“MAN
12, Prof. Belliveau
A
Managerial Dilemma
INSTRUCTIONS
/ MATERIALS
___________________________________________________
An
Overview of Your Task
David
graduated from C.W. Post in 2009. He has contacted you to obtain your help in
assessing management problems in his family business. He specifically asked that
you
review the facts of the situation and answer the following questions:
What are the problems with
his current employees/organization?
Why do these problems exist
(i.e., what theories would predict these problems
and
how?)
What could and should he do
(i.e., what managerial interventions do you
recommend
that he implement) to eliminate these problems or reduce their
effects
on his business and why should these interventions work?
How could and should he
evaluate these managerial interventions to see if they
work
(i.e., what would he measure to know that these steps were helping his
Business)?
David has heard that you have
a special expertise in understanding and
representing
relationships among important management concepts (e.g., how
employees
perception of fairness relates to employee motivation). He has asked
that you
consider all you have learned about how to think about causal
relationships
and apply that to your diagnosis, description of recommendations
and
evaluation of the success of the interventions you recommend. He would
specifically
appreciate a detailed logical diagram which depicts your diagnosis of
the
problem.
He knows
that you understand both theories in organizational behavior (OB) AND how
to
creatively apply these theories to achieve greater effectivenessjust as you
did with
nurse
absenteeism earlier in the termso he is eager for you to begin advising him.
The
details on Davids situation appear later in this document.

Guidelines
You should absolutely
refer to your text, handouts and notes from class to
generate
your write-up.Using material from other courses, texts,
outside
research
isnot allowed. You
are expected to demonstrate your mastery of the
concepts
fromTHIScourse
and need not use any outside materials to do so.
More specifically, you
need not and may not do any outside research
(e.g.,
try to research the hotel industry). Everything you need to know about
the
situation is provided here.
Your write-up should be
6-8 pages typed, 1.5 or double spacing, 11 or 12
point
font.The page limit does not including any
figures/diagrams that you
wish to
include.
Your finalized paper is
due on May 1st by 5 pm.You must upload your
finalized
paper on Blackboard.
Your paper must be
uploaded as a WORD document.After you have
uploaded
it, make sure you can open it. If you cannot open it, I will not be able
to. If
you are unsure about this, go to the Blackboard help in the computer
center.
Do not email me to ask if I can open your paper.
Your file should be named
Last name_First name_FP.doc (the FP is for final
paper).
You MUST read and adhere to
the independent work guidelines provided to you,
as well
as avoid any possibility of plagiarizing material. NO OUTSIDE
RESEARCH
is required NOR IS IT ALLOWED.

Davids
Dilemma: The Facts/Background
David
just took over his familys 80-year old business, a 75-guest small inn
(Harborview
House) on Long Island, as general manager. Although David graduated
from
LIU-C.W. Post with a degree in history in 2009 and was successful working as a
retail
associate for Barnes & Noble, he was happy to be back in the family
business,
having
enjoyed many summers working at the hotel while growing up. The family
business
also was an important asset, providing income for his parents and siblings.
When
David took over in the general manager role, he did not expect that the
business
would be
in bad shape. His older brother, Joe, who had no business or management
training,
had run the company for the previous six years and asked David to take
over,
citing only his busy schedule with his family as the rationale. As David
learned,
however,
Joe had been struggling in the job as general manager of the hotel for some
time.
Guest bookings in summer of 2011 were down such that there were empty
rooms on
weekendssomething David believed had not happened in decades.
Comment
cards from guests suggested that misbookings were occurring such that
guests
did not obtain the rooms they requested, were delayed in getting their rooms
and
negatively affected by other service errors. Looking into these guest stays,
David
found
that many of these guests had been repeat guests in the past but instead,
visited
only once last summer. Losing long-time guests business concerned David
because
he knew that that could be an early indicator that bookings from new guests
might
need to ramp up next summer to keep the hotel continuously booked. Getting
new
guests business is a more expensive proposition than relying on existing
guests/customers
for more visits because to attract a large number of new guests, the
hotel
might have to invest in advertising versus in the past, they needed fewer new
guests
each year and could rely on positive word of mouth from satisfied guests.
