identify issues relevant to the study of organisations and people management

Subject：People Management

Assignment : Case Study: Northern Plant

Question：Read the following case study and use three of the following topics covered in the module to analyse the case study.（case see below）

1：Motivation
2：HRM
3：Leadership

In your reading of the case study you should identify which issues you think are important for the organisation. These issues need then to be analysed using theories from the three chosen topics (Note: you do not need to use all theories from a particular topic. You need to choose those that you think are most appropriate). Your analysis should incorporate application of relevant theoretical approaches to the case study and critical evaluation. You need to propose recommendations for the case study organisation, discussing the potential limitations of these recommendations and potential barriers in the case study organisation to the introduction of these recommendations. References should be made to a comprehensive range of literature, extending beyond what was introduced in the module and the core text, cited appropriately in the text of the assignment, and in the list of references (using the Harvard referencing style).

Marking criteria:

Ability to identify issues relevant to the study of organisations and people management
Application of theory to those issues in this particular organisational context 25%

30% Theoretical background and empirical examples
Critique and evaluation of theory and practice 30%
30%
Critical evaluation of theory and the organisation 30% Quality of discussion and substantiation of arguments 30%
Presentation, structure, referencing, etc. 15% Presentation, structure, referencing, etc. 10%

Case：（MUST read this case）

NORTHERN PLANT (Adapted from: Knights, D. and Willmott, H., eds., 2007, Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management, London: Thomson Learning or Cengage Learning Chapter 10; 2nd edition: Knights, and Willmott, 2012, Chapter 11)

Coming here has been an absolute nightmare and a career disaster. Everyone talks about Northern Plant as being militant. But militancy is normally associated with formal trade union activity. Well it doesn’t mean that here. This is one of the most militant shops I’ve ever seen but none of it is union led.

