Running head: B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
1
B.R. Richardson Case Study
Keith Gucwa
Lynn Hempey
Kristin Massicot
Kristen Ray
McDaniel College
Abstract
Papoose Laminators, a division of B.R. Richardson Timber Products Corporation was the subject
of an organizational development case study for Professor Jack Lawler and his students at a local
university. Lawler was asked by Papoose Laminators to provide training as they initiated the
entering stage of organizational development. They later moved into the contracting stage as they
decided to complete an organizational diagnosis. Poor morale, safety concerns and poorly
managed human resources issues were the focus of research data that were organized with the aid
of McKinsey’s 7S Model. Once Lawler and his graduate students were able to frame the copious
amount of information into a useable model, they would present the information and make
suggestions for improved work processes to company President, Ben Richardson and Richard
Bowman, the Industrial Relations Manager. Lawler was able to create an effective learning
experience for his students and present a cost efficient solution to B.R. Richardson.
B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
2
B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
3
B.R. Richardson Case Study
Harold S. Geneen once said, “Leadership is practiced not so much in words as in attitude
and in actions.” (Dickerson, 2012). B.R. Richardson Timber Products Corporation was a small
lumber company located in Papoose, Oregon with low morale, serious safety issues, and an
authoritative manager. Recognizing the need for an intervention, the company reached out to a
consultant for training. After entering into an agreement a diagnosis of B.R. Richardson’s
lamination plant was completed. (Cummings & Worley, 2008) In the case of B.R. Richardson,
the McKinsey 7S Model provided the best mechanism to evaluate, diagnose and understand the
collected data about various elements of the work environment.
Entering and Contracting Stage
The entering stage began when the Industrial Relations Manager at B.R. Richardson,
Richard Bowman, contacted consultant and part time college professor Jack Lawler, and inquired
as to whether he could provide a motivational training course to the blue collar employees in their
lamination plant. Bowman had been referred to Lawler, and based on his outstanding reputation
for training, he was an obvious choice. Through the course of their initial conversation, Lawler
informed Bowman that he needed to know more information about the company before he could
design the appropriate training. They agreed that Lawler would meet with Ben Richardson, the
company President, and Bowman in person the following week. After a tour and explanation of
their concerns, Lawler indicated that he preferred to conduct a diagnosis before he presented the
required training. He assured them that he would follow up with an outline of his thoughts for
moving this process forward.
In his letter Lawler described three alternatives for Richardson and Bowman to consider.
One idea provided a contact in their geographic area that would develop and present the
motivation course they initially requested. Another proposed the engagement of Lawler as a
consultant to complete a diagnosis using research to identify “noncontrolled problems” and to
provide advice on how to address them. The final option would involve a student team that
B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
4
would analyze and diagnose the laminating plant and provide recommendations. Additional
pricing would be provided based on the selected course of action.
Once the leaders at B.R. Richardson made a decision, they contacted Lawler. They
wanted his expertise for a diagnosis but did not want to invest a lot of money. Their choice
would involve his graduate students who would visit the lamination plant to gather information.
Lawler and the students would analyze the information and present it to Richardson and
Bowman. The company would be billed for three days of Lawler’s time and additional travel
expenses.
The following week Lawler shared the opportunity with his graduate students, but only
two were available to make the trip. Lawler presented an organizational chart, a sketch of the
lamination plant floor plan, the history of the company and a general overview of the identified
issues. Lawler conducted the initial stages of entering and contracting by defining the problems
and opportunities, and then establishing a collaborative relationship with the president of the
company.
Analysis of Entering and Contracting
It appeared that initial agreements were made verbally. Even though a verbal agreement
would be acceptable, it is generally recommended that a written agreement be prepared in this
situation. This written agreement should have included the scope of the work including: mutual
expectations and the expenses for the three day visit, a data collection plan indicating the date of
the visit and the activity to be performed, and the data to be collected which may be helpful for
both parties.
