Learning and organisational behaviour - Case Study

ARCTIC MINING CONSULTANTS

INTRODUCTION:

This case focuses on the importance of leadership and motivation in an organisation. Here the given scenario is of a mineral exploration and extraction firm, Arctic Mining Consultants, wherein the Project Manager, Tom Parker, has assigned the job of extracting 15 claims near Eagle Lake, Alaska, within himself and 3 other assistants John Talbot, Greg Boyce and Brain Millar. All of the 3 selected have previously worked with Parker as field assistants. The task had to be completed in one week’s deadline; hence Parker assigned the target of 7 and half lengths per day to each one including him.

We see in this case that Parker being twice as old as the other three assistants have consistently performed in line with the targets and sometimes over-achieved the targets. However, two of his assistants were not able to cope up with the task and were under-performing. As a result, the target was not achieved and all four of them had to work extra hours to complete the task. Now further in the case analysis, we will discuss how Parker tackled this situation and what different he could have done to achieve the results in assigned time-frame.

FACTS GIVEN IN CASE:

One “Length” is equal to 500 yards. 15 claims would require almost 60 lines in total. $300 bonus given to each individual for the completion of assigned target (i.e. 7 ½

lengths per day) Day 2 Results :

Parker – 8 lengths Talbot – 8 lengths Boyce – 6 lengths Millar - 6 lengths

Day 3 Results : Parker – 8 lengths Talbot – 7 lengths Boyce – 4 lengths Millar - 5 ½ lengths

Because Boyce & Millar were not able to complete their targets, Parker shouted at them. Tablot tried to communicate with Parker and suggested some changes, however Parker

ignored the same. Day 4 Results:

Parker – 8 lengths Talbot – 7 lengths

Boyce – 6 lengths Millar - 7 lengths

Day 5 Results: Parker – 8 lengths Talbot – 7 ½ lengths Boyce – 6 lengths Millar - 6 lengths

Seeing the results, Parker blasted, but this time only at Millar. Millar commented to Boyce, that he would have quit if he would not have to walk 50

miles on highway and would have not needed the $300 bonus. Day 6 Results:

Parker – 8 lengths Talbot – 8 lengths Boyce – 7 lengths Millar - 8 1/3 lengths

Day 7 Results: Parker – 7 1/3 lengths Talbot – 7 lengths Boyce – 7 lengths Millar - 6 lengths

Millar collapsed in an exhausted heap, at the table; he was too tired even to eat. Parker was furious again and the he blamed Millar for the delay. Because of the delay, now they had to complete 34 lengths in one day. Day 8 Results:

Parker – 10 1/3 lengths Talbot – 8 lengths Boyce – 7 ½ lengths Millar - 5 ½ lengths

Parker instructed each one of them, to complete 8 task, and if they finished early, to help the others.

Parker took the initiative to complete the remaining 10 lengths. Millar was de-motivated and started showing casual attitude. He finished only 5 lengths

by the end of the day. Millar never worked for the company again. Boyce sometimes work for the company, Talbot works full-time.

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS:

Based on the facts given in the case, I have listed some of the observations and findings as below:

The Leader (Tom Parker): As stated in the case, Parker is experienced and knowledgeable in his work. However he is not very good in people management as he is in process management. He comes across as prejudice and biased, also he forms perception about people pretty soon. The below traits of leadership was practiced by Parker:

Task-Oriented Leader: Highly task-oriented leaders focus only on getting the job done. They actively define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, plan, organize, and monitor. However, because task-oriented leaders don't tend to think much about the well-being of their teams, this approach can suffer many of the flaws of autocratic leadership, with difficulties in motivating and retaining staff.

Transactional Leader: This style of leadership starts with the idea that team members agree to obey their leader totally when they accept a job. The "transaction" is usually the organization paying the team members in return for their effort and compliance. The leader has a right to "punish" team members if their work doesn't meet the pre-determined standard.

