Evan Kimel
5/3/13
Management 301H
End Term Exam
1. Develop a diversity management plan for Spencer Owens that represents the
Learning and Effectiveness Perspective described by Thomas and Ely.
Agnes Richards, CEO of Spencer Owens & Co., was in a very sticky situation.
Spencer Owens & Co., which prided themselves in both gender and racial diversity,
had its employees arguing like wildfire. Though the company, which during the mid
1980’s consisted of all white males, had made tremendous strides to the point
where 50% of managers were women and 30% were people of color, the word
“racism” was getting thrown around quite a bit. The white half of the company was
upset by this, claiming that people of color were falsely accusing the company of
consistent racism. The non-white portion of the company, however, was upset by
the fact that though the company did employ a diverse group of people, the general
face of the company was entirely artificial. The issues were internal, with employees
acknowledging that the company’s affirmative action policy was not solving the
issues of racial tension. To combat this, Spencer Owens needs a stellar diversity
management plan.
A survey conducted by Spencer Owens management revealed some seriously
alarming results. The survey, which 92% of the company participated in, revealed
that the minorities and whites differed majorly in almost category. Some specifically
alarming percentages were that 62% of the white programming staff population
agreed that “whites have no problems dealing with competent minorities,” while
only 6% of minority programming staff did. In addition, 58% of white programming
staff agreed that “minorities are often overly confrontational when questioning the
actions of whites,” while only 11% of minority programming staff agreed. Finally,
one of the single most alarming statistics was that 64% of the white management
staff agreed that “I am hesitant to criticize minority coworkers because I don’t want
to be called racist” while not a single minority manager did. These numbers speak
for themselves; something obviously needs to change.
David A. Thompson and Robin J. Ely, experts in the field of diversity, analyze
specific instances and explain why they may or may not work correctly, and if said
method doesn’t work, they explain a productive way to correct them. Thomas and
Ely highlight that one of the main issues companies run into when attempting to
increase gender diversity is the misconception that simply hiring minorities will
compensate for lack of racial diversity and ethnic culture. They continue to say that
this approach will never work; as it was stated in the Spencer Owens case,
employees feel that whites are “tolerating minorities without fully accepting them.”
Simply put, minorities shouldn’t be hired to increase diversity, but rather to
improve the company as a while.
In order to combat this notion that simply hiring minorities will solve the
issue, Thomas and Ely establish eight preconditions to counter the diversity
paradigm. Though I wont go into detail regarding these eight concepts, I will say
that the main concept highlights that the company needs to create a stimulating and
diverse workplace that appreciates all of its employees for their work and
contributions to the company. Applying this principle to Agnes Richard’s situation, it
is evident that the company must change its culture and general outlook on racial
diversity. The only way to attack the problem head on would be to admit that the
problem exists. In the article Bridging Faultlines, the author highlights that often
times, “faultlines” emerge due to the emergence of subgroups created by established
racial differences. Richards needs to eliminate these subgroups and bring Spencer
Owens together as one team. To do this, the company needs to stop looking at
minorities as a way to increase racial diversity and start look at minorities as a
valuable asset to the company. By doing so, hopefully the faultline between
minorities and whites will cease to exist.
One of the biggest positives that would come out of establishing the company
as one big team would be that, as in the case of Sahara Johnson, the term “racism” in
reference to justifiable termination would cease to exist. In addition, continuing to
have employees fill out racially-based questionnaires could be helpful in order to
continue identifying problems. However, constantly giving attention to nonexistent
issues could potentially give rise to actual issues. A survey conducted annually and
coupled with non-racially based questions could help Spencer Owens to stay on top
of the diversity issue, and in the long run, eliminate it entirely.
Sources:
"Managing Diversity at Spencer Owens and Co." Case Study
Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diveristy
Week 9 PowerPoint
Bringing Faultlines in Diverse Teams
2. The BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill represents a failure in organizational
learning. Develop a plan for BP to develop a greater organizational learning
capability. (Hint: Look into the readings on organizational learning and decisionmaking; what makes IDEO good at learning?)
The BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill is an industry accident marred with
foolish decisions, a lazy mentality, and a huge failure in organizational learning.
Though some would argue that there was nothing the drilling team could have done
to prevent the accident, an analysis of BP’s track record leading up to the spill would
definitely suggest otherwise. A poor process safety record, masked by a huge
personal safety campaign, indicated up to 6 years in advance that BP had a serious
issue with following procedure. Not only this, but BP’s inability to learn from past
mistakes and failures caused them to continue to make the same mistakes on a
larger and larger scale. Had BP learned from the mistakes that they had made in the
past, perhaps the entire ordeal could have been avoided.
