A Savage Factory - Book report PDF

Preview

Summary

Book report...

Description

A Savage Factory Jaycee Nguyen California State University, San Marcos

A Case Study: How the LPC Theory of Leadership Could Have Changed Sharonville

1

Executive Summary In the novel, “A Savage Factory: An Eyewitness Account of the Auto Industry’s SelfDestruction,” written by Robert J. Dewar, it is clear the management style that was being used had created a great deal of tension between the big shot managers and the hourly employees. Dewar’s novel not only provided the opportunity to see how the automobiles of Ford were being produced, but allowed insight on how Ford’s Zone 3 managers completely disregarded their hourly employee’s needs and values. They were no longer viewed as people, but as four numbers, specifically the last four numbers on their social security card, and according to Ford’s managers, they were the primary cause if daily production quotas were not met. The following case study will provide a theory that could have been effective at the Sharonville Factory. The theory would be significantly beneficial to the hourly employees, and as a whole could also greatly benefit the Ford company. The Sharonville Ford Factory faced many problems when it came to their management system. Sharonville’s top tier managements main concern was hitting their production quota and nothing else, because workers were just the extension of the machine they work with day in and day out. This resulted in a war on the floor between hourly workers and management, paving the way for assembly line sabotage by the worker and unreasonable 4600 disciplinary write-ups by management. Along with the war on the floor, it is clear management shows some employee unfair favoritism based on how much that employee can hurt their numbers. Once Bob arrived all the building tension reached a tipping point when he began managing his section they way he felt was right. This resulted in an internal war between top tier management and bottom tier management, Bob. Bob saw the company as a place of collaboration. He believe it management and hourly employees worked to together, and they could focus less on winning the war between them and put all their energy into beating out their competitors in the same market. Top management saw this collaboration as Bob giving up the right and power to run his own department. They felt he was letting the hourly workers take over making him a useless part of management. They considered him to be collaborating with the enemy and even though his section was running smoothly for three month, they audited his department in hope of finding evidence against him. The management method Bob, felt would result in high productivity involved many key factors on the LCP theory of leadership. Bob and the theory believed a strong relationship between the worker and the manager as to be developed to form mutual trust and respect. Bob in turn saw his hourly workers as people that had children and live after they left the factory for the day. If Ford’s Zone 3 management used this same theory they could have increased production and increase work satisfaction. Hourly workers would more like respect management and the rule and policies set in place to protect them, as employees and the company.

2

Background In the novel, “A Savage Factory: An Eyewitness Account of the Auto Industry’s SelfDestruction,” written by Robert J. Dewar, it is clear the management style that was being used had created a great deal of tension between the big shot managers and the hourly employees. Dewar’s novel not only provided the opportunity to see how the automobiles of Ford were being produced, but allowed insight on how Ford’s Zone 3 managers completely disregarded their hourly employee’s needs and values. They were no longer viewed as people, but as four numbers, specifically the last four numbers on their social security card, and according to Ford’s managers, they were the primary cause if daily production quotas were not met. The following case study will provide a theory that could have been effective at the Sharonville Factory. The theory would be significantly beneficial to the hourly employees, and as a whole could also greatly benefit the Ford company.

