Shawn Merriman Case 6.1, "Hovey and Beard Company Case," MNGT 5590 1. Discuss how the principles of job design and reinforcement theory apply to the performance problems at the Hovey and Beard Company. Good job design is where the task, duties and responsibilities of a job are specified and considers the company's performance needs along with individual employee skills, needs and motivation. We read in the case study that the employees at Hovey and Beard Company had been performing their painting task the same way for many years and had come accustomed to this way to get the job done. Management decided to make a job redesign to this practice that caused work performance and production to decline. The new job design was reengineered by the company engineers and was not well accepted by those performing the job. Management did not gather any input from those that were performing the job so managements perception that the workers would be able to be trained and meet the production numbers was wrong. Management believed paying the painters on a group bonus plan and offering a learning bonus for six months would reinforce quick learning and increased production. The employees had no role in the redesign process and felt they were being asked to produce an unreasonable amount of product. The employees felt that the new working conditions were not conducive to higher performance and began to speak out about the job redesign. When they brought their complaints to management they were perceived as complainers and were not embracing the new job design. Management did a poor job of communicating the large-scale change before it was implemented. They had no buy in from the employees. Employees were not explained the company’s new vision and did not have key employees engaging with other employees to buy-in to the new process. When one employee decided to speak up with the groups concerns, he was looked upon by management as a trouble maker or being difficult. His fellow employers looked at him as their leader, the one that could speak for all of them. Management should have recognized this an made a better attempt to have a conversation before workers started quitting or talking against the company and bringing down moral. Management believed that by giving the employees a learning bonus it would squash any of the apprehension employees would have about the job design. Management quickly learned that this type of reinforcement theory (positive reinforcement) through higher pay incentives quickly lost steam as there are other consideration factors to employee’s happiness other than pay. Employees want to feel as if they have some say, they want to feel empowered. Once management started to listen to their employee’s ideas, they began to work more cohesively, and production increased. They had short term wins that improved their quality of work life. The momentum that was gained from these wins unfortunately was soon dismantled by managements decision to undo all the employee’s ideas and learning bonuses. Management did not nurture this new culture and in the end, it had negative affects not only on job performance but in retaining many of the newly trained employees. This is attributed to extinction which is the decline in the response rate because of nonreinforcement. (Ivancevich, p. 165) 2. Analyze the performance problems using the “Performance Diagnosis Model” in Exhibit 7.5. “The performance diagnosis model in Exhibit 7.5 offers a systematic way for managers and subordinates to collaboratively pinpoint the cause(s) of dissatisfaction and performance problems.” (Ivancevich p.184) The model addresses seven performance problems, perception, resources, training, aptitude, expectation, incentives and salience. “The manager and lowperforming subordinate should follow the logical discovery process of the model, step by step.” (Ivancevich p.184) The model first asks the question is the boss and subordinate in agreement that performance needs improvement. This issue must be agreed upon or there is no need to continue with the model. In the case of Hovey and Beard, I believe the answer is yes. Next, we ask if the problem stems from subordinate’s inadequate motivation or ability. In our case I believe that the subordinates suffer from both but more so from ability. The painters are learning a new process with quicker turn around times and new techniques. This new ability addresses the fact that more training is required or more practice using new technique is required. References Ivancevich, J., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. (2018). Organizational Behavior and Management (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Kotter, J., Cohen, D. (2202). The Heart of Change, Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations. Harvard Business School Press.