When
David reviewed the comments about guest service in detail, he became even
more
concerned. Guests reported feeling that the staff considered guests to be a
nuisance.
Harborview House operated 12 months of the year and these problems
showed
up in comment cards during all seasons, suggesting to David that the problem
was not
isolated to the busiest time of year when staff might have been short-handed.
During
Davids first week on the job, he followed up by talking with existing
employees.
He knew that the hotel had four core full-time staff, all of whom had
prior
restaurant and hotel experience. Their knowledge, skills and abilities were
excellent
and David observed that there was high cohesiveness within this group of
staff so
he intended to investigate problems more deeply by talking to each of these
staff
members individually.
The
full-time staffs tasks consisted of:

Sales (creating sales quotes
for large bookings such as for weddings, family
reunions,
and other groups; tracking and addressing occupancy rates; booking
individual
guests)
Guest services (check-in,
concierge)
Continental breakfast
preparation/service/clean-up
Light maintenance of the
property (any major matters were referred to full-time
plumbers,
electricians, etc.).
Joe, as
the general manager, had overseen this team and coordinated the work of both
the
full-time core staff team and other temporary and part-time staff who worked at
the inn
as needed.
The
Full-time Staff and Davids Information-Gathering Results
The core
staff team consisted of:
Sarah,
5.5 yrs of experience at the hotel, highly skilled
Paul, 5
yrs of experience, highly skilled
Amy, 5
yrs of experience at the hotel, highly skilled
Tom, 4.5
yrs of experience at the hotel, highly skilled
David
asked the staff individually about their experience working at the hotel, their
feelings
about the staff team, and problems that they discerned. Here is a summary of
the key
information David gleaned from the staff:
All staff members reported
enjoying their colleagues (i.e., other staff) and getting
along
well with them and with Joe, the previous general manager. In the last
year,
however, relations between the staff and Joe had become strained.
All staff sensed that morale
of the staff had steeply declined over the last year
from
what had been high morale before. Morale was now low to very low in
the
opinion of all of the staff.
All staff sensed that
customer service had also declined as a result of lower
morale
and Joes inattention to the business in the last year. Most staff
acknowledged
that their own motivation to deliver high quality guest
experiences
had declined along with morale.
Prior to the last year, all
staff worked together as a team, gaining the flexibility
that the
team structure provided so that critical tasks could be tackled by
any/all
staff. All staff believed that this system by which they accomplished

tasks
was a definite advantage to the hotel and to the staff who liked the team
atmosphere
and challenge of doing more tasks that required varied skills.
In the last year, however,
staff reported to David that Joe had really micromanaged
them,
telling all of the staff exactly how to do each and every little
thing.
Staff reported that this was a major change in how they worked and
they
felt that Joe was trying to force people to focus on individual, narrow tasks
(e.g.,
just breakfast service) rather than working together in accomplishing all
the
tasks necessary to keep the hotel running. The core staff uniformly disliked
this
micromanagement and felt that they were neither efficient working this way
nor as
engaged by their jobs after this change.
All core staff members were
paid very similarly. Salary was very slightly higher
for
those core staff with more tenure but all staff members reported that tenure
at the
hotel should be rewarded so they were fine with that difference.
Other than tenure, in
recognition that they had worked together as a team,
handling
all the important tasks required to keep the hotel operating, there
were
minimal pay differences. Staff reported liking this and reporting that it
seemed
fair. However, the ability of the staff to make decisions about how they
did
their jobs and opportunity to experience a range of tasks (and avoid
boredom
or being stuck in a bad job) had been a valued outcome for each
employee.
As Tom put it, That decision making ability was like an additional
form of
pay but now, it was taken away for all of us, leaving somebut not all
of us
with worse jobs. Specifically, now, Joes micromanagement caused some
employees
(e.g., Amy and Tom) to be assigned to narrower, more specific jobs,
handling
worse tasks much of the time and feeling as if their salary was no
longer
fair given the less desirable tasks that they are required to perform. The
employees
described this as the state of affairs for nearly the entire last year.
