The Brewster-Seaview Landscaping Company Case
MHR 405 – 191 Dr. Krystin Scott November 24th, 2014.
Osama Habib 500513582* Olivia Polera 500626764 Raveena Ravimohan 500562276 Elaine Scully 500519014
Submission ID: 481592453 *This member submitted the case through turnitin.
How Levels of Motivation Changed 1 | Page
The workers have shown great interest and were motivated to work during the first summer because of the workplace setting Joe had set for them. According to the Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy Theory, Joe had set a working environment where his employees could achieve belongingness, self-esteem, and self-actualization (McShane & Steen, 2012, p.127) 1. He set a working environment where the workers can openly socialize with their co-workers and customers during work hours, as long as it didn’t affect the productivity of the workers. Joe also provided the employees with great compliments for their hard work and dedication which boosted the workers’ self-esteem. Achievement of belongingness and self-esteem led to the workers’ achievement of self-actualization as they were awarded the freedom of choosing their own work pace, ideas, and methods to complete the tasks. They took pride in the responsibilities handed over to them by Joe and they were proud of their achievements. According to McClelland’s examinations, the workers were also motivated by their need for achievement (McShane & Steen, 2012, p.128). Positive feedbacks and recognition provided to them by Joe and customers motivated to keep their best work and dedication towards the job. Their dedication to the job was evident when the workers double checked every single job to make sure it was perfect. The workers also produced output that was 15% higher than other landscaping companies had experienced. According to the four-drive theory, the employees were motivated by their drive to acquire and drive to bond (McShane & Steen, 2012, p.129). The recognition and compliments the workers acquired by their boss and customers motivated them to continue working hard and perform well. They were motivated to create a bond with their co-workers and customers by talking and having a good time with them during their work hours. Suggestions to Motivate New Workers During the Second Summer There are many things which could have been done by the new supervisors to motivate the new workers in the second summer. For the new workers, the supervisors should offer them to make bonus money based on the customer referrals since Millennials are highly motivated 2 | Page
extrinsic factors such as money and work benefits (DeKay, 2013)2. The supervisors could have treated the new workers equally as others by creating a more lenient work structure for them such as helping them unload the trucks and dress more informally. This is exactly how Joe treated his workers leading them to enjoying working with him. The new workers should be given a chance to fulfill their need for belongingness by allowing them to socialize and have fun with their co-workers and customers. They should have given the new workers a boost in selfesteem by complimenting and recognizing their hard work (Kumar, 2011)3. The new workers’ drive to learn should have been satisfied by the supervisors by providing them with decent training rather than letting them suffer for themselves (Weiss, 2011)4. The supervisors should have given the new workers one-on-one attention time to teach them to efficiently completing their daily tasks in order to fulfill the company expectations (Kumar, 2011). The supervisors could have become role models and set an example for the workers by talking to them while working by their side (Weiss, 2011). The supervisors should have taken into consideration the concerns and problems of the workers to indicate that the workers’ voice is being recognized and heard (Weiss, 2011). The supervisors should have fulfilled the workers’ need for selfactualization by giving them the freedom to choose their completion method for the tasks provided to them (Weiss, 2011). Lastly, the workers should have set up meetings with all the workers to determine the success and failures of the company and the direction the company is headed (Weiss, 2011). Leadership styles Used by Joe and the Supervisors “Leadership is about influencing, motivating and enabling others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members” (McShane, 2012 pg. 328). The leadership style that Joe adapted was supportive and participative, while the two new supervisors were using the directive leadership style.