In March of 2005, an oil refinery in Texas caused 15 deaths and 180 injuries.
This was the beginning point of BP’s poor safety record. It was at this point that BP
should have immediately taken action. However, they didn’t. In observing other
industries’ performance failures, it is blindingly obvious that learning from failure is
one of the most essential aspects of success. As highlighted in Management Lessons
from Mars, determining necessary feedback in advance, learning from past errors,
and making these lessons publically available are some of the most essential aspects
of a profitable and safe company. BP did not do this, especially on the learning
aspect. John Browne, BP’s CEO up until 2007, was a contributing factor to this.
Brown was concerned with profit and cost cutting and paid much less attention to
safety. Though during his tenure as CEO BP made tremendous leaps in personal
safety, this ultimately served to mask BP’s terrible process safety record.
The events of March 2005’s oil spill were mirrored when the Thunder Horse
oil rig sank due to human error. And again, BP did not learn from this experience.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined BP 2.4 million
dollars; however, this seemed to do nothing. BP did, however, decide to send some
employees to MIT to learn proper safety procedures. An MIT professor called BP’s
team “an accident waiting to happening,” foreshadowing future events.
The Macondo well was referred to as “the well from hell” by multiple
employees. This, along with an improper cement job, an alarming PSI reading, an
abnormally low level of mud barrels produced, and an ignored safety test that saved
$128,000 and 10 man hours, were all indicators that something was wrong.
However, the workers on Deepwater Horizon ignored this. An engineer was quoted
saying “it is probably fine.” The negative pressure test ultimately indicated a major
leak. However, even this didn’t stop the drilling team. Things took a turn for the
worst, with explosions and mud spewing everywhere. Unfortunately, the emergency
disconnect system that could have been used to seal the well malfunctioned.
BP had dozens of errors on Deepwater Horizon that added up. When one
analyzes BP’s track record, most wouldn’t be surprised that a major error didn’t
occur sooner. BP, compared to successful companies such as IDEO, fail to learn from
mistakes. The two main methods of organizational learning, single loop and double
loop, highlight this. Single loop is simply recognizing the problem and then fixing it.
Double loop, however, really attacks the issue head on, identifying the problem early
on, asking why it occurred, and ultimately learning from the error. BP was obviously
functioning on a single loop, identifying problems as they came along and poorly
providing “solutions.” Compare this to IDEO, who quickly identifies problems,
analyzes them, discusses them, learns from their errors, and never makes the same
mistake twice.
BP needs to be functioning as a double loop organizational learning. In
addition, BP needs to overcome the barriers or organizational learning, defensive
reasoning (not questioning one’s own behavior/assumptions) and organizational
defensive routines (policies and practices that protect individual’s assumptions.) BP
needs to stop cutting corners, stop simplifying majors errors, and start acting in a
productive and organizationally sound manor. To do this, BP could implement a
database where senior members could deposit useful information from past
failures/successes available to all employees. In addition, BP could alter their
attitude that mediocrity will “probably” succeed and start making sure that they
don’t cut any corners and that every loose end is tied up.
Sources used:
Management Lessons From Mars
BP and the Gulf of Mexico case study
Week 7 powerpoint
IDEO video
IDEA: Phase Zero Case study
3. A manager walks into your office and complains that although she has been
relying on her star performer Jim to deliver on strategic objectives, of late both coworkers and clients have been complaining about Jim’s aggressive behavior. When
she tried to confront Jim regarding the matter he threatened to quit and pointed out
that he was carrying most of the load for the team and that at least three team
members were dead weight and a fourth team member Ben, although reliable and
supportive, seemed unmotivated. What advice would you have for the manager?
How can she deal with these very different employees? Can you suggest a way to
provide Jim feedback?
In this example, we clearly establish Jim as a “star performer.” However, in
contrast to Amy Finch of the Sloan and Harrison case, he isn’t necessarily doing what
is best for the company. He is acting as a lone wolf, which, in the case of a teambased project, could lead to serious issues. Amy Finch was a star performer in that
she did her work diligently and masterfully. However, she also never received any
complaints from her peers. As in this example, Jim is creating tension for the
company, and though his numbers speak for themselves, his lone wolf attitude is
ultimately going to hurt the company in the long run.
A great example of the archetypical lone wolf is Rob Parson of the Morgan
Stanley case study. It was no secret that Rob, an aggressive-by-nature go getter,
contributed more than enough to the company. Over just a short period of time,
Parson played a major role in such feats as increasing Morgan Stanley’s ranking
from ten to three, as well as drastically increasing market shares from 2% to 12.2%.