This statement was made by Mike, a senior manager from Northern Plant’s North American Corporate Headquarters, who had been drafted in as a member of a human resource management ‘change’ team charged with facilitating the full introduction of an innovative approach to work production, called ‘lean production’ , at Northern Plant. Lean production was viewed by Northern Plant’s parent company as the most competitive form of manufacturing within the high-tech sector of the automotive industry in which the company operated. Prior to Mike’s arrival, Northern Plant had experimented for over a decade with a number of ‘new wave’ flexible manufacturing and production methodologies, including just-in-time, lean production, teamworking and total quality control, but with little success.
Workers at the plant resisted lean production because in their view it was designed not simply to improve productivity but to enable their managers to gain greater control over working practices, which they believed would lead to work intensification. The actual nature of their resistance, however, was not something that managers at the plant found easy to understand or to explain. As a long-standing senior human resource specialist, who had joined the plant some years earlier, explained to Mike’s change team, ‘When you join this plant you quickly come to realize that it’s not managed properly, that there are no basic rules and – professional human resource standards in place that managers should be working to, which has resulted in workers becoming ill disciplined’. Senior managers at the plant attributed this problem to the poor man-management skills of first-line managers, which over time had led workers to become accustomed to ‘getting away with “murder” ‘ in terms of their approach to their work and their attitude to authority. What frustrated managers at Northern Plant most, however, was that workers never actually openly challenged their authority. As long as managers left them to their own devices, they were in fact highly cooperative. It was only when managers interfered in the ‘informal’ organization of production and working practices that they refused to cooperate with them.
What these managers didn’t fully explain to Mike’s change team was that prior to the plant’s interest in lean production, workers had in fact been encouraged to ‘manage’ themselves; as a way of enticing them to meet production quotas in the fastest way possible. Workers valued this arrangement because it gave them a considerable measure of autonomy from direct management control. Basically, as long their output was of a sufficient quantity and quality, and as long as each day’s production of finished products were ‘right first time’ and dispatched to customers on-time, workers were allowed to take as many unofficial rest times as they liked during the working day itself, and also to build up considerable ‘free time’ at the end of each working shift, time which they were allowed to spend in various leisure activities. These activities included reading books or newspapers, chatting to friends, playing table tennis, cards, darts or chess, studying the day’s race card and placing bets with the plant’s bookie, sleeping during the night shift, taking leisurely strolls around the plant or the surrounding area, and even making the occasional visit to a local pub during working hours.
Although they pretended that they did not to know what was going on behind the scenes, first-line managers went along with this arrangement because of the constant high market demand for the plant’s products and the tight delivery schedules they were required to meet. Some first-line managers did in fact join in many of the workers’ leisure activities. Without giving workers ‘responsible autonomy’ from direct management control in this way, and without encouraging them to complete production quotas in the fastest time possible, and rewarding their efforts with ‘time off’ during working hours, targets would not have been achieved as easily. This kind of give-and-take arrangement between managers and workers is not so unusual. But at Northern Plant it went far beyond what most managers in manufacturing would normally be willing to accommodate, or likely to subscribe to. What was the outcome apart from meeting the deadlines? Ironically, it actually cultivated ‘high-trust’ flexible teamworking practices. It is ironic because such practices are normally associated with the kind of lean production that managers at Northern Plant were now seeking to introduce. These practices were operational in Northern Plant long before they were championed within the industry. Managers therefore assumed that Northern Plant would be ideally suited to lean production. How wrong could they be?
When Northern Plant first invested in lean production in the early 1980s, it comprised of five main manufacturing sections. Over the ten years prior to Mike’s (the new HR manager) arrival these sections were re-engineered a number of times, and given different labels each-time: lean manufacturing cells, product focused cells, customer-focused cells, autonomous business units, strategic business units and then finally profit centres. Workers themselves were also organized into teams: manufacturing teams to begin with, then autonomous production teams, self-managing teams, and finally ‘high-commitment teams’. Yet, from their point of view, the work they performed remained what it had always been, a dull and tedious process of operating drilling, boring, grinding, turning, do-burring and spot-welding machines that turned out various parts and sub-components that were assembled into finished products along traditional Fordist assembly lines that required little if any real skills.
When lean production was introduced managers were, however, at a loss to understand why workers resisted it and saw it as work intensification. What these managers failed to appreciate was that it was not simply the opportunity to work independently of direct management control that motivated workers to work ‘smarter’ to ‘make the numbers’. What they valued most was the opportunity to earn ‘free time’ during working hours. They resisted lean production, therefore, not just because it was perceived as work intensification but because they saw it as an attack on the ‘free time’ and leisure activities they had become accustomed to, which they believed they earned and were rightfully entitled to in exchange for their efforts to meet production targets ahead of schedule.
Imagine now that you are a first-line manager who had worked at the plant prior to Mike’s arrival, and who had subscribed to the informal system of production described above. For years, not only had you condoned the unspoken agreement that once output quotas had been reached shop floor workers could spend their time as they saw fit, but from time to time you and some of your first-line management colleagues had also taken part in various leisure activities yourself, including sleeping on nightshift and occasionally spending time in the local pub during working hours. Then suddenly, overnight, following the launch of lean production at the plant, along with other first-line managers you find yourself charged with the responsibility for introducing new teamworking practices and quality control methods. You can no longer continue to accom¬modate previous informal agreements whereby you trade time for output and then turn a blind eye to how workers spend their time once they have reached the agreed output quotas.
At team briefings you and your colleagues explain the need for change, the need for workers to accept new working practices and the benefits these can offer them in terms of skill enhancement, You are required to ‘sell’ these new ideas to workers, and convince them that the ‘old way of doing things’ can no longer continue. In response, both the shop stewards and workers remind you that any proposed changes in working practices are ultimately subject to trade union agreement, which can only be reached through formal negotiations with senior management, and, therefore, although they are willing to listen to what you have to say you should not assume that this means that they are willing to accept new ways of working. At the end of your briefing both the shop stewards and shop floor workers claim that you have done a very poor job in selling lean production to them because you have made it more than apparent that it will undoubtedly lead to work intensification and possibly redundancies. You don’t accept this.
Fearful of what senior managers will make of these claims, you respond by trying again to explain that ‘working smarter rather than harder’ and ‘doing more with less’ does not necessarily mean doing more with less shop floor personnel. You remind them again that the old ways of doing things cannot continue, and that whether they like it or not, corporate management are determined to introduce new systems and work practices.
You suddenly find yourself being denounced as a hypocrite. Along with the other first-line managers, you are reminded of your own ‘misbehaviour’ under the old system: your poor time keeping and attendance, the extended lunch breaks and rest allowances you were happy to take, and how, like workers themselves, you also enjoyed participating in card schools, sleeping during nightshifts and how you (with other first-line managers) occasionally accompanied workers to the pub during working hours. In the light of this, you are asked how you have found the nerve to now condemn these activities, and how you are going to explain to Mike’s change team why you have lost your credibility as a manager.
You witness other similar instances of workers using such tactics designed to discredit other first-line managers. What you find particularly frustrating and humiliating is the enjoyment workers get from ridiculing you and your colleagues, by threatening to expose how you previously failed to manage workers properly and allowed them to ‘skive off’ so much during working hours, and how you yourselves also regularly ‘skived off’.
You witness a cell manager, who as a shop floor worker had regularly slept in a comfortable cardboard construction he made for himself while working the nightshift, being told during a briefing session, at which he announced that productivity needed to improve, that ‘people who live in cardboard houses shouldn’t throw stones’! Similarly, a first-line manager who had acquired the nickname ‘Disco Dave’, as a consequence of making regular visits to a local night club during his nightshift, is told by workers that they do appreciate that things may well need to change, but that there is still no need to make a ‘song and dance’ about it!
Above and beyond this kind of banter, workers also presented ‘reasonable’ arguments against the proposed new working practices, which they know you cannot accept. Certain workers, for example, who claimed that they do of course recognize the benefits of teamworking, argue that in practice teamwork would be unworkable due to the age of certain workers and because of personality clashes. To support this claim they point out that, as they see it, under lean production the stamina of younger workers would put undue stress upon older workers, which was unfair. Some argue that workers who are fundamentally ‘lazy’ would end up being ‘carried’ by other team members. Carrying lazy workers, they explain, would not only impede team performance but also possibly lead to ‘hard working’ team members being perceived as ‘lazy’. Others claim they are ‘loners’, who are unsuited to teamwork, and state that they would therefore rather work inde¬pendently from others and have their own individual output tar¬gets. Some simply question the need for change, and argue that if is true that -lean production empowers them to have a ‘say in things’, they would prefer things stayed as they are! Others exer¬cise their ‘say in things’, by identifying fellow workers who they feel they could perhaps work well with within a team environment, those who they believe they would find it difficult to work with, and those who they are not prepared to work with at all. Some others announce that they intend to refuse to work in teams with certain workers because they simply don’t like each other. To further ridicule the situation, others announce to you that they do in fact ‘like each other’, but that they had better not be allowed to work together because their mutual interests would distract them from ‘getting on with the job’.
All these comments and arguments are used to point out to you that it stands to reason that if management were to put certain workers in teams together this would undoubtedly undermine the discipline of the team and impede its performance, and therefore it was only right that any responsibility for subsequent poor performance should ultimately lie with those – that is management – who decide to put them together in the first place.
When you attempt to counter these arguments you are told that although you obviously have considerable management experience you still don’t really understand the shop floor, nor appreciate the problems teamworking can cause. In the end, like Mike’s change team, you are challenged to come clean and admit that all you really want is to regain control of the shop floor – something that has been lost over the years because of management’s own ‘shenanigans’ and poor ‘man management’ skills. In the process you are also asked how you are going to explain to senior and corporate managers why flexibility, teamworking and total quality control methodologies had seemingly been introduced but are not working because you have gone through the motions of being committed to introducing change but, in practice, you have allowed, things to continue as before.
It is worth mentioning that this is not a fictitious account of resistance through misbehaviour. Northern Plant does, or rather did exist. The plant was closed down by MotorCo, its multinational parent company, in 2004 and relocated to an eastern European country where labour costs are much lower than in the United Kingdom. Plans to shift production to this new location were drawn up by corporate management even when they were claiming that the introduce ton of lean production, which would improve the plant’s productivity and competitiveness, would serve to guarantee its future within the Industry and, with this, security of employment for its workforce.