Davids brother, Joe, the
previous general manager, had provided no
information
to staff on why he changed the work structure from broader jobs
that
were shared and in which employees had lots of discretion to trying to
designate
specific tasks for each employee. He also provided no information on
how pay
might or might not change (it never did) with these job design changes,
nor did
he express any openness to discussing employees concerns about these
changes.
As one employee put it:
We
had no warning that jobs would change nor did Joe ask our opinion about
it
before beginning to change thingsor even afterwards as we could see it
was
less efficient and less motivating for us. Its as if he knew we were
unhappy
and confused, but he provided no explanations and invited no
comments
from us. It felt like he treated us with no respect and did not care
about
our feelings. We had no one to go to because after all, he alone was in
charge.
David asked the employees if
Joe had communicated any objectives to the
employees
(e.g., # of group bookings per month; guest ratingsfor example, at
least a
4 on average). Each employee said that nothing like that was every
discussed.
As Paul said:
We
worked hard because historically, we cared about the hotel. But we
dont
see any connection now between how we perform our narrow jobs
and
how the hotel does as a whole. Although we all would like to have
objectives
provided to us, I dont ever have a goal that has been given to
me
to work toward. That would be nice but Joe did not seem interested in
anything
having to do with our motivation or job attitudes for the past
year.
Conclusion
Evenwithout
training in organizational behavior, David
knows that he has major
problems
to address. However, he was encouraged to hear all of the employees
express
positive feelings about the hotel, their relationships with each other, and
their
jobs
before Joe checked out on his responsibilities and shifted his management
style
to be
such a micromanager. David also knows that all of these employees have the
necessary
skills to be high performers again and that their experience at Harborview is
an asset
to the business. Fortunately, the business is not failing yet. However, he is
worried
that without the thoughtful advice of MAN 12 Consulting, Inc., the business
could
really suffer and that would create unnecessary financial pain for his entire
family.
YOUR
TASK
There is
a lot for you to diagnose here as wrong from an OB perspective. Identify as
many of
the critical problems David faces as you can using theory to describe what
you
believe is wrong and why information in this case suggests that something is
a
problem.
Then
propose solutionsagain using theory but being specific to how your ideas
should
be applied here. Then suggest what David should examine to see if the ideas
(the
managerial interventions you propose) have worked.

Be sure
to support your assertions, quickly citing case facts without restating the
whole
case (you can count on my knowing what the case says!).
CLUE:
Focus on theories of motivation and job
design. The critical problems you can
describe
and discuss require you to use that material (i.e., those chapters and
handouts).
IMPORTANT
KEYS TO SUCCESS ON THIS ASSIGNMENT
1.Even at
the MBA level, students fall prey to the regurgitating the case facts
problem.
I wrote the case so although you should reference case facts (e.g., a %
change
in sales) as support for your diagnosis and analysis, dont describe facts as
that information
will be news to me. Youshouldcite
facts from the case as support
for your
assertions but avoid merely restating the descriptive material youve been
given.
Such restatement doesnt qualify as analysis, takes space which you will
quickly
run short of, and diverts your focus from diagnosis and recommendations
the
truly important portions of your paper.
2.To
elaborate, an effective analysis needs to be grounded in facts but relies on
the
theories and frameworks youve learned in class and through the readings,
applying
the latter to the specifics of the situation presented.
3.
USE CONCEPTS and SPECIFIC VOCABULARY from this course. BE
SPECIFIC
in your terminology.Lets imagine you were given
a case about a
manager,
Peter, who neglected his responsibilities as a manager and whose employees
were not
performing. An example of NOT using course concepts (as well as not being
thoughtful)
is saying: Peter is not a good manager; his employees dont seem happy.
This is
vague and your assertion is not supported.
A better
approach: Peter has a laissez-faire leadership style. Such a style involves
not
developing goals with employees, failing to track employee performance, and
ignoring
potential problems that arise that employees cannot resolve themselves.