3 | Page
Supportive leadership is having behaviours that “provide psychological support for employees (McShane & Steen, 2012, pg. 335). Joe adapted to the supportive leadership style because he enabled the workers to have a please working atmosphere which allowed them to be effective in the workplace and improve their productivity. Joe was a fair leader as he never showed authority over the workers instead he chose to treat the workers equally. He was supportive because he was always willing to help the workers during times of difficulties and compliment or praise the workers for their hard work. Furthermore, Joe had also adapted the participative leadership style which is to “encourage and facilitate subordinate involvement in decisions beyond their normal work activities” (McShane & Steen, 2012, pg. 336). Joe always allowed his workers to choose their method of completion for the work provided to them. As mentioned in the case study, Joe would allow his workers to decide upon their tasks for various houses. He would then compliment their methods, but if something went wrong, he would be willing to help the workers solve the issues. However, during the second summer, Joe slowly adapted to the achievement-oriented leadership style as he showed little interest in the workers and allowed the supervisors to meet expectations of the company. Joe started to take less responsibility and transferred the responsibilities to the two new supervisors. This sort of behaviour led to Joe being more achievement oriented and started focusing on achieving the goals. After all, as long as the work is being done, it doesn’t matter what leadership style is adapted. The two new supervisors used the directive leadership style to deal with their employees. A directive leadership indicates to “clarify behaviours that provide a psychological structure for employees” (McShane & Steen, 2012, pg. 335). The two supervisors decided to use their own strategies to manage the workplace rather than using the strategies used by Joe last summer. The two supervisors gave out orders to the workers about the rules of the workplace and
4 | Page
how each assigned task must be done at every house. Overall, the supervisors created a work environment which was totally different from Joe’s style. The Leadership Styles Impact on the Workforce A leadership style is adapted according to the work environment and situations. However, not all leadership styles have a positive impact on the workplace. When Joe was supervising the workers during the first summer, the company’s productivity was 15% higher than other landscaping companies. While on the other hand, when the two new supervisors came in the second summer, the company’s productivity was 5% below average from other landscaping companies. This is a clear indication of how greatly the leadership styles affected the productivity of the company. While Joe was supervising the workers, they were motivated to work and take full responsibility of the tasks assigned to them. They were also willing to go that “extra mile” by working overtime whenever Joe had asked them to. Joe’s adaption of supportive and participative leadership styles encouraged the workers to take risks and complete their tasks according to their own methods. This led them to work efficiently. However, during the second summer, Joe started to worry about fulfilling the expectations of the company which led him to ignoring the concerns of the workers. This resulted in the workers’ productivity to decrease. While on the other hand, when the two new supervisors took charge, the workers’ attitude towards the workplace was totally different. The supervisors played more of a structured and formal role that was a totally different role played by Joe during the first summer. The workers had to deal with various restrictions under the new supervisors such as 1) not be able to take breaks whenever they wish, 2) driving the truck, and 3) ability to socially interact with the customers and co-workers. This led to a drastic drop in the workers’ productivity and motivation towards the job and hatred started to develop towards the new supervisors. To maintain a high level of productivity, the “organizational leaders must embrace the leadership styles that are most effective in motivating” the employees in the workplace (Dixon & Hart, 2010)5. Joe’s attitude towards the workers compared with the supervisors’ attitude towards the workers is a prime 5 | Page
example of the saying above. Joe embraced a leadership style which led to an increase in motivation and determination of the workers, while the leadership style embraced by the supervisors led to a decrease in motivation and productivity of the workers. Sources of Power and Influence Tactics Used In terms of sources of power, Joe’s authority was frequently expressed through referent power. His ability to influence others through his recognized interpersonal skills (McShane & Steen, 2012) is what drove the employees to work hard while enjoying their work environment. Joe would often work alongside the employees and was friendly towards the workers, which showed his charismatic personality to the employees and overall corresponded to the referent power that he used (McShane & Steen, 2012). Joe’s openness and charisma caused an abundance of trust and respect from the workers (McShane & Steen, 2012) as he treated all of the employees as equals to him which was a result of the referent power that he used, and this ultimately created a relaxed environment for the employees to work in. The influence tactics that Joe used includes that of ingratiation and impression management. Joe applied the use of ingratiation through his behaviour towards the employees that as discussed, was done in a very friendly and open manner. He increased the employees’ liking of him (McShane & Steen, 2012) in this way, and was able to sustain the respect of the workers through this tactic. Although ingratiation can either benefit or hinder the individual using this tactic (Liu, Kwan, Wei, & Wu, 2013)8, in this case it was useful to Joe as the employees responded well to it. Joe also exercised the use of impression management through shaping his image (McShane & Steen, 2012) towards his employees in such a way that equality was conveyed. Joe gave off the impression of himself to his employees that he was equivalent to them in the business as he performed similar tasks, and dressed the same way as the workers did.
