Running head: KEEP KEEPUM
Keep Keepum at Cookies: (Case #3A)
Michael J. Walk
University of Baltimore
MFCC 1

MFCC 2
Keep Keepum at Cookies: (Case #3A)
The Manny Flavors Cookie Company (MFCC), a fourth-generation family-owned business, is having some issues in its operations department. In particular, there seems to be trouble with the department’s motivation and leadership. A company like MFCC cannot afford to allow poor leadership or a lack of employee motivation to affect the quality or quantity of its products. If quality suffers, the reputation of MFCC could be in jeopardy. If quantity suffers, the company may not be able to meet market demand. In either of these conditions, the sales of
MFCC will be adversely affected, resulting in a loss of profits. In addition, the longer the situation continues as is, the more likely that employee turnover will become an issue at MFCC, which would result in large recruiting and training costs. In order to avoid loss, MFCC must deal with the challenges at hand before they get out of hand and start costing lots of dough.
A Brief History
MFCC.
A brief presentation of the current situation will help to clarify the extant issues at
MFCC began as small company producing a single flavor of cookie. It has grown through the years and is currently producing over 50 flavors of cookies. The company continues to succeed under the direction of its CEO, Manny. However, recent problems have been reported in the operations department. Specifically, the VP of operations, Willie Keepum, has been complaining of his employees’ lack of motivation. He reports that his subordinates “have bad attitudes and don’t seem to want to work.” Keepum has expressed his concerns to Manny, and
Keepum is ready and willing to fire the entire department in order to get things back under control.

MFCC 3
According to Manny’s reports, he is well aware of Keepum’s self-centered leadership style. Keepum apparently doesn’t pay attention to the opinions of his mid-level managers, and he is well-known for being “heavy-handed” with his subordinates. Keepum apparently believes that motivation is not something that can be made or changed—it is only a personality characteristic
(i.e., a worker either comes to work motivated or he/she does not).
In addition, Manny is concerned that the production level of operations has declined over the past year; however, he has no solid evidence. Keepum also reports that his workers seem
“complacent” and that they “don’t care about quality.” Manny is concerned about the problem in operations and is not sure what to do—fire Keepum, fire the workers, train Keepum, or some other course of action.
Possible Alternatives
The first question that needs to be addressed is, “Does something have to be done?” A viable alternative is to take no action and allow the situation to progress along its current path.
While this is an option, it is not a wise alternative to pursue. First, research does suggest that there is a relationship between a worker’s mood and his or her task performance (Tsai, Chen, &
Liu, 2007). If Keepum’s subordinates are working with negative affects, it will likely be negatively affecting their performance on the job. And if the employees are not engaged in their work, business outcomes are likely to suffer (Flade, 2003). Higher levels of engagement have been found to be related to improved customer loyalty because of an increased service climate
(Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005).
Another alternative is firing the workers. This is not a recommended solution for several reasons. First, it is unclear if the problem is the workers in the department or if the problem
Keepum himself. Also, this action would result in several negative outcomes: (1) the cost of

MFCC 4 recruiting and training an entire department of workers, (2) the increased possibility of litigation due to wrongful termination lawsuits, (3) and the shaken perceptions of surviving employees— which may decrease work motivation and morale in other departments.
On the other hand, Manny could simply fire Keepum and replace him with someone more fit for the job. While this alternative is definitely better than the previous, it also has its downfalls. First and foremost, while it is likely that the problem seems to be rooted in Keepum’s leadership style, it could very well be a problem with the culture that’s evolved within his department (perhaps due to an oversight of his, but not an egregious error). Secondly, firing
Keepum may result in a greater loss for the company. Assuming that Keepum has been a loyal employee and that he is highly experienced in the details of the operations department, firing him without training a new replacement would result in a poor leadership transition that may adversely affect production.
Recommendations
Initial Assessment
My recommendation to Manny includes a three-step initial assessment that comprises: (1) confirming that productivity has been declining; (2) assessing employee engagement across several departments to allow for comparisons; and (3) assessing subordinate perceptions of departmental leadership.
Productivity.
While anecdotal reports of a decline in productivity may be accurate, concrete evidence of such a problem needs to be obtained in order to determine if the productivity of the operations department is actually decreasing, and if so, to what degree. If there is no problem in productivity, Manny may opt not to address the situation any further—the expense may be too great to justify intervening when no financial concerns exist. If there is an

MFCC 5 issue with current productivity levels, this initial assessment will uncover it; in addition, the initial production-level data will serve as a baseline against which to measure the effectiveness of any intervention.
Employee engagement.
Keepum reports problems with employee motivation. However, the presence and degree of this problem needs to be accurately assessed in order to understand what is happening in operations. In order to measure “motivation,” the Work Engagement Scale
(Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002) will be used. Engagement refers to “A positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, et al., 2002).
Engagement will be assessed within three different departments: marketing and sales, research and development, and operations. Having data from other departments will allow for comparisons to be made, which may help to pinpoint the issue at MFCC.
Perceptions of leadership.
How leadership is enacted is an important component in business outcomes (Salvaggio, Schneider, Nishii, Mayer, Ramesh, & Lyon, 2007). Moreover,
Avolio and Bass (n.d.) have developed an instrument to measure transformational leadership, called the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Transformational leadership was introduced by Bass (1985) and has been widely researched since its inception. Researchers have found positive relationships between transformational leadership and subordinates’ motivation
(Adebayo, 2005; Hetland & Sandal, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004), job satisfaction (Hetland &
Sandal, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006), and job performance (Bass,
Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Hetland & Sandal, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). It is necessary to gather subordinates’ perceptions of Keepum’s leadership style as well as the perceptions of the leadership styles of the vice presidents of marking and sales as well as research and