Issues Within The Factory According to Dewar, who in the novel was called Bob, the Sharonville plant experienced a variety of problems and issues, the most important one being the war between managers and hourly workers. This war consisted of managers, otherwise known as foremen, using negative reinforcement or fear, such as job write-ups known as 4600s, to motivate their hourly workers to perform and meet daily quotas. In retaliation, many hourly workers that had receive disciplinary job write-ups would intentionally slow down and sometimes completely stop production in hopes to force their foreman to quit or get them sent to the big boss of Zone 3, Roger, to be fired. Since the beginning of the novel, much emphasis was put on the daily production quota. Which Ed, one of Bob’s bosses, called it making your numbers. He also told Bob, if a foreman did not make his number, he’d better have a stack of 4600s to make up for the difference. This quota seemed to really define Ford’s mission as a company, but the internal struggle within the company made this mission difficult to accomplish. In addition to the raging war within the company, management seemed to show unfair favoritism told certain hourly employees and not other. During Bob’s first day, while Ed was so-called training him, he noticed two hourly workers at the balance was playing checkers by neither of them were in any trouble with Ed. Ed’s only response was, at Ford Motor Company, not all the animals in the barnyard are created equal, it depends on whether a man could hurt me more on my numbers then I could hurt him with paperwork. This was unfair to hourly workers whom position is more easily replaceable, because they would be primary targets for 4600s when numbers were not met. Workers with position that were more difficult to train or replace we more or less allowed to work less productively with little to no consequences. On top of the war against management, and worker inequality, Bob was inadequately trained for him position and was never hired based on him merit. Ed defined training Bob as giving him a complete walk through of his section, 258, and telling him what to 3

watch out for in terms of unproductive workers. This training lasted a whole 39 minutes. As a result of improper training, Bod had some extremely difficult first couple of days. He was never thoroughly train on contacting union representatives for the workers, how to proceed with disciplinary hearing, how to get equipment fixed, or the detailed work done by each individual in his department. This got him into trouble with the union, WOP, when a worker asked him to contact a union representative, or committman, and he refused because he didn’t know who or what a committman was. Ed justified him form of training by noting all foreman are trained the same way and he did not have time to hold each foreman’s hand because other departments required him attention. Roger, the manager of Zone 3, was called to intervene when production in Bob’s section was so slow that they lost Fairfax, meaning their Fairfax assembly plant had to shut down because the torque converters needed from Bob’s section was no longed being produced and sent to Fairfax. Fairfax had no converters to continue their assembly portion of Ford’s automobiles further creating a chain reaction with out plants. Upon meeting Roger, Bob was told her was never hired because of him MBA degree or experience as Proctor & Gamble, but the fact that he was once poor and was able to rise above it. Roger felt Bob’s pass along with money was a strong motivator and that more man at Ford should be motivated by money. Roger claimed he needed foremen that are like junk yard dogs, wild enough to scare the hourly workers but will always be loyal to Ford’s management. While hourly workers and mangers go forth sabotaging each other work, it is clear this is tension within the hierarchy of management, Larry is the senior general foreman of zone 3, and Ed is the general foreman, meaning Ed is Bob’s boss, so Bob reports to Ed, and Ed reports to Larry. Larry reports to Roger. The WOP, lead committman of Zone 3, informed Bod that he was merely Ed and Larry’s puppet, and that if he continued to write-up workers because they said so, he would never get the respect of the workers and they would turn on him, making his job that much more difficult. The WOP told Bob, Ed and Larry are threaten by his experience and new form of management because they us an archaic style of management which does not please the hourly employees. Ed, Larry and Roger felt Bob was giving up his power as foreman by giving the workers to much free range when it come to decision making. Roger even interjected, why would I need you if your hourly workers are making all the decisions regarding his department. This collaborative work environment Bob believed in further increased tension within zone 3’s management.

LPC Theory of Leadership’s Effect on the Factory The LPC Theory of Leadership, in which LCP stands for least-preferred coworker, was developed by Fred Fiedler in an attempt to explain and reconcile that both the leader’s personality and the complexity of the situation at hand determines leader effectiveness. This theory works to explain that a leader’s effectiveness truly depends on the situation, as a result some leaders are effective in one situation but less effective in another. The theory also accounted for discrepancies and leader-situation matches that could increase leader effectiveness. Fiedler believed that effective leadership could be determined by factors such as the match between the leader’s personality to the situation and situational