6 | Page
He also gave the employees the flexibility to decide on what their tasks and work schedules should be like, which as a manager delivered a positive impression to the employees. In contrast to Joe, the new supervisors hired in the following summer used different sources of power, including legitimate and coercive power. Their use of legitimate power was displayed through the supervisors’ agreement with Joe that they could request specific behaviour and tasks from the employees (McShane & Steen, 2012), which included directing the workers in whichever way they pleased. It was also apparent that legitimate power was in effect in regards to the differences in wardrobe between the supervisors and employees, where supervisors dressed more formally. They also used coercive power where punishment was applied in order to execute behavioural control (Boldt, Jones, Russel, & Witzel, 2007)9, which was done by setting restrictions on the employees’ jobs. The punishment applied was not direct, but was done through a “no tolerance” policy of restricting socialization within the workplace, disallowing tardiness, and redefining the performance of tasks. In regards to influence tactics that the supervisors used, they applied the tactics of silent authority as well as assertiveness. Silent authority was executed through the supervisors’ legitimate power (McShane & Steen, 2012) where they were given the authority to give orders to the employees in terms of how they wanted the employees to complete tasks, and setting rules for them to follow. The supervisors expressed their authority without openly referring to it (McShane & Steen, 2012) in that as previously mentioned, they dressed in more formal clothing than the employees and made it clear that they could exert direction for the employees to follow. The supervisors also utilized the influence tactic of assertiveness, which was evident through applying pressure (McShane & Steen, 2012) on employees to complete their jobs in a specific way, and restricting certain behaviours. Assertiveness was achieved in a proactive way of the supervisors vocalizing their needs (Ames & Flynn, 2007)10 and demands from the employees of 7 | Page
how they wanted a job done and how much time was allotted to complete it. They also produced assertive behaviour in a verbal sense where demands were expressed (Ames & Flynn, 2007) through yelling at employees when their productivity was low because of a lack of training. Impact of Power Sources and Influence Tactics Used Having Joe extend the uses of referent power as well as ingratiation and impression management caused a positive effect throughout the workforce. This was evident through the employees’ favourable interactions with one another as they were permitted to socialize, and their excellent delivery in customer service which was apparent through their interactions with customers. By having Joe allow such behaviour throughout the workplace, it created an encouraging environment for the employees to work in. Although utilizing high levels of the influence tactic of ingratiation can often result in less influential behaviour (McShane & Steen, 2012), this was not accurate in Joe’s case. This is because through the balance theory of having effectiveness of ingratiation based on the delivery (Liu et al., 2013), his genuine friendliness and leniency towards the employees prompted motivation amongst them to effectively complete their tasks. The effectiveness of ingratiation as well as impression management and referent power, ultimately improved productivity and caused a 15 percent output above average. Overall the supervisors’ behaviour towards the employees created a negative impact throughout the workforce. Their strict requirements of the employees and legitimate and coercive power that they used resulted in employee dissatisfaction. Their dissatisfaction could be a result of the sudden change in leadership styles that the organization underwent, as organizations are inclined to retaliate against change (Boldt, Jones, Russel, & Witzel, 2007). The supervisors’ assertiveness had a large impact on the impressions formed (Ames & Flynn, 2007) by employees, which initiated the decline in employees’ motivation to work in the organization. As a result the employees started to resent their supervisors, and had overall lost interest in the work 8 | Page