Lawler’s approach for recruiting the graduate students for the project did not seem well
thought out. The selected students were chosen based on their available schedule rather than their
prior experience or academic knowledge. Instead, he should have surveyed the students in his
class based on their interest in the project and their skill set or educational experience. After
B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
5
determining the best candidates, he should have worked to accommodate his schedule with those
students.
There were other problems with the process Lawler used for this project as well. Since
the training was intended for the laminating department staff, the manager, Joe Bamford, should
have been more involved in the initial process. In his first conversation with Bowman, Lawler
asked about Bamford’s level of involvement and was told he had not been informed of the
training concept at all. It was important to have Bamford’s buy-in or involvement because it
could have had a substantial impact on the diagnosis.
It is unknown whether Lawler made Richardson and Bowman aware of his previous
years of organizational development experience, or if they knew of his area of expertise as a
partner at Oregon Consulting Associates. This was important in order for them to ascertain
whether his strengths matched their needs. Due to the fact that a friend had referred Lawler to
Bowman, the company should have asked Lawler for references to determine his effectiveness as
a trainer and his preferred techniques.
7S Model
The McKinsey 7S Framework was developed in the1980’s by McKinsey Consultants,
Tom Peters and Robert Waterman. The model involves seven interdependent factors defined as
hard and soft elements (Waterman, Peters, & Phillips, 1980). The hard elements are easily
defined and identifiable. They include strategy, structure, and systems in an organization. The
soft elements are less tangible and more influenced by culture. The soft elements include shared
values, skills, style, and staff. This model was employed for the diagnosis of the B.R. Richardson
case study. The McKinsey model allowed Lawler the ability to more easily categorize the large
amount of information gathered for B.R. Richardson, and analyze the data according to its
defined elements. Below is a representation of the seven elements and the interdependencies
(Mindtools, n.d.).
B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
6
(Mindtools, n.d.)
Structure
“Organizational structure is defined as the formal allocation of work roles and the
administrative mechanisms to control and integrate work activities including those which cross
formal organizational boundaries.” (Childs, 1972, p.2). The structure of B.R. Richardson
consisted of four smaller companies. Papoose Laminators was the focal point of this case study.
Within this organization a hierarchy existed with a manager, supervisors and front line staff.
Richardson headed all four companies with the help of Juanita Yates, his secretary.
Four teams within Papoose Laminators plant work at various points along the assembly
line. Coordination between these work teams occurred only at the supervisor level. The front
line staff were not empowered to offer input or to participate in the decision making process.
The four companies under B.R. Richardson were not structured with a shared vision or
mission. They were created to support each other, but the lack of communication and shared
values makes collaboration a difficult task. For example, only 30% of the lumber purchased for
the laminating plant was purchased from the Richardson Mill (Cummings & Worley, 2008,
B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
7
p.717). The Mill could supply the majority of the lumber to the laminating plant, which would
increase the Mill’s productivity and reduce the laminating plant’s cost to acquire wood.
Strategy
“Strategy refers to the positioning and actions taken by an enterprise, in response to our
anticipation of changes in the external environment, intended to achieve competitive advantage.”
(Kaplan, 2005, p. 41). The strategy that was employed by Richardson focuses on production at
the cost of safety and long-term investment. Richardson appeared to be only interested in the
bottom line and did not respond to the high turnover rate, or safety issues that existed for
employees. There was not a clear, strategic plan that addressed long-term success. There was a
continuous focus on the daily deliverables rather than a long-term plan to achieve a competitive
advantage. The reactive strategy with only short-term objectives impeded communication,
prevented productive work processes, and shut down potentially positive changes.
Systems
Systems are organized and purposeful structures, which are regarded as a whole and
consist of interrelated and interdependent elements (BusinessDictionary, n.d.). Systems within
the McKinsey 7S model focus on the main systems that run the organization, their controls and
monitoring, as well as the internal rules and processes used to operate them (Mindtools, n.d.).