Hence,
either because of lack of knowledge regarding effective leadership or lack of
skill,
Peter is failing to demonstrate meaningful leadership and based on facts
provided
in the case (e.g., the loss of customers, decline in sales), his employees are
not performing
effectively and describe a low level of job satisfaction. Low job
satisfaction
among employees should be a concern for Peters company because it can
lead to
lost customers in the future as these employees dissatisfaction affects their
level of customer service.MAN
12, Prof. BelliveauA
Managerial DilemmaINSTRUCTIONS
/ MATERIALS___________________________________________________An
Overview of Your TaskDavid
graduated from C.W. Post in 2009. He has contacted you to obtain your help inassessing
management problems in his family business. He specifically asked thatyou
review the facts of the situation and answer the following questions:What are the problems with
his current employees/organization?Why do these problems exist
(i.e., what theories would predict these problemsand
how?)What could and should he do
(i.e., what managerial interventions do yourecommend
that he implement) to eliminate these problems or reduce theireffects
on his business and why should these interventions work?How could and should he
evaluate these managerial interventions to see if theywork
(i.e., what would he measure to know that these steps were helping hisBusiness)?David has heard that you have
a special expertise in understanding andrepresenting
relationships among important management concepts (e.g., howemployees
perception of fairness relates to employee motivation). He has askedthat you
consider all you have learned about how to think about causalrelationships
and apply that to your diagnosis, description of recommendationsand
evaluation of the success of the interventions you recommend. He wouldspecifically
appreciate a detailed logical diagram which depicts your diagnosis ofthe
problem.He knows
that you understand both theories in organizational behavior (OB) AND howto
creatively apply these theories to achieve greater effectivenessjust as you
did withnurse
absenteeism earlier in the termso he is eager for you to begin advising him.The
details on Davids situation appear later in this document.GuidelinesYou should absolutely
refer to your text, handouts and notes from class togenerate
your write-up.Using material from other courses, texts,
outsideresearch
isnot allowed. You
are expected to demonstrate your mastery of theconcepts
fromTHIScourse
and need not use any outside materials to do so.More specifically, you
need not and may not do any outside research(e.g.,
try to research the hotel industry). Everything you need to know aboutthe
situation is provided here.Your write-up should be
6-8 pages typed, 1.5 or double spacing, 11 or 12point
font.The page limit does not including any
figures/diagrams that youwish to
include.Your finalized paper is
due on May 1st by 5 pm.You must upload yourfinalized
paper on Blackboard.Your paper must be
uploaded as a WORD document.After you haveuploaded
it, make sure you can open it. If you cannot open it, I will not be ableto. If
you are unsure about this, go to the Blackboard help in the computercenter.
Do not email me to ask if I can open your paper.Your file should be named
Last name_First name_FP.doc (the FP is for finalpaper).You MUST read and adhere to
the independent work guidelines provided to you,as well
as avoid any possibility of plagiarizing material. NO OUTSIDERESEARCH
is required NOR IS IT ALLOWED.Davids
Dilemma: The Facts/BackgroundDavid
just took over his familys 80-year old business, a 75-guest small inn(Harborview
House) on Long Island, as general manager. Although David graduatedfrom
LIU-C.W. Post with a degree in history in 2009 and was successful working as aretail
associate for Barnes & Noble, he was happy to be back in the family
business,having
enjoyed many summers working at the hotel while growing up. The familybusiness
also was an important asset, providing income for his parents and siblings.When
David took over in the general manager role, he did not expect that the
businesswould be
in bad shape. His older brother, Joe, who had no business or managementtraining,
had run the company for the previous six years and asked David to takeover,
citing only his busy schedule with his family as the rationale. As David
learned,however,
Joe had been struggling in the job as general manager of the hotel for sometime.
Guest bookings in summer of 2011 were down such that there were emptyrooms on
weekendssomething David believed had not happened in decades.Comment
cards from guests suggested that misbookings were occurring such thatguests
did not obtain the rooms they requested, were delayed in getting their roomsand
negatively affected by other service errors. Looking into these guest stays,
Davidfound
that many of these guests had been repeat guests in the past but instead,visited
only once last summer. Losing long-time guests business concerned Davidbecause
he knew that that could be an early indicator that bookings from new guestsmight
need to ramp up next summer to keep the hotel continuously booked. Gettingnew
guests business is a more expensive proposition than relying on existingguests/customers
for more visits because to attract a large number of new guests, thehotel
might have to invest in advertising versus in the past, they needed fewer newguests
each year and could rely on positive word of mouth from satisfied guests.When
David reviewed the comments about guest service in detail, he became evenmore
concerned. Guests reported feeling that the staff considered guests to be anuisance.
