You are on page 1of 6


WizzyWats Assembly Line

Stephanie Walsh
November 10th, 2014
Professor Scott Brown


WizzyWats Assembly Line
There was trouble in the WizzyWats factory. The workers were failing to identify
defective components accurately, leading to production loss and an increase in defective
products, which sparked the company to hire a consultant to improve performance. However,
performance only became worse. Even with the consultants recommendations put in place,
including comfortable chairs and appropriate time breaks, performance on the assembly lines
still remained substandard. Will this continue to be the future of WizzyWats factory? The

purpose of this paper is to identify factors that were possibly overlooked by the consultant, select
and describe the level of intervention to implement, and evaluate the selected intervention to
verify it was successful.
Overlooked Factors
Unfortunately, the consultant overlooked certain factors since there was no noted
progress after the initial solutions were put into place. It turns out comfortable seating and proper
breaks in work were not the solutions to produce increased production. His errors most likely
began at the beginning of his analysis of his findings. The consultants direction has good
intentions; he found helpful information on the workers level of alertness and sense of fatigue.
His error in his analysis conveys that he did not correctly identify the root cause of the issue
(Pershing, 2006). The consultant focused on external solutions to his observations, rather than
peering deeper into the cause. His solutions also show his lack of design in his implementation.
He did not see the complexity of the issue; therefore, he recommended simple solutions. What
the consultant failed to do is research more about interventions and the reasons for the works
alertness and fatigue. These two feelings can also derive from motivation and instruction, not just
adequate time to rest.


Selected Interventions
One direction for a solution to the WizzyWat factory problem is to implement a noninstruction intervention. A performance intervention researcher reports, two-thirds to threefourths of the causes of employee-performance problems are attributable to the work
environment (Duggar, 2010, p. 21). Though the consultant did establish improvements on the
work environment, he did not address other parts of the environment such as leadership
involvement. Non-instructional interventions would require maximum involvement from
management, as they would help identify barriers the workers are facing and implement
feedback systems. Personal development would also be included to allow workers to reflect
(Pershing, 2006). In addition, non-instructional intervention would include coaching and
mentoring, creating a two-way communication among all levels of the company.
Reasoning Behind Interventions
The chosen interventions included feedback systems, personal development, coaching,
and mentoring. The following describes how the WizzyWat company will implement these
Feedback Systems
If the company implemented feedback systems, it would increase communication within
the company. Currently, the management does not know why there is a low level of energy
among the workers. The feedback would work both ways. The company can establish a yearly
feedback program where they can evaluate the workers performance. This feedback will help
the workers understand where they stand within the company and ways to improve their
performance. Also, anonymous feedback could be established for feedback traveling up the

management levels. Perhaps the workers are too afraid to say anything for fear of retribution, but


an anonymous feedback system will help their voice be heard. Leadership will understand more
on why the workers are experiencing fatigue.
Personal Development
Personal development can be described as interventions to enhance employee
performance and create a positive influence on employee engagement levels through
organizational opportunities and self-initiative (Duggar, 2010, p. 23). This type of development
encompasses coaching, mentoring, and feedback, but it also contains much more than that. It
allows the leadership more involvement in the workers professional life and also creates
communication. One way to accomplish this is to establish expectations for the workers formally
through a company-wide meeting. Leadership could share their vision and goals so the workers
may invest in them too. They could also relay to the workers how they can develop personally
within the company, making each person a great asset to the team. When workers receive the
opportunity to focus on personal development, they become initiators on their improvement and
success within the company. The management could even consider offering ways and programs
to personally develop.
Coaching and Mentoring
Coaching and mentoring can make a big difference in a company. Though closely
related, there are a couple differences between these terms. While coaching focuses on
performance, mentoring is a more personal relationship that focuses on the worker as a whole
person with complexities (Duggar, 2010). Coaching and mentoring will ensure the workers
expertise stays sharp and even challenged. It is difficult to know at this point if the workers are
feeling challenged. The fatigue may originate from boredom. Mentoring in particular will make
sure the management views the workers as humans and not just another cog in the wheel. Then a


more experienced person comes alongside someone who is less experienced, the mentee, a
working healthy relationship can grow and can be a helpful resource for advice and assistance.
Evaluating the Selected Intervention
It is important to evaluate so the company can fully comprehend the outcome to the
intervention. To evaluate the non-instruction intervention, which would be through feedback,
personal development, coaching, and mentoring, the management would utilize a five-phase
framework. A five-phase framework helps identify if there are any errors in the performance
improvement progress (Pershing, 2006).The steps include evaluating the following phases: set
goals, analyze performance issues, design initiative, implement initiative, and sustain impact
(Pershing, 2006, p. 295). First, they would evaluate the companys initial goals. Are they
reasonable and likely to find success? Second, they would evaluate how they analyzed the
performance issues and indicate if the improvement did not address certain issues. Third, they
would evaluate how the interventions implementation. Did it cause the intended result? How

was it implemented? Finally, it is important to evaluate how the company will sustain the impact.
It would not be beneficial to spend so much time and resources to find a solution, but not take the
effort to sustain them. Utilizing the five-phase framework will ensure that WizzyWats
scrupulously views each part of the performance improvement process. This framework is also a
circular process, so can be repeated once new implementations are discovered and established.
It turns out the WizzyWats assembly line lacked more than comfortable chairs. They
were lacking support from leadership and lacking a voice. With the help from a second
consultant, who helped discovered new non-instructive interventions to recommend and
evaluated the result, the company is beginning to see steady progress on their assembly line.



Duggar, D.B. (2010). Investigation and evaluation of line leaders perception and application of
performance management interventions used to influence employee engagement
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
Pershing, J. (2006). Handbook of human performance technology: principles, practices, and
potential. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.