However, a deeper analysis shows that Parson was a cocky, arrogant jerk, clashing
with Morgan Stanley’s well-established culture and causing a drastic amount of
tension between him and his colleagues. Peers often noted his erratic and offensive
behavior. Though Parson was a star performer and a major aspect to Morgan
Stanley, superiors struggled with telling him to “tone it down” for fear that Parson
would become upset and take his skills elsewhere. It was for this reason that Parson
simply couldn’t remain a part of the Morgan Stanley team without a drastic change.
Obviously we can see the parallels between Jim and Rob. Both are star lone
wolves, both generate fantastically high numbers, and both are a major liability to
keep around. Jim, who’s biggest issue lies in his inability to work with a team, called
his team members “deadweights,” something that obviously highlights how poorly
he works with others. In the case of Ben, I would assume that Ben, a satisfactory
employee, is under motivated due to Jim’s dominating presence. Perhaps some of
the leadership roles could be transferred over to Ben in order for him to become
more invested in the team project. Though Jim is a major asset to the firm, his
position needs to be reevaluated if he wishes to remain.
Let us examine the Big Five personality traits: conscientiousness,
agreeableness, neuroticism, extraversion, and openness. Jim clearly embodies a
combination of four of these characteristics, but is desperately lacking in the fifth:
agreeableness. Jim, who is debatably an A-Player, is also a bit too neurotic to simply
slide by. His lack of personality skills clashes terribly with the culture of his
company. The situation needs to be handled carefully, because it is obvious that Jim
could react hostilely.
According to The Executives as Coach, three tests exist to reveal whether a
problem behavior is based in character. First, the behavior is part of a pattern seen
in a different context. Does Jim exert his dominance indirectly in situations where it
is not required? Second, the problem behavior is observable over a long period of
time. Is Jim’s aggressive behavior more than just a one-time thing? And third,
character flaws tend to be observable in a complex array of behavior rather than in
a single one. Is Jim’s erratic behavior observable outside of his team project? Does
he treat others with unnecessary hostility? Is he unkind for no specific reason? In
my opinion, I believe Jim would test positive for all three of these things, which
makes the issue especially difficult. Clearly, Jim has a character flaw, something that
is incredibly difficult to overcome.
If I was a part of the situation, I would suggest to managers to first take the
civil route. Superiors should begin by taking Jim’s side of the story- why is he so
hostile towards his peers? Are his peers actually deadweights, or is Jim simply
taking away their work from them? Does the team simply have poor chemistry and
Rob is overly aggressive? In addition, superiors should assemble the entire team in
order to solve the problem. Perhaps a plan can be created to divide the work in a
way that everybody’s strengths shine through, and Rob, who is clearly the dominant
one in this situation, can reviews others work (though not change anything without
a civil discussion first.)
It is important to note that Jim has been hostile in the past, and has become
upset by the very notion of him performing in any other way than “perfectly.” He
views himself as the only valuable tool, and threatened to quit. Managers should
take a different route, telling Rob that perhaps it isn’t his fault, but rather the
situation’s. Rob obviously needs to tone it down, and if he is unable to do so, perhaps
he isn’t best for the company.
The only way to properly evaluate how Rob changes his behavior is to survey
his team members. Perhaps in a discreet manor, superiors should ask if Rob is being
less aggressive towards them and if team productivity is increasing. If nothing
improves, even after managers attempt to intervene, I would conclude that Rob is
simply too aggressive for the company’s culture and would be better off elsewhere.
Sources:
Rob Parson at Morgan Stanley Case Study
Sloan and Harrison Case Study
Week 9 PowerPoint
The Executive as Coach
4. Company Zee is a trendy advertising agency that relies on its creative design
teams to deliver high quality advertising campaigns to its clients. Lately the
company is facing low morale and high turnover among members of these teams.
Some of the reasons relate to varying beliefs about other team members’ abilities
and lack of clear team objectives or incentives. Develop a plan to help the company
boost team morale and performance. (Hint: In your answers try to think about what
type of teams this is, what is the nature of its tasks, try to relate to successful
teamwork examples from class)
An effective team is one who has no limits; they are neither afraid to fail, nor
are they entirely focused on success. They simply know that they must perform. In
the case of Company Zee, this performance has been called into question. The
company, which has the difficult task of delivering high quality advertisement
campaigns, has been faced with low morale and high turnover. The teams, which are
presumed to usually perform fairly well, have lately been slacking. They are caught
up with lack of incentive and smaller subgroups within the team. A team, which we
define as “two or more people who work interdependently over some time to
accomplish common goals related to some task oriented purpose,” needs to work
fluidly. It must not be caught up by small scuffles and focus on bigger issues.