Harborview House operated 12 months of the year and these problemsshowed
up in comment cards during all seasons, suggesting to David that the problemwas not
isolated to the busiest time of year when staff might have been short-handed.During
Davids first week on the job, he followed up by talking with existingemployees.
He knew that the hotel had four core full-time staff, all of whom hadprior
restaurant and hotel experience. Their knowledge, skills and abilities wereexcellent
and David observed that there was high cohesiveness within this group ofstaff so
he intended to investigate problems more deeply by talking to each of thesestaff
members individually.The
full-time staffs tasks consisted of:Sales (creating sales quotes
for large bookings such as for weddings, familyreunions,
and other groups; tracking and addressing occupancy rates; bookingindividual
guests)Guest services (check-in,
concierge)Continental breakfast
preparation/service/clean-upLight maintenance of the
property (any major matters were referred to full-timeplumbers,
electricians, etc.).Joe, as
the general manager, had overseen this team and coordinated the work of boththe
full-time core staff team and other temporary and part-time staff who worked atthe inn
as needed.The
Full-time Staff and Davids Information-Gathering ResultsThe core
staff team consisted of:Sarah,
5.5 yrs of experience at the hotel, highly skilledPaul, 5
yrs of experience, highly skilledAmy, 5
yrs of experience at the hotel, highly skilledTom, 4.5
yrs of experience at the hotel, highly skilledDavid
asked the staff individually about their experience working at the hotel, theirfeelings
about the staff team, and problems that they discerned. Here is a summary ofthe key
information David gleaned from the staff:All staff members reported
enjoying their colleagues (i.e., other staff) and gettingalong
well with them and with Joe, the previous general manager. In the lastyear,
however, relations between the staff and Joe had become strained.All staff sensed that morale
of the staff had steeply declined over the last yearfrom
what had been high morale before. Morale was now low to very low inthe
opinion of all of the staff.All staff sensed that
customer service had also declined as a result of lowermorale
and Joes inattention to the business in the last year. Most staffacknowledged
that their own motivation to deliver high quality guestexperiences
had declined along with morale.Prior to the last year, all
staff worked together as a team, gaining the flexibilitythat the
team structure provided so that critical tasks could be tackled byany/all
staff. All staff believed that this system by which they accomplishedtasks
was a definite advantage to the hotel and to the staff who liked the teamatmosphere
and challenge of doing more tasks that required varied skills.In the last year, however,
staff reported to David that Joe had really micromanagedthem,
telling all of the staff exactly how to do each and every littlething.
Staff reported that this was a major change in how they worked andthey
felt that Joe was trying to force people to focus on individual, narrow tasks(e.g.,
just breakfast service) rather than working together in accomplishing allthe
tasks necessary to keep the hotel running. The core staff uniformly dislikedthis
micromanagement and felt that they were neither efficient working this waynor as
engaged by their jobs after this change.All core staff members were
paid very similarly. Salary was very slightly higherfor
those core staff with more tenure but all staff members reported that tenureat the
hotel should be rewarded so they were fine with that difference.Other than tenure, in
recognition that they had worked together as a team,handling
all the important tasks required to keep the hotel operating, therewere
minimal pay differences. Staff reported liking this and reporting that itseemed
fair. However, the ability of the staff to make decisions about how theydid
their jobs and opportunity to experience a range of tasks (and avoidboredom
or being stuck in a bad job) had been a valued outcome for eachemployee.
As Tom put it, That decision making ability was like an additionalform of
pay but now, it was taken away for all of us, leaving somebut not allof us
with worse jobs. Specifically, now, Joes micromanagement caused someemployees
(e.g., Amy and Tom) to be assigned to narrower, more specific jobs,handling
worse tasks much of the time and feeling as if their salary was nolonger
fair given the less desirable tasks that they are required to perform. Theemployees
described this as the state of affairs for nearly the entire last year.Davids brother, Joe, the
previous general manager, had provided noinformation
to staff on why he changed the work structure from broader jobsthat
were shared and in which employees had lots of discretion to trying todesignate
specific tasks for each employee. He also provided no information onhow pay
might or might not change (it never did) with these job design changes,nor did
he express any openness to discussing employees concerns about thesechanges.