When a firm’s systems are evaluated, the industry and region must be kept in context. In the case
of B.R. Richardson, one would expect to see heavy equipment, machinery, and a reasonable
amount of physical labor organized into an inter-related and functional system. Instead, the
systems were antiquated, under functioning, and dangerous. In comparison to local competitors,
employees complained about the quality of the equipment as well as management’s desire, or
lack there of, to provide the proper equipment. The equipment was dangerous, as evidenced by a
recent employee death and several reported injuries. The systems at B.R. Richardson are
manually controlled, and often require some physical manipulation by the employees and
supervisors. There was evidence that the machines were not functioning properly and required
B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
8
repair. In one case, a supervisor commented “B.R. gives us the junkiest stuff to work with”
(Cummings & Worley, 2008, p.726). While the machines are arranged in an assembly line,
optimization does not exist, as demonstrated by the planers’ complaints of waiting for hoists to
become available in order to complete work.
According to Todoroki and Ronnqvist, a product-controlled optimization system can
potentially provide better utilization of log supply, more complete order fulfillment, and a
smoother production operation (2002). The systems and processes used at B.R. Richardson were
just enough to get the job done and fill the orders. The lack of optimization cost the organization
in dollars, morale, and lives. The systems at B.R. Richardson operate as a framework to support
several other facets of the company. The condition and operation of their specific systems had a
profound impact on the staff’s safety and motivation. It also affected the firm’s strategy by
limiting their ability to produce with quality and efficiency.
Staff
Reviewing the staff of B.R. Richardson’s lamination plant revealed that a vast majority of
the organization was classified as blue collar versus white collar. Education varied with only a
small percentage assumed to have college degrees. The positions included at the lamination plant
include, Schedulers, Supervisors, Quality Control, and a small administrative staff. A crew of
approximately 15 skilled front line staff also existed. The turnover rate was high but the specific
vacancies were unknown (Cummings & Worley, 2008, p.717).
Employees did not work together as teams, which hindered the development of shared
values within the plant. A pipeline of possible candidates for vacancies did not exist. Physicals
were not required, benefits were minimal, and praise was rare. Staff moved from job-to-job
without cross training, and promotions from within were rare due to the minimal hierarchy. Some
of the staff held jobs that were not a match for their abilities, education, or experience. Job
descriptions did not exist which typically indicate the competencies required for success in the
position. The employee’s job performance was not evaluated on a regular basis. In the lamination
B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
9
plant, there were issues with lack of training due to frequent reassignments. The secretary in the
lamination department appeared to need training in multi-tasking, customer service, and general
office skills. The supervisory team appeared to need additional management training. The
college and high school students who filled in during the summer required training in addition to
the regular employees who filled in as supervisors during the vacations.
The lack of a corporate mission, vision, or shared values contributed to an atmosphere of
discontent. This discontent evolved from several conditions including inadequate space, low
morale from overtime issues, shortened lunch breaks, low salary and benefits, high turnover,
communication issues, frequent job changes, lack of training, negative comments from
Richardson, and unsafe working areas with inferior equipment and systems.
Skills
When evaluating the skills of an organization, there are many factors to consider such as
the current skill set, the desired skill set, and the gaps that exist. One must also consider how the
skills are monitored and assessed.
At B.R. Richardson, there were strong skills within the company such as cutting, gluing,
and milling; however, there were many skill gaps within the organization. Safety at the plant was
at an unacceptable level, given the number of accidents including a recent fatality. Mike, a
graduate student, reported “…there were no safety glasses on the workers. One worker had no
helmet; there were no band-saw safety devices. Seemed pretty lackadaisical” (Cummings &
Worley, 2008, p.724). The lack of safety measures provided one opportunity for development at
B.R. Richardson.