Team members can do little to improve their job satisfaction under transactional leadership. The leader could give team members some control of their income/reward by using incentives that encourage even higher standards or greater productivity.

Transactional leadership is really a type of management, not a true leadership style, because the focus is on short-term tasks. It has serious limitations for knowledge-based or creative work; however it can be effective in other situations.

Autocratic leadership: Autocratic leadership is an extreme form of transactional leadership, where leaders have absolute power over their workers or team. Staff and team members have little opportunity to make suggestions, even if these would be in the team's or the organization's best interest.

The Followers (John Talbot, Greg Boyce and Brain Millar): Now as per the case, we see that each of these individual gives different results in same scenario. Now, the reason behind, is that, they all fall under different types of followers.

Exemplary/ Effective Follower: They are independent and active followers, works creatively and enthusiastically. Makes suggestions and takes intelligent risks. In my opinion, John Talbot falls under this kind of follower, as he always achieved his target and tried to communicate with the leader and make suggestions, so that team as a whole can achieve the common goal.

Sheep / Passive Follower: These types of followers always rely on the leader and seldom challenge the process and avoid any resistance. They are just spending/passing time and also require an excessive amount of supervision. They believe that the organization doesn’t want their ideas so the leader is going to do what he/she wants anyway. They are play-safe people. In my opinion both Boyce and Millar falls under this category. Boyce and Millar both failed to achieve their targets on more than 2 occasions. Though Boyce communicated his reasons of not being able to achieve the target, Millar avoided doing the same. Boyce required help from Talbot to achieve his target on the final day; however Millar was too de-motivated, hence he gave up.

MOTIVATION: One of the major factors for the failure of the task was lack of motivation in the employees. The only motivational factor present here was the bonus of $300. Lets evaluate why the employees were de-motivated:

The Two-Factor Theory

Motivation Factor: The leader (Parker) did not take care of the motivational factors like recognition, achievement, growth, salary, etc. The task required working long hours and the wages paid were not very attractive. So, this causes the de-motivation for the employees.

Hygiene Factor: The inter-personal relations, the working conditions, Supervision, leader’s attitude etc, all comes under the hygiene factor, which Parker failed to take care of. He did not communicate enough with his employees, the working conditions were not very favourable, and employees were being pressurized to complete the task. Hence all of this contributed in de-motivating the employees.

Theory of Inequity

Inequity - the situation in which a person perceives he or she is receiving less than he or she is giving, or is giving less than he or she is receiving . This was the situation with Millar, hence he gave up on the last day, even though he could have achieved his targets if worked harder. As per Millar, Parker always criticized his work, so even if he completed 7 ½ lengths he would have got the same scolding’s as he’ll get for completing 5 lengths.

Expectancy Theory

Effort-Performance-Reward – This theory tells us that every individual analyses his/ her task based on the above three parameters. First, they quantify the effort required for the task against the benefits they are getting. And then they evaluate if the benefits they are getting are useful/ valuable for them or not. Similarly, in this case we saw that Millar, on the last day, evaluated the effort he is suppose to put to get the results and then he came to the conclusion that even he put the

required effort, he will not be able to complete the task and will not enjoy the benefit. So he gave up.

Communication: Communication between the team was again a major problem, due to which the team failed to achieve the task. Communication is the evoking of a shared or common meaning in another person. There was lack of Interpersonal communication between the employees and the leader. Interpersonal communication is important in building and sustaining human relationships at work. Here in this case, Leader (Parker) gave no importance to the communication between the team. He never bothered to ask about the issues & problems which are being faced by the individuals nor did he ask about the progress made. He was just bothered about the end results per day without taking employees perspective into the consideration.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Parker need to change his leadership style, wherein he can communicate and motivate his sub-ordinates.He needs to adapt more attractive ways to motivate his sub-ordinates like Rewards contingent on good performance, valued rewards etc.He needs to communicate more effectively and continuously with his followers.He needs to give more importance on team work than the individual work.He needs to take care of working conditions and hygiene factors for his employees.