Table-1: How to diagnose Decicion Situations: 1.Evaluate how importnat the decis

Question

Table-1: How to diagnose Decicion Situations:

1.Evaluate how importnat the decision is. 2.Identify people with relevant knowledge or expertise. 3. Evaluate likely cooperation by participation. 4. Evaluate whther it is feasible to hold a meeting.

How to Encourage Participation:

1. Encourage people to express their concerns. 2. Describe a proposal as tentative. 3. Record ideas and suggestions. 4. Look for ways to build on ideas and suggestions. 5. Be tactful in expressing concerns about a suggestion. 6. Listen to dissenting views without getting defensive. 7. Try to utilize suggestions and deal with concerns. 8. Show appreciation for suggestions

Table-2: Guidelines for How to delegate

1. Specify responsibilities clearly. 2. Provide adequate authority and specify limits of discretion. 3. Specify reporting requirements. 4. Ensure subordinate acceptance of responsibilities. 5. Inform others who need to know. 6. Monitor progress in appropriate ways. 7. Arrange for the subordinate to receive necessary information. 8. Provide support and assistance, but avoid reverse delegation 9. Make mistakes a learning experience

Answer following questions:

Q-1:Were the two decisions appropriate for a group decision procedure according to the Vroom-Yetton model? Be specific and support your response.

Q-2:What mistakes were made in using participation, and what could have been done to avoid the difficulties the manager encountered? What decision rules would you have chosen from Table 5-2?

Q-3: Using Table-2, Were the two decisions appropriate ones for introducing participation into the department? Support and explain your position.

Using Table-2, what could have been delegated and what could you do to improve the effectiveness of delegation?

Chapter 5 Participative Leadership and Empowerment 133 CASE Alvis Corporation erment Kathy McCarthy was the manager of a production department in Alvis Corporation, a firm that manufactures office equipment. The workers are not unionized. After reading an article that stressed the benefits of participative management, Kathy believed that these ben- efits could be realized in her department if the workers were allowed to participate in making some decisions that affect them. Kathy selected two decisions for an experiment in participative management. The first decision involved vacation schedules. Each summer the workers are given two weeks vacation, but no more than two workers can go on vacation at the same time. In prior years, Kathy made this decision herself. She would first ask the workers to indicate their pre- ferred dates, then she considered how the work would be affected if different people were out at the same time. It was important to plan a vacation schedule that would ensure adequate staffing for all of the essential operations performed by the department. When more than two workers wanted the same time period, and they had similar skills, she usually gave preference to the work ers with the highest productivity at makes ors of the he engi stations med the ately increase The second decision involved production standards. Sales had been increasing steadily over the past few years, and the company recently installed some new equipment to increase pro ductivity. The new equipment would make it possible to produce more with the same number of workers. The company had a pay incentive system in which workers received a piece rate for each unit produced above a standard amount. Separate standards existed for each type of prod uct, based on an industrial engincering study conducted a few years earlier. Top management wanted to readjust the production standards to reflect the fact that the new equipment made it possible for the workers to earn more without working any harder. The savings from higher pro- ductivity were needed to help pay for the new equipment. mar ng worksta d found uses thc Kathy called a meeting of her 15 workers an hour before the end of the work day and hat they Reasons te train creasing explained that she wanted them to discuss the two issues and make recommendations. Kathy fig ured that the workers might be inhibited about participating in the discussion if she were present, so she left them alone to discuss the issues. Besides, Kathy had an appointment to meet with the quality control manager. Quality problems had increased after the new equipment was installed, and the industrial engineers were studying the problem in an attempt to determine why quality had gotten worse rather than better. feelings et about When Kathy returned to her department just at quitting time, she was surprised to learn duction ated that O wants product that the workers recommended keeping the standards the same. She had assumed they knew the pay incentives were no longer fair and would set a higher standard. The worker spcaking for the group explained that their base pay had not kept up with inflation, and the higher incentive pay restored their real income to its prior level. On the vacation issue, the group was deadlocked. Several of the workers wanted to take their vacations during the same two-week period and could not agree on who should go. Some workers argued that they should have priority because they had more seniority, while others argued that priority should be based on productivity, as in the past. Because it was quitting time, the group concduded that Kathy would have to resolve the dispute herself. After all, wasrt that what she was being paid for? Copyright 1987 by Gary Yukl

Explanation / Answer

ans a)

Yes both of the decisions were appropriate for a group decision according to vroom-yetton decision mode.l.

First decision was Autocratic type II decision in which the ln which the main leaer collects all the information and makes his own decision just like cathy did.Her decision was'nt informed to the workers they were just there for the information.

Second decision

second decision was Consultative type ii decision in which leader ask about the problem to the relevant group and seeks informtion and answers.followers discuss the topic in betwen but the final decision is not effected by any of the group's influence its totally on the leader to make the final decision.

ans b)

Manager should have decided herself for the first problem as its was directly related to their schedule and which can lead to pruduction loss.

manager should've done the dates on her own.

for the second decision the manager should've followed the Autocratic Type 1 system to avoid conflicts between the workers.

ans c)

First decision was appropriate as there was no direct intraction between two co workers that can create conflicts hence effecting the prouction.

second decision was not good as it created a gap and time delay between the workers which effected the overall effieciency of the plane.

Thanks.hit like.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.