As one employee put it:We
had no warning that jobs would change nor did Joe ask our opinion aboutit
before beginning to change thingsor even afterwards as we could see itwas
less efficient and less motivating for us. Its as if he knew we wereunhappy
and confused, but he provided no explanations and invited nocomments
from us. It felt like he treated us with no respect and did not careabout
our feelings. We had no one to go to because after all, he alone was incharge.David asked the employees if
Joe had communicated any objectives to theemployees
(e.g., # of group bookings per month; guest ratingsfor example, atleast a
4 on average). Each employee said that nothing like that was everydiscussed.
As Paul said:We
worked hard because historically, we cared about the hotel. But wedont
see any connection now between how we perform our narrow jobsand
how the hotel does as a whole. Although we all would like to haveobjectives
provided to us, I dont ever have a goal that has been given tome
to work toward. That would be nice but Joe did not seem interested inanything
having to do with our motivation or job attitudes for the pastyear.ConclusionEvenwithout
training in organizational behavior, David
knows that he has majorproblems
to address. However, he was encouraged to hear all of the employeesexpress
positive feelings about the hotel, their relationships with each other, and
theirjobs
before Joe checked out on his responsibilities and shifted his management
styleto be
such a micromanager. David also knows that all of these employees have thenecessary
skills to be high performers again and that their experience at Harborview isan asset
to the business. Fortunately, the business is not failing yet. However, he isworried
that without the thoughtful advice of MAN 12 Consulting, Inc., the businesscould
really suffer and that would create unnecessary financial pain for his entirefamily.YOUR
TASKThere is
a lot for you to diagnose here as wrong from an OB perspective. Identify asmany of
the critical problems David faces as you can using theory to describe whatyou
believe is wrong and why information in this case suggests that something is
aproblem.Then
propose solutionsagain using theory but being specific to how your ideasshould
be applied here. Then suggest what David should examine to see if the ideas(the
managerial interventions you propose) have worked.Be sure
to support your assertions, quickly citing case facts without restating thewhole
case (you can count on my knowing what the case says!).CLUE:
Focus on theories of motivation and job
design. The critical problems you candescribe
and discuss require you to use that material (i.e., those chapters andhandouts).IMPORTANT
KEYS TO SUCCESS ON THIS ASSIGNMENT1.Even at
the MBA level, students fall prey to the regurgitating the case factsproblem.
I wrote the case so although you should reference case facts (e.g., a %change
in sales) as support for your diagnosis and analysis, dont describe facts asthat information
will be news to me. Youshouldcite
facts from the case as supportfor your
assertions but avoid merely restating the descriptive material youve beengiven.
Such restatement doesnt qualify as analysis, takes space which you willquickly
run short of, and diverts your focus from diagnosis and recommendationsthe
truly important portions of your paper.2.To
elaborate, an effective analysis needs to be grounded in facts but relies onthe
theories and frameworks youve learned in class and through the readings,applying
the latter to the specifics of the situation presented.3.
USE CONCEPTS and SPECIFIC VOCABULARY from this course. BESPECIFIC
in your terminology.Lets imagine you were given
a case about amanager,
Peter, who neglected his responsibilities as a manager and whose employeeswere not
performing. An example of NOT using course concepts (as well as not beingthoughtful)
is saying: Peter is not a good manager; his employees dont seem happy.This is
vague and your assertion is not supported.A better
approach: Peter has a laissez-faire leadership style. Such a style involvesnot
developing goals with employees, failing to track employee performance, andignoring
potential problems that arise that employees cannot resolve themselves.Hence,
either because of lack of knowledge regarding effective leadership or lack ofskill,
Peter is failing to demonstrate meaningful leadership and based on factsprovided
in the case (e.g., the loss of customers, decline in sales), his employees arenot performing
effectively and describe a low level of job satisfaction. Low jobsatisfaction
among employees should be a concern for Peters company because it canlead to
lost customers in the future as these employees dissatisfaction affects theirlevel of customer service.”