Arctic Mining Consultants
Synopsis of the case study
The case revolves around Tom Parker, Arctic Mining Consultants field technician, and coordinator. He has vast experience in non-technical aspects of mining exploration, including trenching, prospecting, soil sampling, and claim staking, among others (McShane &Neale). Although not his specialty, Parker is given the role of a project manager. He is tasked with undertaking the entire recruitment process, including the hiring, training, and supervising his recruits. He selects three people whom he had past relations with Brian Miller, Greg Boyce, and John Talbot (McShane &Neale). Within seven days, the team ought to have staked 15 claims, which is approximately 60 miles. Hence, to achieve this target, each member had to average 7.5 lengths daily. Parker gives them an incentive that if they complete within the set timeframe, each will get a bonus of $300.
However, on the first day, Millar and Talbot only completed seven lengths. Parker verbally expressed his anger towards the two members. The two did not improve as days went by, prompting further verbal abuse from parker. When Millar showed signs of improvement, Parker focused his anger and disappointment at Millar. He felt undervalued, mistreated, and unfairly targeted despite his best efforts, including skipping meals and working overtime to achieve the target. He was labeled as the bad employee, with his efforts neither recognized nor appreciated as he always fell short of the goal. Parker believed that Miller’s work ethic and dedication were poor hence the bad results. Overall, Parker’s obsessiveness and unethical behavior were driven by the $300 bonus and the outcome. Such behavior promotes an unhealthy, substandard, and intimidating work environment that negatively impacts the team’s performance, motivation, and job satisfaction.
Diagnosis of the case study
This case underlines several organizational problems that inhibit the team’s success. Parker’s attitudes and behaviors are the root cause of these problems. First, he exhibits a social psychological element of self-fulfilling prophecy. This trait damages the workplace environment because it makes managers treat some employees with more autonomy while criticizing and micromanaging others (Weaver et al. 179). From day one, Parker started forming negative expectations towards Miller, and that trend continued up to day seven, despite Miler’s best efforts. Gradually, he starts questioning Miller’s work ethic, resulting in harassment as he vents his frustrations. This negative perception makes Miller question his abilities and results in job dissatisfaction. He is no longer motivated to work as he believes that he will never achieve the set target. In doing so, he confirms Parker’s self-fulfilling prophecy that he is neither dedicated nor showcasing a high work ethic. Such behavior results in a negative ripple effect in a team, both in productivity and job satisfaction (Weaver et al. 183)). It intimidates employees and lowers their motivation levels as they perceive themselves to be inferior.
Another problem was the Halo-effect that impaired Parker’s judgment. A halo-effect refers to a perpetual error in which one’s general impression about an individual is based upon his/her prominent characteristic (Pam 103). In his view, Miller’s notable characteristic was underperformance due to a poor work ethic. Therefore, despite Miller’s best efforts, Parker still complained and abused him as his judgment was crowded by the generally negative impression he formed about Miller from the start. As such, he could not appreciate the effort and sacrifice of Miller to achieve the set targets. For instance, despite doing 8.5 lengths on day six, Parker did not recognize or appreciate Miller’s efforts, which would have motivated him further. In his eyes, Miller could never do anything right. Halo-effect can cause shifts and conflicts between supervisors and their subordinates. It also results in confirmation bias, whereby one screens out information contrary to the norm and readily accepts a biased one.
Another problem exhibited by Parker is selective attention. It refers to one’s tendency to prioritizing some information while ignoring some, despite their connection. Despite the team’s production declining, Parker continues to focus and criticize Miller’s performance. He is labeled as the bad employee who never does things right and the cause of the current failures. However, Miller alone is not to blame for the decline in team production as other members also lagged. Despite putting more effort than any other member, he was still selectively criticized and abused for the team’s shortcomings. For instance, even if Boyce never met any of the daily targets, only Miller was subjected to criticism and abuse as Parker solely focused on his shortcomings. Selective attention negatively impacts the team’s cohesiveness and morale as it results in conflicts and bias (Pam 105). The victims feel unfairly treated; hence, they harbor ill feelings towards other team members and tend to be dissatisfied with the job. This lowers their productivity levels and may result in high labor turnovers as employees are dissatisfied with their jobs.
