THE GOODMAN COMPANY

The Goodman Company is a manufacturing company that specialises in producing small rubber automotive parts such as boots for floor-mounted automobiles and truck transmissions, boots for brakes and clutch and accelerator pedals. The president of the Goodman Company is Mr. RobertG o o d m a n a n d d i r e c t l y u n d e r h i m i s M r . J o e S m i t h w h o i s t h e p r o d u c t i o n m a n a g e r . T h e organisation consists of three shifts, each of which is headed by a different supervisor. The threeshifts referred to in this case are shift one, supervised by Mr. Cleverson Anthony, shift two, Mr. Norm Leonard and shift three, Mr. Bob Jackson.The president had recently hired a production analyst by the name of Ms. Ann Bennet inh o p e s t o o b t a i n r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t h a t w o u l d f a c i l i t a t e g r e a t e r o u t p u t t h r o u g h o u t t h e organisation. Her main intentions w ere to replace the existing process, w hich had entailed each employee to complete each step within the process individually to job specialisation, where each employee would be responsible for a specific function within the process. Although this seemedlike a good recommendation it proved not to be totally effective since output decreased on thefirst and second shifts w hilst the third shift was able to maintain their level of output. But washiring Ms. Bennet the initial problem?This led us to identify what we thought to be a concise and applicable problem statementw hich states that The core problem of the entire implementation process was the ineffectivestructure employed by the management of the Goodman Company on the basis of t heir poor l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e s / s k i l l s w h i c h t h e n r e s u l t e d i n a b r e a k d o w n i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n , a l a c k o f motivation amongst employees that caused them not to be satisfied with their jobs thereforeinfluencing how they behave. After thorough analysis of the Goodman case, we had identified many variables that w ouldsuggest that the company w as neither driven by positive and conducive w ork behaviour nor guided by tactful and w ell constructed policies. Moreover, the business practices presentedw ithin the case concluded that the management of the Goodman Company had failed to designan effective organisational structure that w ould have enabled them to properly deal with thechange in the production process. With thi s being said, it was fair to declare that this was thec o r e p r o b l e m o f t h e C o m p a n y and as a result the business was unable to operate at its f u l l potential.F o r c h a n g e t o b e f o s t e r e d a n d t h e n e w t e c h n i q u e s s u c c e s s f u l l y i m p l e m e n t e d , a modification of the organisational structure w ould have been required. According to Laurie J.M u l l i n s ( 2 0 0 5 , p . 5 9 6 ) s t r u c t u r e i s t h e p a t t e r n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g p o s i t i o n s i n t h e organization and among members of the organization. Structure makes it possible the applicationof the process of management and creates a framework of order and command through which theactivities of the organization can be planned, organised, directed and controlled.From this definition, w e gathered that structure is one of the core

components of anyorganisation as it facilitates the execution of all other functions (planning, controlling, leading,organising). Nonetheless, before analysis it was conceptualised that the organisational structureof the Goodman Company could not be classified as a recognised genre of structure, outlined byearly OB/management theorists, such as Max Webers theory of Bureaucracy. How ever, after thorough analysis we closely identified this structure with that of a simple structure. It became further apparent that this structure lacked some of the key elements needed w hen designing ane f f e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e . T h o s e e l e m e n t s i n c l u d e s p a n o f c o n t r o l , w o r k s p e c i a l i s a t i o n , c h a i n o f command, centralisation and decentralisation, and formalisation.There was span of control evident throughout the company as seen from the first shift tothe third shift but despite each supervisor having a small number of subordinates to direct, it wasnot done efficiently and effectively. Moreover, the chain of command line was continuously broken as seen in both the first and second shifts. This was illustrated on first shift w hen John(Fireball) Malone w ould, on a daily basis, run up to Joe Smith, the Production Manager andRobert Goodman, the President, giving them his suggestions on improving operations. Whendefined, the chain of command states that authority extends from the top of the organisation tothe lowest rank and clarifies who reports to whom. Therefore, Fireball had broken the chain andshould have reported any suggestions to his supervisor, Cleverson (Clev) Anthony w ho w ouldthen have the authority to report these matters to Joe Smith. The staff of the second shift had intentionally broken the chain of command line because it was clear t h a t N o r m w a s t h e appointed supervi sor of this shift but his s u b o r d i n a t e s r e f u s e d t o r e p o r t t o h i m w h e n t h e y encountered a problem. Rather, they reported to Jim Flask, who had no formal authority over theshift.O v e r a l l , t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e G o o d m a n C o m p a n y w a s n e i t h e r w e l l f o r ma l ised nor sta nda rdised since it l a cked the necessa ry pol icies a nd procedu r e s n e e d e d t o g u i d e b o t h employees and management in their daily operations. Instead of the organisation having a written policy to guide supervisors actions and behaviours when implementing a change, each supervisor was left responsible for implementation w hich resulted in each shift adopting a different work practice. Consequently, the different methodologies of each supervisor constituted for how theemployees accepted the change of their work roles.W h a t M r . G o o d m a n f a i l e d t o u n d e r s t a n d w a s t h a t s t r u c t u r e s h o u l d f o l l o w s t r a t e g y . Therefore, those elements of structure that would have been used before the introduction of thenew production process may not be applicable after its implementation since the employeesroles, responsibilities and authority were subject to change within that new environment employment to full retirement. Note, that w e believe a person w ho is desperate for a job maynot be satisfied w ith it, but only goes along with the flow because they are motivated by the benefits involved. However, as time goes by it is likely that the person becomes satisfied.E m p l o y e e s o n s h i f t o n e c l e a r l y w e r e n o t m o t i v a t e d b e f o r e t h e n e w p r o c e s s b u t w e r e satisfied with their jobs and after its implementation they still were not motivated and their jobsatisfaction declined simply because there was no longer mentally challenging work. Accordingto one of the four factors conducive to high levels of employee job satisfaction, people prefer jobs that give them opportunities to use their skills and abilities and offer a variety of tasks,freedom and feedback on how w ell they are doing (communication). Obviously, those agedemployees in

