1) Leadership is the key in making changes. Discuss

2) Discuss how organizational leadership style is related to employer leadership skills, leadership and business trends.

3) Discuss on leadership behaviour, organizational socialization and organizational culture

CASE

The Texas Plant had been through some tough times. In fact, Corporate had threatened to close the Texas Plant if operations were not improved. While product quality was excellent, the Texas Plant was not competitive with sister plants in terms of speed of product changeovers and cost. Also, union/management problems persisted, and relationships among management employees were strained as well. The Texas Plant's reputation was one of "bureaucratic status quo" with managers who did not encourage suggestions for improvement.

Corporate leaders decided that the Texas Plant needed a team-based entrepreneurial approach that included empowered employees and continuous improvement of processes. As part of the transformation process, Corporate fired the corporate vice president who resided at the Texas Plant and hired a vice president from another corporation. This new vice president, David, was considered a maverick, but in his previous positions, he had demonstrated his ability to achieve performance results. In his first month at the Texas Plant, he realized that he needed someone to help him with the organizational transformation. In his usual maverick style, David personally called a headhunter and described the type of organizational development (OD) person he wanted--one with proven capabilities to rapidly transform organizations. Since the Texas Plant's Human Resources (HR) Director reported to the Corporate Vice President of HR as well as to David, the decision was made by David to have the new OD manager report to Harvey, the Plant HR Director.

Harvey usually had total control over who was hired, promoted, terminated, and disciplined at the Texas plant. However, over his objections and much to his chagrin, his boss, David, corporate vice president over the plant, hired the new (OD) manager, Paula. She would report to Harvey, the HR Director, but Harvey's boss, David, had already told Paula exactly what he wanted done. He wanted her to design and put in place a system that would transform the plant into a place where empowerment and continuous process improvement were a reality for every person. Harvey cautioned this new OD Manager (Paula) that her direct reports (some "professionals" and some union people) were not capable of achieving what the VP wanted done. He noted that she could just redesign the jobs and hire new people. Paula went to her people, explained to them what Harvey had said, and told them that she believed in them and knew that they could be successful together.

When Harvey heard what Paula had done, he was livid. He told her that he considered her to be arrogant and overbearing. He said, "With your eyes, your words, and your actions, you challenge everything I say and do." Paula did not respond to Harvey. He decided that he would "put her in her place" soon enough. He would show Paula that she had no power--that she would have to get his approval before she did anything as long as she reported to him.

The next thing that Paula did was to establish a leadership team comprised of everyone who reported to the vice president. Initially, the leadership team included the Directors of Engineering, Facilities and Maintenance, IT, Financial Operations, and HR (Harvey) as well as the two production managers and the OD Manager (Paula). Then Paula added union employees to the leadership team. She did all of this without asking Harvey--she just did it and sent out an email to everyone inviting them to a meeting. At the meeting, she said the plant needed a mission and vision as well as goals and objectives, strategies and tactics, and measurements. During the meeting, the mission and vision were written, and she announced that all departments were expected to have their own missions and visions as well as complete strategic and tactical plans. David congratulated the members of the leadership team for moving so fast and said, "Let's meet every week. This is great!" In a few weeks, the leadership team completed the goals and objectives, strategies and tactics, and measurements for the plant.

In an email to members of the leadership team, Paula announced that they needed to develop specific leadership competencies for the plant, and hiring would be done based on those competencies. A new hiring checklist would be developed because the current one was outdated, did not include leadership competencies, and did not reflect what the plant needed. In addition, the hiring would be done by a team comprised of a representative from HR, the manager of the hiring department, and someone from a third department. Joe, the Plant Manager, was upset with the changes because he had brought the current hiring system and form with him from the Tennessee plant.

Harvey was also furious! It was impossible to control this new OD manager (Paula). She just assumed authority. Harvey decided that he would get Joe, the plant manager to help him stop her or get rid of her. When Harvey discussed the situation with Joe, he was very angry and ready to collaborate when Harvey said, "Let's get rid of this presumptuous OD manager who is interfering in everyone's business!" Joe's advice was, "Tell Paula to straighten up or leave."

Acting on Joe's advice, Harvey went to talk with Paula. He told her, "I will not tolerate this behavior--making decisions without talking with me, including changing how work is done in HR without talking with me first." Again, Paula just looked at Harvey and did not respond to him. Harvey assigned Paula more work (the design and delivery of various training modules). He felt that if he kept her busy with work assigned by him, she would stay within the boundaries of her job. He decided that he would assign her more and more work until she complied. She completed the training modules and delivered the training without even showing him what was included. Harvey told Paula that she was at risk of losing her job if she did not "shape up" and treat him the way a boss should be treated. He assigned her more work.