they were doing which derived a slowed production from the employees and within the organization as a whole. Sources of Conflict Evident in Brewster-Seaview Company The 2 sources of conflict evident at Brewster-Seaview Company are differentiation and communication. Differentiation is seen in the contrasting beliefs and values of the supervisors and workers (McShane & Steen, pg. 303). This style of conflict occurred because employees always have divergent views on various issues, interests, ideologies, goals and aspirations (Beheshtifar & Hesani, 2013)6. Many of the returning workers were used to an informal atmosphere which overall benefited the company, while the new supervisors wanted a formal and structured atmosphere to operate this company which decreased workers’ morale and productivity. The supervisors snatched away several aspects of the job from the workers such as choosing when to have lunch, the ability to choose when to take breaks, as well as interacting with customers. Although the supervisors and workers had similar goals in mind, their approach to achieving the goals was different. There were many points of views involved which caused confusion and lack of motivation and productivity. The workers enjoyed Joe’s leadership which motivated them to meet company objectives. While, the supervisors’ management style was not appreciated by the workers. The other source of conflict evident at Brewster-Seaview was communication. Communication is necessary for conducting business in an efficient manner (Spaho, 2013)7. Under the management of the supervisors, the workers were not able to openly communicate and interact with co-workers and customers. This led to a decrease of workers’ morale and motivation. This resulted in an unresolved conflict due to the uncomfortable communication environment. Effective communication is required, not only for maintaining human relations, but also for achieving good business performance (Spaho, 2013). To resolve this issue, both parties must be willing to work together to evaluate the situation, find the problem, and brainstorm and 9 | Page
implement ways in which the issue can be solved. After all, it is better communication which will also help eliminate the differentiation conflict by shortening the gap between the supervisors and the workers. Conflict Management Strategies Used The conflict management strategy used by Joe was avoiding and yielding (McShane & Steen, pg. 306). Joe used avoidance as he pacifies the workers by telling them that he will speak to the supervisors and no changes were made. The workers are left feeling that they are not being heard and in turn become less motivated to do their jobs with accuracy. Since conflict was new for Joe and his company, he tried to smooth everything over to avoid the situation altogether. Therefore, Joe had low motivation to satisfy his own (assertiveness) and the other (cooperativeness) party’s interest (McShane & Steen, 306). Joe also used the conflict management strategy of yielding as Joe gave into the wishes of the supervisors and failed to take into consideration the interests of the crewmen. The supervisors use forcing as their conflict managing style (McShane & Steen, pg. 306). There was many times where the supervisors forced strict rules upon the crewmen such as working harder, no talking to other crewmen or customers, etc. Also when the workers start to slip with their productivity, instead of using positive reinforcement and making sure that the new workers have the proper skills needed to get the job done correctly and efficiently, the supervisors use authority and assertion in efforts to move the job along faster. In relation to the interpersonal conflict handling style, the supervisors had a high motivation to satisfy their own interest, with little to no motivation to satisfy the other party’s interest (McShane & Steen, 306). The result of using forcing as a conflict management style caused a win-lose orientation within the company. 10 | P a g e
The workers use avoiding as their conflict managing style (McShane & Steen, pg. 306). This was evident as the crewmen did not want to talk to the supervisors about their issues since they felt it was not their place. When no change was evident, they begrudgingly fulfill their new constricted roles with the minimum effort required. However, the crewmen did try and resolve this issue by talking to Joe, which was ineffective. Overall, the crewmen somewhat avoided the issue as a whole, they displayed a low motivation to satisfy their own and the other party’s interests (McShane & Steen, 306). To solve these conflicts, each of the team members needs to be willing to cooperate, using compromise and problem-solving as their conflict managing styles (McShane & Steen, pg. 306). By compromising, both the crewmen and supervisors will have an adequate equal power and will be able to solve issues and perform more effectively and efficiently. This will limit the high power struggles within the company thus being able to promote better team wide decisions. Problem solving will result a win-win orientation for the company since both parties will ultimately be benefiting from a solution when a disagreement occurs. Also differentiation should be reduced by creating common experiences. Communication and understanding should be improved by using the Johari Window model and contact hypothesis (McShane & Steen, pg. 79, 80). With better communication skills, the members will work more cohesively together resulting in better productivity and job satisfaction. Short-Term and Long-Term Plans to Improve the Effectiveness of the Organization There are two core issues which need to be addresses regarding the effectiveness of Brewster-Seaview Landscaping. The first major issue was the loss of motivation and performance for the returning workers during the second summer. This issue can be referred back to the change in leadership styles of the new supervisors and change in company culture. In the short term, there is not much the company can do to address the issue. Joe can educate the new 11 | P a g e
