrick can do about that situation.
Bills Grills Update as of July 2017:
Between 2013 and 2017, several important changes were implanted at Bill’s. First, the company divested the high-production, low-end (and low-margin) part of the business, keeping its high-end and special order business (i.e. it divested the cheap-grill portion of the business). This change is both good and bad—it has been exceedingly helpful due to the strong economy, but may put Bill’s at risk if another economic downturn is to take place (it is harder to sell at $10,000 grill in a down economy). This divestiture brought interesting changes: employees of the smaller, high-end and special order site became more engaged and morale improved. In addition, turnover among production employees was reduced. Any idea why?
In addition to the divestiture, there has been major turn-over in management. Patrick moved on from Bill’s, making Jose the plant manager. Janet has also moved on. Upon the divestiture, the R&D department was also downsized. While they had become somewhat more integrated into the culture of the company after the move to Texas, members of the R&D group never truly integrated into the rest of the organization. Several R&D engineers have been replaced with customer quality engineers—what do you think this signifies? Do you think it is a good choice, given the situation and what does it say about the company’s culture?
Finally, on-time delivery continues to be an issue at Bill’s. While the divestiture reduced the need for high-speed manufacturing, the push toward custom manufacturing has created some problems, as lead-times and parts inventory have necessarily increased (it takes longer to build custom and you need a lot more diverse set of parts and raw materials). The increase in inventory cost has not had a good deal of impact on the company, however in the future it may. But, the lead-time issues have led to conflict between supervisors and production managers. These remain unresolved.
Bill’s is finally making a solid profit.
Explanation / Answer
Before epilog: Based upon the previous case discussions and everything you’ve learned in this course, what level(s) of OB are most in need of change. Why?
The organizational level of OB requires more change. The organizational level deals with the style of management, organizational structure, cultural diversity, inter-organizational cooperation and conflict, ect. Let us consider the style of leadership for the management. The managerial control has a great impact on the outcome of the employees. This managerial control is critical to an organizational behavior to have a positive outcome. There are several levels of managerial control. The autocratic managerial control dictates the behavior of the individuals. An autocratic style of leadership has a negative outcome from the individuals and thus the productivity is decreased. Cultural diversity is also another important factor that influences the OB. Today, globalization plays a critical role in an organization’s success. The employees are from different cultures and the organization should understand the culture of the employees to encourage them, to resolve conflicts, to be successful in the global market, etc.
Before epilog: What recommendations for organizational change do you think would be most appropriate and why?
The recommendations of an organizational change are:
After epilog: What is your initial reaction to the epilog?
Personally speaking, Patrick has made quick decisions without thinking of the consequences. Though the decisions had a positive impact like increase in the company financials and career growth for maintenance employees, there was a great impact on the organization in losing several design engineers for the process. One important factor that Patrick considered was safety to the employees and that had no compromise. This is vital for an organization’s success. Patrick’s approach seemed to be for the well-being of the employees but his approach is an autocratic style of leadership because he wanted things to be in place as per his decisions. He never consulted his managers and employees to effect any change in the organization. This type of managerial approach will not sustain in the long-run.
After epilog: In looking at what Patrick has done, how would have you responded similarly? Differently? How and why?
I would have acted differently in terms of decision making and problem solving. I would not have used the dictatorial approach like what Patrick had done. Instead I would seek inputs from my managers and employees to solve the problem amicably for the betterment of the organization. This would lead to increase in productivity and thus success for the company. For example, I would not have closed all the 3 R& D facilities and move the willing employees to a different location. Instead, I would have had a discussion with the R&D professionals and the factory employees to arrive at a better decision i.e., to have the R&D team in house the factory for better communication. By doing this, I would not have lost the best engineering professionals who are the backbone to the organization’s success.