During the next few months, Harvey documented the things that Paula did that were outside of what he considered to be professional, especially since she did not talk with him before she did them. Examples are: (1) scheduling herself to present team improvement results to Corporate and then letting a union worker co-present with her; (2) establishing union teams to improve their work processes, paying them to work overtime to determine needed improvements, and scheduling them present the improvements to the leadership team; (3) establishing a newsletter that was written by an hourly employee; and (4) sending out an email that said all area managers, including HR, IT, and Financial Operations as well as Production, would be expected to establish improvement plans for their respective departments. Paula continued to assume power, make decisions, and take actions without checking with Harvey.

The next time when Harvey talked with Paula, he told her that he wanted her to leave. She could just resign or he would eventually fire her. Paula looked sad but also angry as she began preparing to leave, taking her things down from the wall and packing them. A member of Paula's team called David who rushed to Paula's office and said, "You are not going anywhere. When I hired you, I told you that you work for me, and you don't have to worry about anyone else!" In a meeting with Paula and Harvey, David told them that from now on Paula would report directly to him--that Harvey and Paula would now be at the same level and that they would have to "get along."

Harvey decided that he would have the "last laugh." After all, he was the HR Director. As he drew a new organization chart, he listed Paula as a direct report to David and gave her one of 12 employees who had previously reported to her. He moved Paula and her one employee from the OD complex to a shabby little office adjacent to the plant. He gave them the oldest computer in the OD complex. The other 11 employees continued to report to Harvey.

In her three years at the Texas Plant, Paula had accomplished much of the transformation that David wanted. The system was in place for empowerment and continuous improvement. People were being hired and promoted who had the capabilities needed to ensure that the system would continue long term. Significant improvements had been made in safety, quality, customer satisfaction, and cost. Natural work teams and cross functional teams were routinely improving processes and relationships as an integral part of their jobs.

However, Paula was now limited in what she could personally accomplish because it was just her and one union person. She decided that she would resign, and as one last action as an OD person and change agent at the Texas Plant, she would advise David how to make the organizational transformation a reality for the long-term. As Paula talked with David about her desire to resign her position, she told him that Harvey was a power monger who acquired and withheld power for his own egotistical reasons (Pryor, Humphreys, Anderson & Taneja, 2009). She noted that Harvey seemed incapable of strategically and tactically using his power for positive purposes. She also mentioned that Joe, the Plant Manager, collaborated with Harvey in his abuse of power and caused problems with plant operations. In fact, Joe gave instructions to Plant employees that were directly opposite to David's instructions and vision for the Texas Plant. She indicated to David that the Texas Plant would be much better off if both the Plant Manager and Harvey were asked to resign.

Question:

Recommend a new organizational chart for the Texas Plant. Your organizational chart must show the positions and reporting relationships that you would recommend to management at the Texas Plant if you were hired as a consultant.

Revise the following employment message following up after submitting a resume.

Did you receive my resume? I sent it to you at least two months ago and haven't heard anything. I know you keep resumes on file, but I just want to be sure that you keep me in mind. I heard you are hiring health-care managers and certainly would like to be considered for one of those positions. Since I last wrote you, I've worked in a variety of positions that have helped me prepare me for management. To wit, I've become lunch manager at the restaurant where I work, which involved a raise in pay. I now manage a waitstaff of 12 girls and take the lunch receipts to the bank every day. Of course, I'd much rather be working at a real job, and that's why I'm writing again. Is there anything else you would like to know about me or my background? I would really like to know about your company. Is there any literature you could send me? If so, I would really appreciate it. I think one reason I haven't been hired yet is that I don't want to leave Atlanta. So I hope when you think of me, it's for a position that wouldn't require moving. Thanks again for considering my application.

PLEASE DISCUSS THE THREE ARGUMENTS BELOW. SINCE YOU

ARE ARGUING AGAINST INTRODUCING SHEBA IN INDIA, THERE IS NO NEED TO

MAKE COUNTERARGUMENTS. PLEASE ALSO REFER TO THE EUROMONITOR

STUDY AND ANY ADDITIONAL OUTSIDE RESEARCH YOU DO.



Sheba isn’t really sold in emerging markets, and it’s clear why not. It’s a very expensive

niche product in countries where people don’t really humanize their pets.



From the Euromonitor data and reports, we can see that the Indian cat food market is still

really young. The vast majority of Indian people continue to feed their cats non-prepared

food.



India is a DOG country. Although upscale dog food and services are very popular, little

demand exists for similar cat food products

Consider you are a regional soft drink company competing in the US soft drink market. Dr. Pepper was such a player, operating mostly in and around Texas. How could you compete successfully in this industry that is dominated by two large companies? Use appropriate frameworks to support your answer.

Differentiate between focus groups and other forms of data collection, such as surveys and interviews?