Communication was a challenge for this organization and these skills needed to be
improved. Juanita said, “Lack of communication with us about cash flow is another weak spot of
Joe’s” (Cummings &Worley, 2008, p.719). Important information regarding employees work
schedules, performance, and productivity were rarely shared with superiors. Amongst the
scheduler, the manager and the supervisor, communication took place after the fact rather than
B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
10
through proactive planning. The low-tech communication system, the bulletin board was
ineffective. Employees were not aware of schedule changes or other points of interest.
Employee management also required improvement. Many of the same mistakes were
continually repeated due to poor supervision and accountability. According to Juanita, “Sue does
sloppy work. Not very efficient. Poor letters; late; missing deadlines. Joe allows or accepts, or
perhaps doesn’t know” (Cummings &Worley, 2008, p.719). Additionally, Sue had computer
skills, but did not utilize them. She was not competent in answering the phones or completing
basic office tasks. The supervisors did not provide appropriate feedback regarding the poor work
performance.
Style
When evaluating style in regards to McKinsey’s 7S model, elements such as leadership
style, effectiveness, and impact must be considered. It is also important to look for the existence
of teams, and the cooperation and competitiveness amongst the employees as they completed
their work. At B.R. Richardson, the leadership and management style was very involved and
authoritative. Often supervisors were forced to fill in around the plant due to frequent absences
of the front line staff. Leadership was largely ineffective due to the threatening style that
cascaded from upper management. Although quotas were achieved, they often required
unplanned, mandatory overtime. Without evidence of production goals or a company mission,
the employees were functioning as nominal groups rather than teams. Accountability was low,
turnover was high, and the safety of the entire staff was constantly at risk. The management style
at B.R. Richardson flowed from the top and directly influenced the staff by providing a focused
message of simply getting the job done. Style was also an important component of shared values.
The authoritative approach of the company’s leaders became a key component of the B.R.
Richardson culture.
B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
11
Shared Values
The culture at B.R. Richardson was rooted in fear, unhappiness, and general disregard for
the employees. While the business was productive, there was a sense of fear, which emanated
from the top. Bowman told Lawler, “Ben keeps thinking the other shoe will drop...” and that the
ability to predict changes in the industry was more challenging (Cummings & Worley, 2008,
p.716). This fear prevented Richardson from making capital investments in the facility at
Papoose Laminators, and the staff gave up suggesting process improvements. A conflict in
values existed in that there was a demand for loyalty and dedication from the employees, but the
culture did not support these traits. Bowman reported to Lawler that the mid-level management
team would “plod along” which did not indicate a high level of motivation (Cummings &
Worley, 2008, p.718). Despite the negative sentiments workers had about their workplace, they
did pull together to get the job done. One contributing factor to the low morale was a sense of
under appreciation. Employees felt they were underpaid and not given raises that were in keeping
with the industry. The expectation to work long hours meant that employees lacked quality time
with their families. On the day of the employee accident, production was expected to continue.
Injuries were common, but did not seem to get attention from the management team according to
Ron in the Gluing department. While most people did not want to continue the regular schedule
of work when their co-worker was killed, they were expected to finish their shift. The
accumulation of these concerns contributed to low quality of life for the workers.
Although the company operated at full capacity and was productive, it had the potential
to work at an even higher level. The limitations included space and available resources. Various
members of the staff made comments to Lawler and his students about ideas they had to improve
the processes or work place, but they seemed hesitant to make the suggestions to management
because of Richardson’s adversity to spending money. One worker suggested a ventilation
system. Several others referred to an expansion plan to add storage space to the plant. Still
B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
12
others noted equipment that could be updated. There was a perception that changes suggested by
the front line would be ignored by Richardson.
