LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT: CASE FOR ANALYSIS

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT: CASE FOR ANALYSIS

Alvis Corporation

Kevin McCarthy is a manager of a production department in Alvis Corporation, a firm that manufactures office equipment. After reading an article that stressed the benefits of participative management, Kevin believes that these benefits could be realised in his department if the workers are allowed to participate in making some decisions that affect them. The workers are not unionized. Kevin selected two decisions for his experiment in participative management.

The first decision involved vacation schedules. Each summer the workers were given two weeks- vacation, but no more than two workers can go on vacation at the same time. In prior years, Kevin made this decision himself. He would first ask the workers to indicate their preference dates, and then he considered how the work would be affected if different people were out at the same time. It was important to plan a vacation schedule that would ensure adequate staffing for all the essential operations performed by the department. When more than two workers wanted the same time period, and they had similar skills, he usually gave preference to the worker with highest productivity.

The second decision involved production standards. Sales had been increasing steadily over the past few years, and the company recently installed some new equipment to increase productivity. The new equipment would allow Kevin2019s department to produce more with the same number of workers. The company had a pay incentive system in which workers received a piece rate for each unit produced above the standard amount. Separate standards existed for each type of product, based on industrial engineering study conducted a few years earlier. Top management wanted to readjust the production standards to reflect the fact that the new equipment made it possible for the workers to earn without working any harder. The savings from higher productivity were needed to help pay for the new equipment.

Kevin called a meeting of his 15 workers an hour before the end of the workday. He explained that he wanted them to discuss the two issues and make recommendations. Kevin figured that the workers might be inhibited about participating in the discussion if he were present, so he left them alone to discuss the issues. Besides, Kevin had an appointment to meet with quality control manager. Quality problems had increased after the new equipment was installed, and the industrial engineers were studying the problem in an attempt to determine why quality had gotten worse rather than better.

When Kevin returned to his department just at quitting time, he was surprised to learn that the workers recommended keeping the standards same. He had assumed they know the pay incentives were no longer fair and would set a higher standard. The spokesman for the group explained that their base pay had not kept up with inflation and the higher incentive pay resorted their real income to its prior level.

On the vacation issue, the group was deadlocked. Several of the workers wanted to take their vacations during the same two-week period and could not agree on who should go. Some workers argued that they should have priority because they had more seniority while others argued that priority should be based on productivity, as in the past. Since it was quitting time, the group concluded that Kevin would have to resolve the dispute himself. After all, wasn2019t that what he was being paid for?
1. Analyze this situation using the Hershey-Blanchard model ant the Vroom-Jago model. What do these models suggest as the appropriate leadership or decision style? Explain your answer.

2. Evaluate Kevin McCarthy2019s leadership style before and during his experiment in participative management.

3. If you were Kevin McCarthy, What would you do now