supervisors of the culture the company created during the first summer. From there on, he can monitor the supervisors and make sure that properly culture and leadership style is being maintained. In the long term, the issue is somewhat easier to address because newly hired supervisors can spend a good amount of time working with existing teams to gain a better understanding of the job and company culture. The company can promote existing employees who had shown good performance to the supervisor position and instruct them on the job requirements. This is a good alternative to hiring new employees. This is an advantage because the existing employees as new supervisors would be knowledgeable of the company, how to treat other employees, and already have a strong relationship with the existing employees. The second major issue is the performance of the newly hired employees in the second summer. This issue can be traced to a combination of the lack of training and experience or the new employees and issues with the supervisors’ leadership style. The lack of training for the employees is somewhat an easier issue to address because this can be solved by intermixing returning workers with the new workers so the returning workers can assist and guide the new workers from their experience. The issues with supervisor leadership styles can be solved by ensuring that returning workers have knowledge of the job and company culture in order to assist and guide the new workers with the operations. Therefore, the overall action plan to address the issues of Brewster-Seaview is to educating the current supervisors about the company culture especially the leadership styles that Brewster adapted in the previous summer which the returning employees have grown to expect. Along with company culture, teams should be reorganized to have a mix returning and new employees. Moreover, supervisors must be monitored to ensure they are adapting the proper leadership styles and maintaining the proper company culture. Lastly, to ensure effectiveness of the company in the future summers, supervisors should spend time working with the teams to develop an understanding of the work process and company culture.
12 | P a g e
References
1.
McShane, S., & Steen, S. (2012). Canadian Organizational Behaviour (8th ed.). United
2.
States: Mcgraw Hill. DeKay, S. H. (2013). Engaging and Motivating Employees and Students: The Search for a Psychological Grail?. Business Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 249-251 3. Kumar, S. (2011). Motivating Employees: An Exploratory Study on Knowledge Workers. South Asian Journal of Management, 18(3), 26-47. 4. Weiss, W. H. (2011). building morale, motivating, and empowering employees. Supervision, 72(9), 23-26. 5. Dixon, M. L., & Hart, L. K. (2010). The impact of path-goal leadership styles on work group effectiveness and turnover intention. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(1), 52-69,6-7. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/89152523? accountid=13631 6. Beheshtifar, M., & Hesani, G. R. (2013). Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB): A factor to decrease organizational conflict. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 5(1), 214-222. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login? url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1446975596?accountid=13631 7. Spaho, K. (2013). ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 18(1), 103118. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login? url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1418199915?accountid=13631 13 | P a g e
8. Liu, J., Kwan, H., Wei, L., & Wu, L. (2013). Ingratiation in the workplace: The role of subordinate and supervisor political skill. Journal of Management Studies, 50(6), 991-1017. doi:10.1111/joms.12033. 9. Boldt, R. W., Jones, V., Russell, C., & Witzel, M. (2007). Replacing coercive power with relationship power. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 15(4), 243-248. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/214193751? accountid=13631 10. Ames, D., & Flynn, F. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 307-324. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.307.
14 | P a g e