that shift had strongly valued what they did and for Clev it was even more difficultto become satisfied since the case cited that he looks and thinks just the same as he did when hewas first hired by Goodman back in 1955 . This proved that he w as clearly not innovative andchange w ould always lead him to be not satisfied. Furthermore, the change made them believet h a t t h e c o m p a n y d i d not think much of their abilities or else the job w ould not have b e e n simplified.Mr. Goodman had not designed the necessary policies that would lead to job satisfaction;those such as equitable rewards. Imperatively, since equitable rewards were non-existent thesee m p l o y e e s c o u l d h a v e n e v e r b e e n s a t i s f i e d l e t a l o n e m o t i v a t e d . T h o s e s h i f t o n e e m p l o y e e s believed that they made the Company w hat it was and it w ould have only been fair that theyreceive a share of the profits; they perceived this as being just and in line with their expectations.These rewards can act as a means of communication since it can signal that the employee haddone a good job (acknowledges the employee) and in turn the employee becomes satisfied with their job and motivation is likely to increase because they get what they believe to be better inthis case.Because shift three w as w ell informed about the new process it w as easier for them to b e c o m e m o r e c o m m i t t e d t o t h e i r j o b s . N o t only that but t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y h a d s u p p o r t i v e colleagues added to their level of job satisfaction.Mr.Jackson w as friendly and encouragedi d e a s w h i c h m a d e t h o s e e m p l o y e e s d e v e l o p a s e n s e o f b e l o n g i n g n e s s t h e r e f o r e f o s t e r i n g motivation. Employees who are involved in the decision making feel more appreciated especiallyif their supervisor or management has considered their input for usage. If that be the case the jobwould become more enjoyable therefore motivating the employee to carry on.Evidently, the new production process was poorly implemented w ithin the first and thesecond shifts and employees, especially those on shift one, were resistant to the change becausethere was little to no motivation and they w ere not satisfied w ith their jobs. As a result, eachgroup accepted and reacted to the change differently and those especially of the first shift, haddifficulties working in groups because that was not the norm and they did not understand what itmeant to have a shared purpose and the ability to act in a unitary manner.W h e n d e f i n e d g r o u p s a r e a n y n u m b e r o f p e o p l e w h o i n t e r a c t w i t h o n e a n o t h e r ; a r e psychologically aware of one another; and perceive themselves to be a group (Laurie J. Mullins2 0 0 5 ) . I t i s f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t a g r o u p i s a collection of people who share the f o l l o w i n g cha ra cteristics: defina bl e membership; grou p consciousne ss; a sen s e o f s h a r e d p u r p o s e ; interdependence; interaction; and the ability to act in a unitary manner. Throughout the GoodmanCompany, it was evident that after the implementation of the new production process that groupwork became a necessity and w as the definite route to success since each employee no longer had to perform the entire process.The activities of any group are associated with the process of leadership and the styleadopted by their supervisor i.e. the way in which the group reacted or accepted the new processm a i n l y d e p e n d e d on how they w ere supervi sed. Moreover, if the supervisor is uneasy w i t h change it becomes difficult to guide his/her fellow group members to the accomplishment of o r g a n i s a t i o n a l g o a l s b e c a u s e t h e s u p e r v i s o r n o w b e c o m e s l e s s c o m m i t t e d t o t h e t a s k a n d sometimes this tends to trickle down to members in the group. That is, there is a possibility thatthe group would also not want to accept the new process and with reference to the

case we notedthis when Clev, the supervisor, was unhappy, then his subordinate Joe Bob formed a union whichwas accepted by the other shift employees.I n t h e s e c o n d s h i f t , N o r m a s t h e s u p e r v i s o r h a d n o r e a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h h i s f e l l o w subordinates and as a group leader it is necessary to interact continuously with group members asthis is one important characteristic of a group. When Norm was appointed supervisor the groupdid not readily accept him and he did not socialise but rather believed that they should do their work. What he failed to realise is that by not interacting with the group they adopted behaviour where they were reluctant to speak to him on any problems that they encountered