Company Zee must first look at the basics: their teams should be within 2-25 people,
have a noticeable skill mix capable of handling any situation, and must develop
strong commitment to a common approach. We don’t know if Company Zee limits
their teams to 25 people, nor do we know what the general skill mix is, but we do
know that they have failed to develop a strong commitment to a common approach.
Team members are questioning each other, feeling unmotivated, and generally
pessimistic about the projects at hand. To combat this, Company Zee must develop a
plan to help the company boost team morale and performance.
To get a clear understanding of how members of Company Zee should
perform, I would suggest showing them a company that has been tried and tested to
perform in any situation, such as IDEO. IDEO team members have incredibly diverse
skill sets, personalities, and things that they can bring to the table. In any specific
IDEO team, you may find such mixings as a marketing expert, a psychologist, a
chemical engineering expert, a public relations expert, and a managerial team. IDEO
understands that a group of all engineers can create a perfect design, but without a
psychologist and marketing expert, for example, they may not have the proper
demographics. IDEO also does not limit their groups by instituting regulations and
common practices; any member of any age may be appointed as the project leader.
The issues within Company Zee are difficult to correct, but certainly possible
to fix. First and foremost, members must stop questioning each other and work
together as one team. Not only does questioning each others’ abilities discourage
productivity, but a team member could also be insulted. With a positive attitude,
Company Zee has the potential to fix their motivation issues and their employees
attitude. This is crucial, since company culture is likely affected by the lack of
enthusiasm, which in the long run will certainly hurt the team. Additionally, it
appears as if Company Zee doesn’t specifically have a diverse set of skills. Unlike
IDEO, who understands that diverse skill sets lead to success, Company Zee has not
established the fact that skill mix will ultimately contribute to both productivity and
final product.
Company Zee faces a tough situation with their lack of clear objective or
incentive. With no clear objective and no defining incentive, it would only make
sense if Company Zee was noticeably unproductive. The first thing I would suggest
is that each team appoints a leader. The leader is not meant to be an authority or as
a senior superpower, but rather a guide who will be unbiased and keep the team’s
best interests in mind. Additionally, as outlined in The New Science of Building Great
Teams, Company Zee should strive for a team that encourages things that statically
successful and well-performing teams do, such as talk in equal measures with the
objective of keeping things short and sweet, having members face each other and
remain energetic, members connecting with one another (and not just the team
leader,) members have consistent (productive) side conversations, and members
routinely break to find outside information to bring back to the team. It is important
to note as well that communication is most valuable when members talk face to face
rather than through email and text. Additionally, the article The Discipline of Teams
highlights how a well-disciplined and highly enthusiastic team often is the most
successful. These teams select members for skill potential, not personality, make
positive first impressions, set clear rules of behavior, set and seize a few immediate
performance-oriented tasks, challenge the group as a whole with fresh facts and
information, spend a lot of time together, and exploit the motivation-boosting effects
of positive feedback, recognition, and reward.
One may argue that the concept of discipline is counterproductive. One may
say, “IDEO has virtually no discipline, and they are successful.” However, consider
the fact that IDEO team members do not need to be disciplined- when they arrive for
day one of their job, the discipline necessary for a successful team is already in
place. IDEO has ensured that they have only A-Players through this concept. IDEO
has worked long and hard to ensure that their practices of constructive teamoriented work succeeds, and have done so not only with a creative and diverse
atmosphere, but also by permanently instilling within their employees heads that a
disciplined group will succeed. The combination of a creative environment, coupled
with a properly disciplined atmosphere, will lead to success, which is exactly what I
would relay to Company Zee.
Company Zee has the right idea, but poor execution. They have all of the
elements for a successful team, yet need to put them to proper use. I would not
suggest mirroring a company like IDEO’s entire team structure, since what works
for one team may not work for others. Company Zee teams simply need to find their
“It Factor” and combine it with a diverse skill set, a proper motivational attitude,
and a limit to team members. Though success may not come immediately, it will be
important for teams to learn from past failures in order to identify what will work
for them and what won’t work for them in the future.
Sources:
The New Science of Building Great Teams
Week 10 PowerPoint
Week 7 PowerPoint
IDEO Video
IDEO: Phase Zero Case Study
The Discipline of Teams