4

favorableness. Based on this theory, not all manages at Sharonville would be equally effective, because each individual it different, but many of the managers there could use this theory to change the why this lead in their particular situation to get the most effective results. One factor that would determine leader effectiveness is the match between the leaderspersonality and the situation. Basic terms Fiedler used to describe personality traits in relation to leadership were task versus relationship motivation. Task motivation meant the leader’s goals were job-centered and these leaders tend to initiate structure. Relationship motivation on the other hand were meant the leader’s goals were more employee-centered and these leaders tend to take into consideration employee needs and values. It becomes clear in Dewar’s novel that Ed, Larry and Roger were all task-motivated leaders, because their primary goal was to make their numbers. They didn’t see they hourly employees as people, just a number, they believed they were the boss so it was their job to tell the hourly workers what to do, and as employees it was the workers job to comply. Bob, on the other hand, was relationship-motivated. He believed a manager should know him employees personally, and develop a good, solid interpersonal relationship. He also believed organization functions on the strength of mutual respect and the depth of interpersonal relationships, and to him this as an elementary concept. Many time throughout the novel he reached out to try to form these relationships by attempting to shake hands with an hourly, or greet each of him workers good morning as they walked to clock in. Each time he was shut down because the employees disregarded him genuine effort. Another factor that affects leader effectiveness is situational favorableness. Within situational favorableness, there are three contributing factors, leader-member relations, task structure, and leader power. Leader-member relation is seen as the most important contribution factor to favorableness. This factor is defined as the relationship between the manager and the worker, as such, does the worker trust, respect and has confidence in his or her leader and vice versa. A high degree of mutual trust, respect, and confidence will result in a strong leader-member relation. The second contributing factor is task structure. Task structure takes into account the type of task the worker needs to perform for the leader and how involved the leader needs to be for the task. Tasks that are considered routine and simple may require little involvement from the leader. Tasks that are considered non-routine and complex would require leaders to play and active role in guiding and directing activities that can result to it being an unfavorable task. Leader position power is the last contributing factor in determining situational favorableness. This factor is defined as the power inherited in the leader’s role. If the leader has a good amount of power in regards to assigning work, rewards and punishment over the worker, then that position of power is high or favorable. If the leader holds little power and must answer to their own leader then their position of power is low and unfavorable.

5

In the novel, Bob held a favorable leader-member relation with the workers in his department, he stated how he realized the only way to get his men to produce was by protecting them from the layer of management above him, meaning Ed, Larry, and Roger, and by making sure they had everything they needed to do their job but this protection was a two-way street, and his men protected him in return. The management above him did not believe in having a favorable leader-member relation resulting in unproductive department, such as section 257, and an increase and 4600 write-ups. Most of the workers in the factory as a whole have routine work task. Each had their own machine that they worker at for eight hours all week so the task requires little leader involvement. As long as the hourly workers had what they need they could produce their part of the converter and send it along the assembly line with little to now direction from a manger or foreman. This results in favorable task structure. In terms of leader position power, Bob tipped towards the lower tier of management, because Ed, Larry and Roger were managers above him and had the ability to fire him. In some regard he had little positional power but to his hourly workers, he did have the power to assign work and reward or punish them. This made Bob somewhat important his hourly workers because he could write them 4600 or he could compromise with them, which is what he did most of the time. Ed, Larry and Roger possessed even more position power in comparison to Bob, so the all demonstrated favorable leader position power. Overall situation wise, Bob, Ed, Larry and Roger were all dealt an extremely similar hand. All the hourly works showed favorable task structure and all the managers displayed favorable leader position power. The only difference between Bob and top management was the type of motivation and the way they viewed leader-member relations. Bob, like all workers were motivated by money but he also displayed relationship-motivation when it come to him section hourly workers. This made Bob’s management style more favorable in comparison to Zone 3’s top management, who felt task-motivation was better for hitting their numbers and leader-member relation meant I am the boss and you are more easily replaceable employee. If Ford’s top tier management understood the LCP theory of leadership they could understand and predict worker favorability and adjust their management style to yield the highest possible production factory.

6

References Dewar, Robert J. A Savage Factory: An Eyewitness Account of the Auto Industry’s SelfDestruction. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2009. Print. Griffin, Ricky W., and Moorhead, Gregory. Organizational Behavior, Managing People and Organizations. Mason, OH: South-Western, 2014. Print.

7...