1. Coursework submission – dates and times
The table below provides details of the final date and time by which work must be submitted. Students may submit work at any time prior to these deadlines, and are encouraged not to wait until the final deadline.

Date Time Topic/Title Location
20 April 2015 4 pm Essay eSubmission (see section 8)
12 May 2015 4 pm Case study eSubmission (see section 8)

2. Coursework submission – procedure
eSubmission is the approved method for your HUBS programme of study. You must submit your assessed assignment(s), for all modules that you are taking during the 2014/15 Academic Year using the eBridge system. Submission of a printed copy is NOT allowed. You should submit via the Assignments menu item on the relevant module eBridge site.

An assignment for eSubmission must be prepared using the HUBS Electronic Submission System Coursework Coversheet. This document is stored in MSWord and is available from the ‘Making an Electronic Coursework Submission’ folder of the Resources section on the Programme support eBridge site.

There are special versions of the Coursework Coversheet which you must use if you are making a group submission or if you have a disability (which has been recognised formally by the University). These are also available from the ‘Making an Electronic Coursework Submission’ folder of the Resources section on the Programme support eBridge site.

You must complete the first page of the Coursework Coversheet accurately and in full. If you make a mistake this could result in you not getting credit for your work. You must add your submission directly to the coversheet document, or paste your submission into the document starting on page 2.

When you submit your assignments they are stored electronically and submitted automatically to the Turnitin system. Use of the Turnitin system will be explained to you and details are available from the HUBS Turnitin2 eBridge site.

If you are unfamiliar with eSubmission you are advised to consult your programme eBridge site and work through the ‘Making an eSubmission Guide’. The guide will show you how to use the system and is set up to help you to practice submitting assignments in advance of the ‘real’ assignment submissions. This allows you to see how the Turnitin system works.

You are strongly advised to make your electronic submission well ahead of the deadline (we suggest 3 hours) to ensure that you have time to produce the required documentation. Failure to make effective use of the eSubmission system will not be accepted as grounds for an extension, or mitigation.

