Question

Again, look back on everything that is known about Bill’s, and the situations that Patrick faced. Please answer questions (a) and (b) Before you read the epilog, then answer questions (c) and (d) After reading the epilog.

1. 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?  
2. Before epilog: What recommendations for organizational change do you think would be most appropriate and why?
3. After epilog: What is your initial reaction to the epilog?
4. 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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).
6. Patrick started requiring full safety gear for all employees—no exceptions.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.

Answer 1

Answer:-

1) The organizational level of OB requires more change. The organizational level arrangements with the style of the board, organizational structure, social assorted variety, between organizational participation and struggle, ect. Let us think about the style of authority for the administration. The administrative control has an extraordinary effect on the result of the representatives.

This administrative control is basic to an organizational conduct to have a positive result. There are a few levels of administrative control. The despotic administrative control directs the conduct of the people. A despotic style of authority has a negative result from the people and along these lines the profitability is diminished. Social assorted variety is likewise another significant factor that impacts the OB.

Today, globalization assumes a basic job in an association's prosperity. The workers are from various societies and the association ought to comprehend the way of life of the representatives to support them, to determine clashes, to be fruitful in the worldwide market.

2) The recommendations of an organizational change are:

Legitimate arranging

The organizational changes should be arranged cautiously. The change ought to be with the end goal that the representatives adjust them as opposed to indicating any revultion for the change.

Tailor made changes

Each organizational change ought to be tweaked per the prerequisites. There is no set system for an executing an organizational change.

Contribution of representatives

At all levels-Involving workers from the various levels in the arranging, actualizing and appraisal stages would cause them to feel some portion of the organization and along these lines would have a positive result for the organizational change.

Correspondence of results

The consequences of the organizational change in each stage should be imparted to the workers with the goal that they know about the circumstance. Likewise, the administration will know where they are and where they have to go in the change procedure.

3) Personally, Patrick has made snappy choices without thinking about the results. In spite of the fact that the choices had a positive effect like increment in the organization financials and vocation development for support representatives, there was an incredible effect on the association in losing a few plan engineers for the procedure.

One significant factor that Patrick considered was wellbeing to the representatives and that had no trade off. This is crucial for an association's prosperity. Patrick's methodology appeared to be for the prosperity of the representatives yet his methodology is an absolutist style of authority since he needed things to be set up according to his choices.

He never counseled his supervisors and workers to impact any change in the association. This kind of administrative methodology won't continue over the long haul.

4) I would have acted differently as far as dynamic and critical thinking. I would not have utilized the tyrannical methodology like what Patrick had done. Rather I would look for contributions from my directors and representatives to take care of the issue genially for the improvement of the association.

This would prompt increment in efficiency and along these lines accomplishment for the organization. For instance, I would not have shut all the 3 R& D offices and move the willing representatives to an alternate area. Rather, I would have had a conversation with the R&D experts and the production line workers to show up at a superior choice i.e., to have the R&D group in house the industrial facility for better correspondence.

By doing this, I would not have lost the best building experts who are the spine to the association's prosperity.

please like the answer........