Applying the McKinsey model to the B.R. Richardson organization provided a clear
demonstration of the relationship between each component. The frustration and safety of the staff
due to the inadequate systems, was an example of the connection between Systems and Staff, two
elements of the 7S model. Additionally, organizing the evaluations results into the 7S categories
allowed Lawler to more clearly identify the gaps that existed within the organization. For
instance, at B.R. Richardson, the authoritative leadership style exhibited by Bamford and the
struggle for the employees to feel empowered and involved in decision-making created a clear
gap. Whether comparing individual model components or grouping them together as hard and
soft, sorting the collected information into the 7S model allowed Lawler and his students to
examine this organization, identify their inconsistencies, analyze the situation and diagnose the
problems.
Presentation
The task of providing feedback to Richardson and Bowman would be challenging.
Setting a positive tone will prevent the anticipated defensiveness and provide an opportunity for
organizational change.
Given the significant amount of required improvements, the focus should be on providing
the information in a supportive format showing the leadership team how improved situations
could lead to future successes. Lawler was contacted to provide a motivational course in
response to low morale demonstrating that the leaders were open to change. This openness
provides a logical starting point for the discussion. It will be important to provide information
about the potential for positive outcomes, attainable solutions and a brief summary of follow up
activities.
With the amount of data collected and the variety of related topics, the information must
be organized and supported with relevant examples and potential solutions. Prior to the meeting,
B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
13
the data should be scrubbed to remove any employee identifiers in order to protect the workers.
Specific comments about any of the managers or Richardson should also be removed.
Additionally, prioritizing the findings and adequately addressing significant issues in this case is
necessary. Safety and organizational focus will be priorities. Safety should be presented as a
group concern, not as a direct observation. The recent fatality and its impact on company morale
must be conveyed. Providing the leadership team with employee recommendations would
address safety concerns. The source of the ideas for improvement will allow Lawler to open
discussions about morale and express the importance of giving voice to employees. Considering
and possibly implementing employee suggestions would create a sense of empowerment and
improved morale with the staff.
To address the issue of organizational alignment, Lawler could introduce industry
examples of similarly organized companies and their positive financial successes. This would
open a dialog for the establishment of mission and vision statements, and the creation of a
strategic plan that aligns recruitment and retention with production goals. Awareness of
Richardson’s fiscal concerns and his approach to management and operations, will keep the
solutions simple and cost effective.
Conclusion
The job of an Organizational Development Practitioner is not an easy one. As an
outsider, the practitioner has a unique perspective, and access to many different positions and
opinions of the staff and management. In the case of B.R. Richardson, the company was
diagnosed using the McKinsey 7S Framework. Close attention was given to each of the seven
interdependent factors consisting of both hard and soft elements. B.R. Richardson was not
functioning at the optimum level due to inconsistencies brought to light by the 7S analysis. With
Lawler’s help, B.R. Richardson could begin to align the internal elements to ensure they all work
together to achieve shared goals and values. The careful and detailed analysis of the seven
B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
interdependencies will allow the company to move the organization toward future success and
proper alignment.
14
B.R. RICHARDSON CASE STUDY
15
References
BusinessDictionary (n.d.). In BusinessDictionary online. Retrieved from
(http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/system.html).
Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic
choice. SAGE Social Science Collections, Retrieved from
http://glennschool.osu.edu/faculty/brown/home/OrgTheory/Readings/Child1972.pdf
Cummings, T. & Worley, C. (2008). Organizational development & change (9th ed.). Mason,
OH: South-Western Cengage Learning
Dickerson, D (2012). Learn the three keys to exceptional leadership. Retrieved from
http://www.thedanielislandnews.com/artman2/publish/Business_65/Learn_the_Three_Ke
ys_to_Exceptional_Leadership_printer.php
Mind Tools (n.d.). The McKinsey 7S Framework. Retrieved from
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newSTR_91.htm
Todoroki, C. & Ronnqvist, M. (2002). Dynamic control of timber production at a sawmill with
log sawing optimization. Scandiavian Journal of Forrest Research, 17, 79-89.
Waterman, R.H., Peters, T.J. and Phillips, J.R. (1980) Structure is not organisation. McKinsey
Quarterly in-house journal. McKinsey & Co., New York.