TASK :

You are asked to write a 1200 word analysis on the R.L. Wolfe case. The word limit will be enforced. The intention is that you write-up a structured analysis. The one thing to avoid is simply restating facts from the case. We consider a strong assignment to:

–          Provide strategic insights (what does really matter here)

–          Build on logical analysis to get to this insight (pulls together the theory and compelling evidence from the case to explain what is going on)

–          Show creativity in analysis and recommendations

–          Incorporate course materials.

In your analysis, please address the questions underneath.

1. Which management approach characterizes the “Corpus Christi Experiment” (scientific or human relations approach)? How would you evaluate the choice of approach for this experiment?
2. Compare and contrast the new plant to the old plant in terms of organisational design. Identify the most challenging problems and explain how they impact Corpus Christi.
3. What are the risks in changing from a status quo organization to a team focused organization? How could the change towards self-directed teams affect the culture at the Corpus Christi plant? And Wolfe overall?
4. If you were Amasi, how would you present the benefits of the self-directed team concept and the reasons for continuing the ‘Corpus Christi experiment’ to the unionized workforce in the other two Wolf plants?

The Mid-Course Assignment is due before the start of Class 6, May 19. Assignments need to be handed in on the assignment section of the LMS.

Name of the Student:

Name of the University:

Author’s Note:

Table of Contents

Case study on R.L Wolfe Case. 2

Question 1. 2

Question 2. 3

Question 3. 6

Question 4. 7

Reference List 9

Which management approach characterizes “Corpus Christi Experiment?” (Scientific or human resource approach. Evaluation of the choice of approach for the experiment

In this particular case study, Corpus Christi Experiment uses human resource approach in conducting business activities in desired form. John Amasi was the Director of Production as well as Engineering for RL Wolfe as introduced in the self-directed teams for the same (Valentine, Mathis and Jackson 2012). It uses major paradigms shift in way of manufacturing plants involved in traditional ways. It uses the HRM approach as it focus on the job definitions, performance evaluation as well as individual recognition in an overall manner. It relies upon the boundaries of team responsibilities as well as performance based awards and incentives plan in the near future. It used HRM approach as it focus on training as well as developmental activities. It requires continuous training and development for line operators and technicians for fulfilling the cross functional roles like technical training. It allows effectively self-managed team includes administrative, decision-making training as well as basic management training in the most appropriate way. It requires leadership training for coordinators in equipping in tools as well as resources (Torrington 2011). It ideal delegation supports in SDT models. It includes employee empowerments as well motivation in the most appropriate way. These key factors are important in SDT model for future analysis purpose. Empowerment relies upon making people feel values and involved in process for utmost authority. This case study directs ways for conducting self teams for resolving the problems of employees as far as possible.  Implementation of self-directed teams includes line workers and treated as per low grade in order to maintain staff members’ confidence. It faces inequality of fuelled disagreements in and between the set of workers. It uses self-directed model as the role of technician in focusing problem-solving process in the most appropriate way (Stone 2011). Role of technician involves in attainment of elite terms in connection with line operators in supervisor as well as line operators. It supports equity theory in form of worker satisfaction as well as influenced by employees perceptions. It treated fairly and brings comparison with co-workers in connection with line workers in an overall manner. It reports ways for involving in rewarding outstanding performers as well as listing people on the list. It investigates on the major issues in bringing transparency as well as evaluation process (Price and Price 2011). It suggests justified workers for viewing at the unwillingness in participating peer evaluations in the most appropriate way. It should view at the size as well as composition of team members for future analysis purpose.

Compare and contrast new plant to the old plant in terms of organizational design. Identification of most challenging problems and explain how it impact Corpus Christi

Old plant

Risk in changing from a status quo organization to team focused organization. How changes affects towards self-directed team affecting culture at the culture at the Corpus Christi plant

It is important to understand the fact that cultivating and effective Self-directed teams poses inherent challenges that needs consideration on urgent basis. Teamwork works for more time in using resources for conducting individual work in an overall manner. It takes longer decision-making process as well as getting access to past interpersonal barriers as risk factors. It gives rise to conflicts that needs management as far as possible. It is essential for the team in dealing great communication effort (Dessler 2012). It requires essential time as well as energy in expanding towards team development as well as maintaining task at hand for the same. It needs to move towards paradigm shift on matters relating to status quo organization in the most appropriate way. Teams should move towards attainment of high-involvement environment as well as development of management needs in an effective way. It foster climate in supporting ways as far as possible. It takes long time in learning process as well as renewal perspective for future analysis purpose (DelCampo 2011).

It is important to consider the fact that intense and continuous training involves in developing effective self-directed teams in an overall manner. Employees are found cross-trained in possessing new skill sets for development purpose in the most appropriate way. It needs to learn in working efficiently in teams as well as development of skills in problem solving and decision-making process (Byars and Rue 2011). Team needs to be well-managed as well as employees learning basic management skills for the same. It requires high degree of autonomy that needs attention as far as possible.

Presentation of benefits of self-directed team concepts in continuing Corpus Christi experiment unionized workforce in two wolf plants

Amasi should have make ways in conducting proper incentive system like paying for performance like free riding risk for the same. It aims at meetings for solving the conflicts on urgent basis (Armstrong and Armstrong 2011). There are no superior involved as well as inferior roles in an overall manner. It should set SMART goal that is re-assessed with 95%. It makes ways for improving in the working environment in the most appropriate way. This particular approach should be used for providing performance incentive measures. Rewards as well as recognitions programs influence behaviours in and within team. Some of the rewards lose effect over time. It is necessary for the management in reviewing the incentives as ensuring it for future analysis purpose.

On analysis, it is noticed that Amasi intrigued with concept related with self-directed teams. It reports increased production of 30% to 40% in self-directed teams for the same. It takes help of jay Winslow set for refurbished plant for attainment of aggressive goal in achieving 95% design capacity in an overall manner. It is higher in capacity in two Wolfe plants running at 65% to 75% design capacity in business operations. The main goal of Self-directed team is to create high productivity plant as well as producing at 90% capacity. It ranges ways for average design capacity and implementation of self-directed teams in the most appropriate way. It faces various challenges in determining self-directed teams based upon organizational efficiency, effectiveness as well as level of proficiency for future analysis purpose (Valentine, Mathis and Jackson 2012). It faces key issues that need correction for attainment of overall productivity level in plant in the near future.

Armstrong, M. and Armstrong, M. (2011). Armstrong’s handbook of strategic human resource management. London: Kogan Page.

Byars, L. and Rue, L. (2011). Human resource management. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

DelCampo, R. (2011). Human resource management demystified. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Dessler, G. (2012). Human resource management.

Harzing, A. and Pinnington, A. (2011). International human resource management. London: SAGE.

Mondy, R., Noe, R. and Premeaux, S. (2012). Human resource management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Price, A. and Price, A. (2011). Human resource management. Andover: Cengage Learning.

Stone, R. (2011). Human resource management. Milton, Qld.: John Wiley.

Torrington, D. (2011). Human resource management. Harlow, England: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Valentine, S., Mathis, R. and Jackson, J. (2012). Human resource management.