MFCC 6 development. If Keepum’s poor leadership is affecting the engagement of his employees, then I should see this suggested by the data. That is, assuming that other VPs are not poor leaders, they should score higher on transformational leadership than Keepum, and employees from the other departments should score higher on engagement than the operations employees.
Intervention
Depending on the results from the initial assessment, intervention strategies may differ.
The following recommendations are based on the assumption that Keepum’s leadership is the cause of low employee engagement and a decrease in productivity in the operations department.
Leadership styles training.
In order to keep Keepum’s knowledge within the company while still fixing the problem, Keepum should undergo a training program which is composed of several steps. First, Keepum should be educated about the different styles of leadership that leaders typically use. This would entail discussions of laissez faire (i.e., no leadership at all), transactional leadership (including passive management by exception, active management by exception, and contingent reward), and transformational leadership (for a brief discussion of these styles, see Landy and Conte, 2007). It is likely that Keepum is currently engaging in a
“passive management by exception” (PMBE) leadership style. That is, Keepum is not actively engaging his employees on a regular basis, he is likely assigning little meaning to the every-day work of his subordinates, and he only gets involved with his employees when a mistake occurs:
“Passive leaders wait until the behavior has created problems before taking action” (Judge &
Piccolo, 2004, p. 756). Judge and Piccolo’s (2004) meta-analysis of research on the transformational-transactional leadership model indicated that the PMBE style was not a significant predictor of follower satisfaction (as opposed to transformational which was a significant positive predictor), was a significant negative predictor of follower motivation (as

MFCC 7 opposed to transformational which was a significant positive predictor), and was a significant negative predictor of rated leader effectiveness (as opposed to transformational which was a significant positive predictor).
It is therefore recommended that Keepum attempt to use a transformational leadership style; this style of leadership appears to be the most effective at motivating employees to perform on the job (Adebayo, 2005; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Hetland & Sandal, 2003; Judge
& Piccolo, 2004; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). Transformational leadership is composed of four main characteristics (Bass, 1997, as cited in Landy & Conte, 2007, p. 520):
1) Idealized influence: Leaders display conviction, emphasize trust, take stands on difficult issues, emphasize the importance of commitment and purpose…
2) Inspirational motivation: Leaders articulate an appealing vision of the future, challenge followers with high standards, talk optimistically with enthusiasm, and provide encouragement and meaning for what needs to be done.
3) Intellectual stimulation: Leaders question old assumptions, values, and beliefs, stimulate new ways of doing things, and encourage expression of ideas and reasons.
4) Individualized consideration: Leaders deal with others as individuals, consider individual needs, abilities, and aspirations, listen attentively, and advise, coach, and teach.
Keepum would learn about these characteristics and how to implement them effectively.
Training procedure.
In order to get Keepum on board with the training program, several key events must take place.
First, Keepum would receive the results of the operations department survey so he could see objective evidence of the issues within his department (including the negative perceptions of

MFCC 8 his leadership). While Keepum may attempt to explain away this finding as a result of having a
“bunch of slackers” as subordinates, he cannot deny the production problem and the evidence of low engagement. Also, he would be shown the results of the other two departments (without actual department names presented) to show him the difference between the outcomes of effective versus ineffective leadership. Finally, the leadership styles training would provide education concerning the empirical evidence that leadership style affects employee performance.
In addition, a new reward system for all VPs would be implemented at the same time as the training. Departmental performance and engagement goals will be set every six months, and at the end of every six-month interval, performance and engagement will be assessed. If the department meets or exceeds the goal, the VP will receive a reward (e.g., stock options, bonus, or perhaps additional paid vacation time).
Keepum’s initial training would most likely be outsourced to a training company that adhered to the transformational leadership model. After the initial training was complete,
Keepum would meet with the author and Manny in order to discuss his performance and the performance of the department. These meetings would occur approximately once every month.
Conclusion
Being an effective leader is not an ability that comes naturally to everyone in leadership positions. It may take time and extensive training to fully develop an individual’s potential for leadership. If MFCC is willing to spend the time and money to train Keepum for more effectual leadership, it will likely reap the benefits through increased employee engagement, production, and product quality—helping the business obtain all the right ingredients to reach its full potential.

MFCC 9
References
Adebayo, D. O. (2005). Perceived workplace fairness, transformational leadership, and motivation in the Nigeria police: Implications for change. International Journal of Police
Science and Management , 7 (2), 110-122.
Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (n.d.). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Third Edition. Retrieved
December 2, 2007, from Mental Measurements Yearbook database.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations . New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I. & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology ,
88 , 207-218.
Flade, P. (2003) Great Britain’s workforce lacks inspiration.
Gallup Management Journal .
Retrieved October 2007 from http://gmj.gallup.com.
Hetland, H., & Sandal, G. M. (2003). Transformational leadership in Norway: Outcomes and personality correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 12 ,
147-170.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 755-768.
Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2007). Work in the 21st Century: An Initroduction to Industrial and
Organziational Psychology (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Refining individualized consideration: Distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive leadership. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology , 79 , 37-61.

MFCC 10
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 , 1217-1227.
Salvaggio, A. N., Schneider, B., Nishii, L. H., Mayer, D. M., Ramesh, A., & Lyon, J. (2007).
Manager personality, manager service quality orientation, and service climate: Test of a model. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 , 1741-1750.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Journal of Happiness Studies , 3 , 71-92.
Tsai, W. C., Chen, C. C., & Liu, H. L. (2007). Test of a model linking employee positive moods and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 , 1570-1583.