Parker also exhibits bad leadership traits and adopts the wrong leadership styles. He is authoritative rather than a transformational or democratic leader. He verbally abuses Miller for not achieving the set targets and is forever biased towards his work ethic. Rather than inspire and offer guidance, he ridicules and discriminates his team members, more so Miller. This negatively affects team morale and productivity levels, as the members are dissatisfied. Besides, there is no unity of direction and collaboration between the members, as Parker sets them to be individualistic. Parker did not understand the contingency theory, which stipulates that a leader should not be timid and use one leadership style in every scenario. Besides, he overlooked the each person’s competencies and abilities when assigning them the tasks. The participative theory postulates that a leader should aim to maximize a person’s strengths and encourage collaborative participation (Rikkink). Besides, a leader ought to be flexible in the leadership styles adopted as the work environment is not stable or constant. Good leadership yields high productivity and performance as the employees are inspired, motivated, and have unity of direction (Rikkink). It propels them to stretch their abilities for the common good as they are intrinsically motivated.
Another problem that may have negatively impacted this project is organizational culture. The firm adopts a result-oriented culture whereby the end justifies the means. As such, a manager should focus on achieving the set goals at the expense of the employees’ welfare(Rikkink). Parker did not care about his team members’ well-being but instead emphasized the need to achieve the set goals at all means. He did not care whether they worked overtime or skipped meals as long as they achieve their target. Failure to comply resulted in abuse and discrimination.
Proposed Solutions
The first recommendation to solve the above problems entails leadership training of the management team. The managers, including Parker, should be adequately trained on how to be a good leader and the best leadership styles in various situations. Parker should be trained on emotional intelligence and how to handle human resources to motivate and maximize their strengths. The advantage of this solution is that it equips managers with the right management and leadership skills to influence and steer their team towards the set objectives. However, training is time-consuming and expensive.
The second recommendation entails changing the organizational culture from result-oriented to relationship-oriented. The latter emphasizes the general well-being of the team members and ways to motivate them. This is advantageous because it promotes better work-life balance and job satisfaction, variables that foster productivity and loyalty(Rikkink). However, changing a culture is time-consuming as it requires strategic decisions from the top management. Besides, a relationship-oriented approach may inhibit productivity in the short run and reduce the manager’s control.
The third solution entails adequately training the team members on the tasks involved and procedures on how to achieve the set goals. Besides, each person’s abilities should be established and assigned tasks that align with his/her strengths. Emphasis should be put on teamwork rather than individualism. As such, the members will complement each other rather than compete with each other.
Conclusion.
Bad leadership, culture, and a result-oriented approach are the primary causes of the problems underlined in the case study. Parker displays negative behaviors towards parker such as halo-effect, confirmation bias, selective attention, and self-fulfilling prophecy. In doing so, the overall team performance is negatively impacted as they lack unity of direction and low motivation. From the recommendations mentioned above, the most viable one would be a change of approach from being task-oriented to relationship-oriented. With this model, the leader will have to care for the team’s well-being and look for ways to motivate them. This includes training them, mentoring them, and assigning them tasks that align with their strengths. One con with this style is that it is time-consuming and may lower productivity in the short run. However, to address this con, the leader ought to set realistic goals and promote teamwork between the members. A healthy work environment fosters employees’ motivation, loyalty, and productivity levels.
Works Cited
McShane, Steven and Tim Neale. “Arctic Mining Consultants” The University of Western Australia. Case Study.
Pam, Wurim Ben. “Perceptual Differences and the Management of People in the Organization.” International Journal of Applied 3.4 (2013): 102-108.
Weaver, Jason, Jennifer Filson Moses, and Mark Snyder. “Self-fulfilling prophecies in ability settings.” The Journal of social psychology 156.2 (2016): 179-189.
Rikkink, I. A. S. The Game of balancing leadership behaviors: a qualitative study to disclose how leaders tailor leadership styles to be effective leaders in different kinds of situations. MS thesis. University of Twente, 2014.