New Product Market Capstone Scenario

A leading multinational firm operating within the medical industry is completing the development of adhesive drapes used primarily for pediatric burn victims. These surgical drapes reduce patient infections, are easy to use, and provide affordability and access within even the lowest of GDP emerging markets

Currently, the only existing drapes cost the hospital $200 per set and can only be used for one procedure. It is estimated that this new product innovation will cost the hospital $10 per unit and the manufacturer will have 20% variable cost. All products are shipped directly from the firm to the hospitals. Shipping and handling is factored into this cost-structure. Overall fixed costs are estimated at $3 million.

Miraculously, these new drapes will reduce the current infection rate of 9% by 66.67%. it is estimated that with the older drapes 20% of all such infections led to morbidity.

Based upon market analysis, it is estimated that the new product market share will be 66.67% of 30 million procedures annually. Currently, the market for drapes is segmented based upon type of application (burns, blunt injuries, and birthing), age of the patient, income/ability to pay, gender, and country of the hospital. Purchasing decisions are made by hospitals buyers who are influenced by trained medical staff

Scenario Assignment

As a newly hired product manager within this leading firm, you are requested to analyze and report the following to the leadership committee:

1. Demonstrate and understanding of marketing opportunity analysis in marketing decision making:

Question: Conduct a SWOT analysis making sure you address strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

2. Demonstrate and understanding of the role of product in planning and implementing a marketing strategy:

Question: Introduce and describe the steps involved in a new product development process to provide enhanced innovations withing the scenarios context. Take a 7-step approach to new product to new product development.

This discussion has 3 parts:

1. In your experience, how do human resources managers cope with demands, constraints, and choices confronting them with reference to employee rights and policies and procedures?
2. What are the benefits or consequences that you have witnessed when it comes to employee rights?
3. What steps do you believe human resources managers use to solve problems and make decisions? If you have experienced this first hand, please feel free to share your experience.

For assistance with your assignment, please use your text, Web resources, and all course materials.

Discussion Board Reminders:

Selecting a performance management process and appraisal method requires significant levels of analysis. These would include the amount and quality of input, the time available to complete the appraisal, the value of the appraisal to both the employee and the company, and the clarity associated with the performance objectives that are developed.

This discussion has three parts, as follows:

1. Using your own personal experiences and opinions, discuss what you believe are the benefits and concerns associated with each of the following types of performance appraisal methods:
   • Supervisor-conducted
   • Supervisor-conducted with input from the employee
   • 360-degree appraisal
2. Discuss the benefits of management by objectives and how this impacts the performance management process in a real-life situation. Your response should include the basic steps that are associated with this process.
3. Discuss the steps that are associated with a job analysis process. Based on your personal experience, why do you think the job analysis process is important?

You can provide the experiences of your family or friends in your responses if you do not have your own in these areas.

Chap. 6:- Honda was the first Japanese auto manufacturer to produce cars in the United States. At that time there was much skepticism as to whether U.S. workers could adapt to the Japanese emphasis on high quality. Honda has succeeded in the United States, and other Japanese auto manufacturers have followed. At Honda, why is it so important to plan ahead, as much as five years, for quality of vehicle models? How is the design process related to quality management? What is the role of the PDCA cycle at Honda ? Why does Honda produce new and old models simultaneously? What is “quality fatigue”? How does Honda address it in its plant?

The ABC Manufacturing Co. has made a decision to replace an existing production line with new equipment. This project will require several tasks (jobs) with precedence relationships and duration (weeks) as shown in the following table. The project will be finished when activities A-J are all finished.

a)       Create an Activity-On-Node network diagram for this Project.

b)       Calculate the earliest start (ES) and finish (EF) times and latest start (LS) and finish (LF) times, the total slack (TS) and free slack (FS) for each of the activities in the network.

c)       Identify the critical path(s).

d)       What is the project completion duration?

What are some of the advantages for Sony, Toshiba, and LG Electronics to outsource TV manufacturing from South Korea, Japan, and Mexico to plants in China and Taiwan?

Why do you think government expenditures as a percentage of GDP have increased in the U.S. and other countries?

Draw the Product Life Cycle figure of Samsonite, in which stage of the Product Life Cycle is Samsonite currently standing? How can the company extend its life cycle?

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada

INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behaviour. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humour. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting, but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labour relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behaviour. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package.

THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principle offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanics grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).”

(2) Considering that the mechanic claimed that the ThyssenKrupp culture contributed to such behaviour, in your opinion, does ThyssenKrupp need to change its corporate culture? If not, why not?   

(3)  You have to take one side, either the company ThyssenKrupp or the fired employee. If you decide to represent ThyssenKrupp, then you are the defense lawyer. If you decide to represent the fired mechanic, you are the Plaintiff’s Lawyer. Present your arguments with evidences and supporting matter to the Judge.