Assignments must be submitted by the date and time stipulated. Deadlines will be strictly adhered to. Students submitting late, and who do not have mitigating circumstances approved by the Mitigating Circumstances Panel, will be subject to penalties for late submission specified by the University. Please note that Saturday and Sunday are treated as ‘working days’ for the purposes of the late submission policy.

If a mark of less than the pass mark is received on an assessment element then you should wait for the decision of the relevant module board which will inform you of your next step.

3. Module specification
Module rationale:

This module is designed to complement and balance other MSc modules by providing students with an opportunity to explore the theoretical frameworks used in studying organisations. The focus is on organisational processes that need to be managed and organised. The module also draws upon students’ own previous work, educational and other experiences to demonstrate how management and organisation concepts provide a vehicle for enhancing their understanding of managing organisations and people.

Aims and distinctive features:

Managers face increasingly complex demands arising both from within their organisations and from the environments within which those organisations operate; in the light of which practitioners and academics are calling into question traditional ideas about managing people. The thoughts of previously accepted management and organisation theorists, although still highly influential, are viewed by many as anachronistic in an era of global markets, evolving work patterns and often highly turbulent environments.

Contemporary writers emphasise the changing role of managers calling for less absolute approaches toward managing. Within the current organization theory and management theory emphasis is placed upon a more flexible approach, whereby managers and students of management are encouraged to reflect upon and develop their own management skills in order to manage more effectively in organisations characterised by change and uncertainty.
This module aims to develop a conceptual understanding of managing people and organisations, but one which is grounded in personal experience and has practical relevance. A critical perspective is adopted in order to problematise accepted assumptions about management. It is also intended that the module provides a vehicle for students to understand and develop management skills which have relevance for career progression and the programme as a whole.

Learning outcomes:

The module has the following Learning Outcomes:
• (a) To develop a critical understanding of the theory and practice of managing modern day organisations and people management.
• (b) To apply appropriate frameworks in order to critically analyse and reflect upon management theory in the light of practice.
• (c) To develop a comparative and critical approach to management that incorporates an ability to evaluate the appropriateness of management theory and practice in different national cultures.
• (d) Demonstrate a range of cognitive skills including: critical thinking, analysis and synthesis.
• (e) Demonstrate a range of personal and interpersonal skills including: effective listening, negotiation and persuasion; sensitivity to others; self-awareness, effective communication; learning through reflection on practice and experience and research to inform personal and collaborative learning.

Learning and teaching strategy:

The strategy for learning is participative and experiential with a strong self-development focus. This will be achieved through introductory lecture/seminars, reflective exercises and activity-based workshops. Students are encouraged to use the seminar group as a learning organisation. This enables exploration of issues within the context of the shared experience. A key feature of this approach is that ‘management’ is critically explored ‘here and now’, encouraging the development of students’ knowledge and management skills and their application to live problems. Students will be challenged to think about assumptions concerning the processes of organising and their own management role in relation to personal and professional development on the programme. It will also permit students to reflect on theory within national and international contexts.
There will be 30 hours of contact including 10 x 3-hour workshops. 115 hours of independent learning is anticipated plus 55 hours independent assignment preparation.
There is an expectation that students will engage in substantial, independent study in preparation for seminars and assessment and will be expected to take a significant amount of operational responsibility for workshop/seminars.

Assessment strategy:

The following assessment strategies are used within this module:
• The first assignment, a written piece, will assess students’ understanding and ability to compare various theories and perspectives on managing people and organisations, and to evaluate the application of theory to practice. 2,500 words (50% of mark) and assesses learning outcomes (a), (c), (d) and (e).
• The second assignment will relate to themes introduced in the module. 2,500 words or equivalent (50% of mark) and assesses learning outcomes (a), (b), (c) and (e).
Alternative reassessment strategy:

The reassessment method for this module has been declared to differ from the original assessment mechanism as follows: Candidates failing this module will be reassessed in the failed element/s only, unless it is specifically requested otherwise according to school policy and criteria.

Arrangements for revision and private study:

There is an expectation that students will engage in substantial independent study in preparation for the module and its assessment. Support will be available during workshops and office hours. Workshop slides and tasks will be posted on eBridge.

Module constraints:

None

4. Reading and resources list
Pre-requisite reading

Buchanan, D.A. and Huczynski, A.A. (2013) Organizational Behaviour (8th edition) Harlow: Pearson.

Core text

Eriksson-Zetterquist, U., Mullern, T. And Styhre, A. (2011) Organization Theory: A Practice-based Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press

However, students are expected to read much more widely than basic text books.

Last Completed Projects

topic title	academic level	Writer	delivered

identify issues relevant to the study of organisations and people management

Last Completed Projects

Describe the phenomena you are attempting to model and its importance.

Criminal Investigations

Negotiation – Muenning Oil Company.Discuss.

Last Completed Projects

Related Posts